SayNoToPistons
Wheels, not rims...
- :
- CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech, RX-8 GT 6spd w/ 'goodies'
My girlfriend traded in her CRV last month for a 2015 Touring AWD in Meteor grey. I have a 2013 GT AWD Tech and I put 22,000 miles on it since December of 2012. Since I have driven both CX-5's back to back enough to get a detailed feel of the differences, I'll be stating them in this VERY detailed comparison.
Powertrain
We'll start with the obvious and juicy part first.
2.0 SkyA-G
The 2.0 is just enough to get by. The annoyance is only at highway speeds or retaining speed up hills/bridges. I often have to step down 3 gears at ~50 mph to pass. Local driving, the 2.0 has adequate power band as the snappy transmission cycles through the lower gears. Efficiency is where the 2.0 will beat the 2.5. Yes, I know the EPA ratings are about 1-2mpg less with the 2.5, but being light footed with the engines will increase the gap further. The 2.0 will easily average 4-5 MPG better than the 2.5 if one decides to carefully hypermileage them. For a route I regularly take that involves ~4mi stop and go city local and ~22mi 50MPH limit highway, I can hypermileage a whopping average of 40 (and up) MPG easily with my 2.0.
2.5 SkyA-G
Within a year of release, 2.5L SkyA-G became standard with the 2014 Touring/GT, providing almost 25% bump in HP and TQ. In my gf's 2015 2.5 Touring, bump in power is noticeable. From a stop, the throttle is more sensitive given the extra 35 lb-ft of torque. Other than the throttle sensitivity, there isn't much of a significant difference in around town driving. I suppose that is because the 2.0 was up to task with the combination of good gearing and quick shifting. Highway passing and speed maintaining is where the 2.5 really shines. Instead of planning a gap to pass and down shifting more than 2 gears to pass, the 2.5 simply inspires confidence. No fear of getting your s*** pushed in when passing at 50mph into a lane going 60+mph. It will not abruptly lose speed or downshift to a gear lower than 5th to maintain highway speeds up a grade either. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, it does take a hit in MPG. Doing the same route I get 40+ MPG in with my 2.0, I was only able to get 34 and 35 mpg in the same conditions (wind speed/direction and temp) while hypermileaging.
*Keep in mind that the 2.5 Touring AWD w.o. Tech pack can weigh up to 100 lbs less than the 2.0 GT AWD w/ Tech. That could play a roll in acceleration.*
Drivetrain
Surprisingly, even though the 2013 2.0 and 2015 2.5 share the SAME components, there is still a comparison. This is what surprised me the most.
As all of us with the 2013 2.0 already know, the transmission is very responsive and quick shifting. Great comfort and drivability thanks to it's activation of its torque converter at a dig, while it lock ups and allows the wet clutch pack to take over the rest. It is quick to downshift to the PERFECT gear as well. Though I have noticed that the transmission slips its wet clutch a fraction of a second too long prior to locking during up shifts. For those with a 2013 AT, look carefully at the tachometer when the transmission upshifts. It will shift, but you can tell that the wet clutch slips before locking the RPM. The RPM will go down right after a shift, but will go down further and stabilize when the clutch locks. All this happens within a fraction of a second, a fraction of a second too long in my opinion. I assume this was programmed for comfort during upshifts, but I think Mazda could have match the RPM's during up shifts better and lock up quicker instead of relying on a clutch slip for comfort. It would contribute to snappy shifts we all love about modern DCT's. No complaints about downshifts with the 2013 as it is direct quicker than any conventional AT.
In the 2015 2.5, there is a slight difference in shifting. The tach shows the RPM's matching and locking a bit quicker in between shifts. In other words, it is shifting quicker. The shifts are somewhat smoother. I can hear the engine closing throttle more effectively and matching the RPM's better during upshifts. Downshifts are similar to the 2013 CX-5, but better RPM match resulting in less jerking when downshifting from 2-1. Who does that anyways?...
There must be a change in software between the two years that improved shifting quality. I wonder if this could be applied to the 2013 by Mazda? I haven't looked at TSB's lately.
Comfort/Handling
We all know the CX-5 handles at the top of its class. Driving like a much smaller and sportier car, it inspires confidence. Precise steering with great response through the wheel (even though it's EPS), and the chassis is similarly communicative and accurate. I find myself plowing through corners much quicker than I have any right to in a CUV (or any car). "Stiff" is not the right word to use for its ride, as the word "taut" better describes it. There is no extra bound/rebound after going over bumps. It settles just as nice and firm going through corners as it does on highway. This applies to both the 2015 Touring and my 2013 GT with different wheels/tires and weight.
I did however notice a difference at the limit between my 2013 GT versus the 2015 Touring. Keep in mind that this is at its absolute limit where the suspension and tires reach their ultimate grip levels as I felt and heard. With my '13 GT I can trail brake into a corner allowing weight transfer to minimize factory understeer, dialing the front exactly where I want in preparation for mid-corner. At mid-corner I will have neutral balance with no brake or throttle input as I wait for the front to nearly point in the direction I wait for mid-corner exit. I then gradually throttle out of the corner with the front and rear tucked neatly. With the '15 Touring, trail braking it did create weight transfer, but it had little effect on planting the front and rear the way I wanted to. Therefore, the corner entry understeer could not be eliminated. Any brake or throttle input at late mid-corner exit would result in understeer as well. This could be the difference in tires (Yoko Geolander G91A vs Toyo A23), wheel diameter/weight, and perhaps some minor updates in suspension tuning in the 2 year difference.
Exterior
Different headlight projectors (and shrouds) because of my tech pack bi-xenons. They updated the mirror for 2015 with the LED strip that runs from the side to the front so it can be viewed at a wider angle. I believe the most important detail of the 2015 mirror is the upside down spoiler molded under the mirror. It is creating lift and does apply upward pressure to the housing of the mirror. The angle of attack is relatively high, but drag shouldn't be an issue being that it is only about 5 inches in length. The lift created is most likely a component to stabilize the mirror housing, eliminating the vibration issues we had in the previous models. The mirror glass itself is also less recessed into the housing, allowing slightly more visibility.
Headlights in the Touring w.o. Tech are halogen projectors with foglights. They're good for what they are as halogens. My GT Tech pack's bi-xenon's provide much more usable light, sharper cut off, and a significantly wider projection.
2015 Mirror
Interior
2014 added Pandora and two silver stripes in between buttons to the headunit. 2014.5 swapped the gated AT shifter to a button locking shifter that rows up and down. The new shifter has a different knob, base of the shifter's trim has a metallic finish to it, and the selected gear is now indicated with LED indicators. I prefer the new shifter because I dislike the cheap looking black plastic base of the old and the lack of gear indicator. This is subjective of course. None the less, both shifters have good feedback when selecting gears. All "shnick shnick" rowing instead of the nasty flimsy rubbery notches of American shifters. Probably doesn't matter to most with AT.
2015 Shifter:
Seat/Door upholstery
My gf's 2015 Touring has the black "upgraded cloth seats". They feel fine and hold your body better when cornering compared to leather. They lack power lumbar and heat compared to the GT. The Touring door panels are lined with cloth instead of soft vinyl in the GT. I noticed the door armrests are completely different materials. My 2013 GT has soft plushy vinyl armrests with quality stitching. My gf's 2015 Touring has a harder armrest lined with low quality vinyl that feels almost like paper. Can anyone comment on this with a Touring?
HVAC
The manual HVAC controls in the Touring look flimsy with all the plastic. The knobs are slightly creaky and the feedback for the vent position knob could be better. GT's dual zone auto HVAC comes with a good display and the metal plated knobs feel substantial with great clicky feedback. This almost led to my gf purchasing a GT instead of a Touring just because she couldn't stand looking at the cheap HVAC controls.
Audio
Her Touring came with a non-Bose 6 speaker audio system. A "step-up" from the Sport's 4 speakers. It is quite disappointing. Enough so that her family criticized about it. The lows are boomy even at 0 setting for bass, the highs are shrill but have little to no clarity. My biggest complaints are the highs as they seem to roll off, leading to absent vocals and instruments that would fall in that frequency. Increasing the setting for treble does not benefit it as it only adds to harshness. In other words, the highs suck, the lows suck, and it is something we may need to address.
The Bose in the GT is actually better than most say it is. It may be lacking low frequency sub-bass that most obsess about, but it does not try to push/fake itself to boominess in order to substitute for a subwoofer. Mids and highs are very well balanced. Good definition and clarity in the highs, and the mids are pronounced in warm detail. I was never a fan of Bose as they're mostly just marketing hype, but for the price, it is well balanced if one adds a subwoofer to the system (which I will).
Summary
As you can probably tell. The extra money for the Grand Touring vs Touring does add equipment. Same with the Tech Pack. Whether or not that price premium is justified for each individual is subjective. I cannot remember the exact price difference especially considering our previous trade-ins and different dealers. Though it shouldn't matter as price vary from state to state, and dealer to dealer. The two year difference also brought upon a new powertrain (which was effective since 2014 actually) and quicker transmission tuning, but a few minor miscellaneous equipments were changed for the better as well.
Powertrain
We'll start with the obvious and juicy part first.
2.0 SkyA-G
The 2.0 is just enough to get by. The annoyance is only at highway speeds or retaining speed up hills/bridges. I often have to step down 3 gears at ~50 mph to pass. Local driving, the 2.0 has adequate power band as the snappy transmission cycles through the lower gears. Efficiency is where the 2.0 will beat the 2.5. Yes, I know the EPA ratings are about 1-2mpg less with the 2.5, but being light footed with the engines will increase the gap further. The 2.0 will easily average 4-5 MPG better than the 2.5 if one decides to carefully hypermileage them. For a route I regularly take that involves ~4mi stop and go city local and ~22mi 50MPH limit highway, I can hypermileage a whopping average of 40 (and up) MPG easily with my 2.0.
2.5 SkyA-G
Within a year of release, 2.5L SkyA-G became standard with the 2014 Touring/GT, providing almost 25% bump in HP and TQ. In my gf's 2015 2.5 Touring, bump in power is noticeable. From a stop, the throttle is more sensitive given the extra 35 lb-ft of torque. Other than the throttle sensitivity, there isn't much of a significant difference in around town driving. I suppose that is because the 2.0 was up to task with the combination of good gearing and quick shifting. Highway passing and speed maintaining is where the 2.5 really shines. Instead of planning a gap to pass and down shifting more than 2 gears to pass, the 2.5 simply inspires confidence. No fear of getting your s*** pushed in when passing at 50mph into a lane going 60+mph. It will not abruptly lose speed or downshift to a gear lower than 5th to maintain highway speeds up a grade either. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, it does take a hit in MPG. Doing the same route I get 40+ MPG in with my 2.0, I was only able to get 34 and 35 mpg in the same conditions (wind speed/direction and temp) while hypermileaging.
*Keep in mind that the 2.5 Touring AWD w.o. Tech pack can weigh up to 100 lbs less than the 2.0 GT AWD w/ Tech. That could play a roll in acceleration.*
Drivetrain
Surprisingly, even though the 2013 2.0 and 2015 2.5 share the SAME components, there is still a comparison. This is what surprised me the most.
As all of us with the 2013 2.0 already know, the transmission is very responsive and quick shifting. Great comfort and drivability thanks to it's activation of its torque converter at a dig, while it lock ups and allows the wet clutch pack to take over the rest. It is quick to downshift to the PERFECT gear as well. Though I have noticed that the transmission slips its wet clutch a fraction of a second too long prior to locking during up shifts. For those with a 2013 AT, look carefully at the tachometer when the transmission upshifts. It will shift, but you can tell that the wet clutch slips before locking the RPM. The RPM will go down right after a shift, but will go down further and stabilize when the clutch locks. All this happens within a fraction of a second, a fraction of a second too long in my opinion. I assume this was programmed for comfort during upshifts, but I think Mazda could have match the RPM's during up shifts better and lock up quicker instead of relying on a clutch slip for comfort. It would contribute to snappy shifts we all love about modern DCT's. No complaints about downshifts with the 2013 as it is direct quicker than any conventional AT.
In the 2015 2.5, there is a slight difference in shifting. The tach shows the RPM's matching and locking a bit quicker in between shifts. In other words, it is shifting quicker. The shifts are somewhat smoother. I can hear the engine closing throttle more effectively and matching the RPM's better during upshifts. Downshifts are similar to the 2013 CX-5, but better RPM match resulting in less jerking when downshifting from 2-1. Who does that anyways?...
There must be a change in software between the two years that improved shifting quality. I wonder if this could be applied to the 2013 by Mazda? I haven't looked at TSB's lately.
Comfort/Handling
We all know the CX-5 handles at the top of its class. Driving like a much smaller and sportier car, it inspires confidence. Precise steering with great response through the wheel (even though it's EPS), and the chassis is similarly communicative and accurate. I find myself plowing through corners much quicker than I have any right to in a CUV (or any car). "Stiff" is not the right word to use for its ride, as the word "taut" better describes it. There is no extra bound/rebound after going over bumps. It settles just as nice and firm going through corners as it does on highway. This applies to both the 2015 Touring and my 2013 GT with different wheels/tires and weight.
I did however notice a difference at the limit between my 2013 GT versus the 2015 Touring. Keep in mind that this is at its absolute limit where the suspension and tires reach their ultimate grip levels as I felt and heard. With my '13 GT I can trail brake into a corner allowing weight transfer to minimize factory understeer, dialing the front exactly where I want in preparation for mid-corner. At mid-corner I will have neutral balance with no brake or throttle input as I wait for the front to nearly point in the direction I wait for mid-corner exit. I then gradually throttle out of the corner with the front and rear tucked neatly. With the '15 Touring, trail braking it did create weight transfer, but it had little effect on planting the front and rear the way I wanted to. Therefore, the corner entry understeer could not be eliminated. Any brake or throttle input at late mid-corner exit would result in understeer as well. This could be the difference in tires (Yoko Geolander G91A vs Toyo A23), wheel diameter/weight, and perhaps some minor updates in suspension tuning in the 2 year difference.
Exterior
Different headlight projectors (and shrouds) because of my tech pack bi-xenons. They updated the mirror for 2015 with the LED strip that runs from the side to the front so it can be viewed at a wider angle. I believe the most important detail of the 2015 mirror is the upside down spoiler molded under the mirror. It is creating lift and does apply upward pressure to the housing of the mirror. The angle of attack is relatively high, but drag shouldn't be an issue being that it is only about 5 inches in length. The lift created is most likely a component to stabilize the mirror housing, eliminating the vibration issues we had in the previous models. The mirror glass itself is also less recessed into the housing, allowing slightly more visibility.
Headlights in the Touring w.o. Tech are halogen projectors with foglights. They're good for what they are as halogens. My GT Tech pack's bi-xenon's provide much more usable light, sharper cut off, and a significantly wider projection.
2015 Mirror
Interior
2014 added Pandora and two silver stripes in between buttons to the headunit. 2014.5 swapped the gated AT shifter to a button locking shifter that rows up and down. The new shifter has a different knob, base of the shifter's trim has a metallic finish to it, and the selected gear is now indicated with LED indicators. I prefer the new shifter because I dislike the cheap looking black plastic base of the old and the lack of gear indicator. This is subjective of course. None the less, both shifters have good feedback when selecting gears. All "shnick shnick" rowing instead of the nasty flimsy rubbery notches of American shifters. Probably doesn't matter to most with AT.
2015 Shifter:
Seat/Door upholstery
My gf's 2015 Touring has the black "upgraded cloth seats". They feel fine and hold your body better when cornering compared to leather. They lack power lumbar and heat compared to the GT. The Touring door panels are lined with cloth instead of soft vinyl in the GT. I noticed the door armrests are completely different materials. My 2013 GT has soft plushy vinyl armrests with quality stitching. My gf's 2015 Touring has a harder armrest lined with low quality vinyl that feels almost like paper. Can anyone comment on this with a Touring?
HVAC
The manual HVAC controls in the Touring look flimsy with all the plastic. The knobs are slightly creaky and the feedback for the vent position knob could be better. GT's dual zone auto HVAC comes with a good display and the metal plated knobs feel substantial with great clicky feedback. This almost led to my gf purchasing a GT instead of a Touring just because she couldn't stand looking at the cheap HVAC controls.
Audio
Her Touring came with a non-Bose 6 speaker audio system. A "step-up" from the Sport's 4 speakers. It is quite disappointing. Enough so that her family criticized about it. The lows are boomy even at 0 setting for bass, the highs are shrill but have little to no clarity. My biggest complaints are the highs as they seem to roll off, leading to absent vocals and instruments that would fall in that frequency. Increasing the setting for treble does not benefit it as it only adds to harshness. In other words, the highs suck, the lows suck, and it is something we may need to address.
The Bose in the GT is actually better than most say it is. It may be lacking low frequency sub-bass that most obsess about, but it does not try to push/fake itself to boominess in order to substitute for a subwoofer. Mids and highs are very well balanced. Good definition and clarity in the highs, and the mids are pronounced in warm detail. I was never a fan of Bose as they're mostly just marketing hype, but for the price, it is well balanced if one adds a subwoofer to the system (which I will).
Summary
As you can probably tell. The extra money for the Grand Touring vs Touring does add equipment. Same with the Tech Pack. Whether or not that price premium is justified for each individual is subjective. I cannot remember the exact price difference especially considering our previous trade-ins and different dealers. Though it shouldn't matter as price vary from state to state, and dealer to dealer. The two year difference also brought upon a new powertrain (which was effective since 2014 actually) and quicker transmission tuning, but a few minor miscellaneous equipments were changed for the better as well.
Attachments
Last edited:
