I Hate My CX-5

CX-SV said:

Wtf - Poor Ninja will hate his CX-5 and this thread too. Lol.

And the 2.0L is not a sweet 4 banger engine, at elevated revs (4500+). An example of a truly smooth 4 banger engine that comes to mind is a 1.8L turbo by Mercedes, I'm sure other examples can be found.

Click to expand...

The SR20DE in my Infiniti was a very nice 4-banger, and made nearly as much power with a much lower compression ratio and much simpler technology, as this SkyActive 2.0. A decade and a half ago. It truly is one of the best "workhorse" 2.0 4-bangers out there.

Then we have the Porsche 944S and S2's sweet 4-banger and larger 4-banger from the 80's with it's nearly 190, and its 208hp, respectively.

More recently, Honda's F20C/F22C.

No, the SkyActive 2.0 is not a motor that impresses me in the least, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, except that it required insane amounts of compression and direct injection and a trick 4:1 header to best my decade and a half old 9.5:1 2.0L Nissan motor with old cast-iron log looking manifold by a measly 10hp and 14# of torque. To me, that is the epitome of failure, from an engineering standpoint. Over 3 points higher compression. Much more advanced exhaust system (A full-blown race header, really), direct injection pushing fuel at 2900psi...and 10bhp and 14# torque is all there is to show for it!? Really!? As to fuel mileage, my G20 weighed 3,000#, and had a 4-speed slushbox. I got about 25mpg around town in it, and 31mpg on a road-trip to Kentucky by way of Louisiana. Slap a 6-speed auto in there, make it look less like a brick, and I bet it would best the Sky-active 2.0 for economy, even if you added 200# to the vehicle.

NOTHING about the 2.0 SkyActiv motor is impressive except in a masturbatory sense of showcasing technological capability.

Now, don't take this as a slam, as I love my CX-5, but I do not consider the 2.0 motor to be any sort of anything but a boat anchor with very expensive and well engineered high-tech parts, as far as its "value to posterity" goes. It's a showcase of capability in an engineering sense. Not in actual results. That said, I have read it is reliable, and if so, then that's good enough. It works, and it's not bad. However, "It works, and it's not bad" is not what legends are made of. The 2.5 stands out to me only because of its ability to make torque at such low rpm. However, it still doesn't impress me terribly, either, compared to other 4-cylinder motors that existed a decade before it was even a twinkle in someone's eye.

That said...I do love my CX-5, and the 2.5L motor is just fine with me provided all that expensive technology holds up for a decade or two and several hundred thousand miles like the motors that came before it do without a problem while making similar power.

awmawm said:

We just got a 2016 CX-5 with the 2.5 engine for our teen drivers and compared it to some of its closest competitors: Honda CR-V, Nissan Rogue and Toyota RAV4. The CX-5 felt more dynamic and fun to drive than the others. In the price range of the CX-5 models with the 2.5 engine, I believe it is the best option in terms of acceleration, highway merging and handling. As for CUVs, the BMW X1 has more power but I did not feel that it has better handling. As equipped as our CX-5 with all the comfort and convenience features, the X1 would cost at least $40,000 and the rear view camera is about the only safety feature you can get. Besides, the interior is cramped. You would have to step up to the X3 for similar space which still has less space on the rear bench than the CX-5 and brings you easily to $45,000+. If money were no issue, we would have gone for the X3 xDrive35i but that would have landed us close to $60,000 if fully equipped as our CX-5 with the technology and ActivSense packages, not exactly what we want a teenager to drive...

So, for the money, I think the CX-5 with the 2.5 engine is an excellent choice if you need/want a CUV around $30,000 even though it is not exactly a rocket ship.

Click to expand...

The X1 uses the 335i's driveline, does it not? If so, it may be fast, and will also quickly drain your wallet in the shop, as well. Even on the 335i forums, the N55 is not considered a reliable driveline. "You paid for a luxury car, and you will pay to have one" is pretty much their standard line. Something to keep in mind.

MikeM. said:

I agree, at elevated revs the engine can feel buzzy. But it's not necessary to rev the 2.0L to 4500 rpm's just to sail over a mountain pass, let alone the Ozarks. It climbs just fine at 3000-3500 rpm's where it's smooth as glass.

Click to expand...

Agreed at sub 3500 revs, it's as smooth as any 4 banger on the market.

CX-SV said:

Agreed at sub 3500 revs, it's as smooth as any 4 banger on the market.

Click to expand...

But that's not what a 4-banger is about...I think a 4-banger should be smooth right up to the top. However, I am not very "NVH sensitive", as I found my VQ37 Nissan to be plenty "clean", while every auto rag out there bagged on it for sounding "harsh" in the upper revs. That said, I have not driven a 2.0 CX-5, nor do I have a desire to, so I can only take the forum's word.

Unobtanium said:

But that's not what a 4-banger is about...I think a 4-banger should be smooth right up to the top. However, I am not very "NVH sensitive", as I found my VQ37 Nissan to be plenty "clean", while every auto rag out there bagged on it for sounding "harsh" in the upper revs. That said, I have not driven a 2.0 CX-5, nor do I have a desire to, so I can only take the forum's word.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I brought up the coarseness at elevated revs of 2.0L. I have driven the 2.0L for 30K miles. And I've driven a much smoother Mercedes turbo 1.8L for 20K miles for comparison. I am sensitive to NVH after owning a lot of premium vehicles.

CX-SV said:

Which is exactly why I brought up the coarseness at elevated revs of 2.0L. I have driven the 2.0L for 30K miles. And I've driven a much smoother Mercedes turbo 1.8L for 20K miles for comparison. I am sensitive to NVH after owning a lot of premium vehicles.

Click to expand...

Understandable, and in the market of CUV's and luxury cars, NVH is a hot topic, and rightfully so given their purpose.

CX-SV said:

Welcome to 2015, these are not your problematic turbo engines of the 80's and 90's btw. And I was noting 4 banger NVH.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not talking about those troublesome turbo engines of 80's or 90's like you said. I'm talking about modern-day turbo's. Turbo engine has inherent issues which are difficult to overcome such as the extremely high temperature. Although turbo charger has been improved, but you'll never know until it reaches 5~6 years or 50K~80K miles of its service life. Look at once "award-winning" N54 3.0L twin-turbo inline-6 used in BMW's since 2008. It's suffering very high failure rate on high-pressure fuel pump (HPFP) and exposed the design defect in turbochargers within 5 years of service life and caused class-action lawsuit by unhappy BMW owners. Similar class-action lawsuit was also happened to Audi and VW's 1.8T turbo not long ago.

In-line 4 can never be smooth due to its design nature. The smoothest engine configuration is in-line 6 like those non-turbo 2.8/3.0L BMW's. That you can call it sweet!

yrwei52 said:

No, I'm not talking about those troublesome turbo engines of 80's or 90's like you said. I'm talking about modern-day turbo's. Turbo engine has inherent issues which are difficult to overcome such as the extremely high temperature. Although turbo charger has been improved, but you'll never know until it reaches 5~6 years or 50K~80K miles of its service life. Look at once "award-winning" N54 3.0L twin-turbo inline-6 used in BMW's since 2008. It's suffering very high failure rate on high-pressure fuel pump (HPFP) and exposed the design defect in turbochargers within 5 years of service life and caused class-action lawsuit by unhappy BMW owners. Similar class-action lawsuit was also happened to Audi and VW's 1.8T turbo not long ago.

In-line 4 can never be smooth due to its design nature. The smoothest engine configuration is in-line 6 like those non-turbo 2.8/3.0L BMW's. That you can call it sweet!

Click to expand...

Yep. BMW M3 from yester-year had one sweet motor! All of the M3's have. Up until the V8, which really, was a beast in and of itself.

The reason I shied away from the Subaru 2.0XT was: Timing belt, CVT, turbo, in that order. The 2.5L CX-5 may not be as fast, but allegedly it handles similarly (never drove the 2.0XT), and it should prove MUCH less troublesome later in life.

Unobtanium said:

The X1 uses the 335i's driveline, does it not? If so, it may be fast, and will also quickly drain your wallet in the shop, as well. Even on the 335i forums, the N55 is not considered a reliable driveline. "You paid for a luxury car, and you will pay to have one" is pretty much their standard line. Something to keep in mind.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I would not want a BMW beyond its original warranty without some form of extended warranty, particularly the drivetrain. It is not just a BMW issue, we had a bi-turbo Audi A6 with both turbos blowing up just 5,000 miles after the factory warranty expired. Once you get into performance territory with highly tuned engines, expect to pay a lot for repairs...

awmawm said:

Agreed, I would not want a BMW beyond its original warranty without some form of extended warranty, particularly the drivetrain. It is not just a BMW issue, we had a bi-turbo Audi A6 with both turbos blowing up just 5,000 miles after the factory warranty expired. Once you get into performance territory with highly tuned engines, expect to pay a lot for repairs...

Click to expand...

American performance engines, and many Japanese performance engines do just fine.

Nissan's SR20DET and Toyota's 2JZ are two WONDERFUL turbo motors.
America's LSX series is one of the best bang for the buck and weight motors on the planet, and they last bloody forever.

yrwei52 said:

No, I'm not talking about those troublesome turbo engines of 80's or 90's like you said. I'm talking about modern-day turbo's. Turbo engine has inherent issues which are difficult to overcome such as the extremely high temperature. Although turbo charger has been improved, but you'll never know until it reaches 5~6 years or 50K~80K miles of its service life. Look at once "award-winning" N54 3.0L twin-turbo inline-6 used in BMW's since 2008. It's suffering very high failure rate on high-pressure fuel pump (HPFP) and exposed the design defect in turbochargers within 5 years of service life and caused class-action lawsuit by unhappy BMW owners. Similar class-action lawsuit was also happened to Audi and VW's 1.8T turbo not long ago.

Click to expand...

Not a representative example of the better modern turbo engines, since nearly all BMWs in that timeframe have had below average reliability. For example, the 7 series (non-turbos engines) and on and on. We know about the junky 1.8T of the past (key word is past, a friend of mine owns one, and the turbo itself is about the only thing not yet replaced), no longer produced today for good reasons. Blanket statements and the usual internet generalizations about turbo engines are no longer applicable, especially when using BMW as the main representative example.

The better automakers are capable of doing reliability and durability testing that greatly exceeds "~6 years or 50K~80K miles of its service life", it can be duplicated and exceeded before first customer shipment.

yrwei52 said:

No, I'm not talking about those troublesome turbo engines of 80's or 90's like you said. I'm talking about modern-day turbo's. Turbo engine has inherent issues which are difficult to overcome such as the extremely high temperature. Although turbo charger has been improved, but you'll never know until it reaches 5~6 years or 50K~80K miles of its service life. Look at once "award-winning" N54 3.0L twin-turbo inline-6 used in BMW's since 2008. It's suffering very high failure rate on high-pressure fuel pump (HPFP) and exposed the design defect in turbochargers within 5 years of service life and caused class-action lawsuit by unhappy BMW owners. Similar class-action lawsuit was also happened to Audi and VW's 1.8T turbo not long ago.

In-line 4 can never be smooth due to its design nature. The smoothest engine configuration is in-line 6 like those non-turbo 2.8/3.0L BMW's. That you can call it sweet!

Click to expand...

The BMW inline-6 of the past were the smoothest engine's throughout entire RPM range I've ever driven followed by the s2000. The skyactiv engines are smooth themselves under 3400k or so RPMs which is where you'll find me at about 90% of the time due driving through traffic.

CX-5um said:

The BMW inline-6 of the past were the smoothest engine's throughout entire RPM range I've ever driven followed by the s2000. The skyactiv engines are smooth themselves under 3400k or so RPMs which is where you'll find me at about 90% of the time due driving through traffic.

Click to expand...

Yes, BMW inline 6's and Porsche flat 6's are benchmarks for smooth and sweet engines. Many of the best 60 degree V6's by Mercedes and Lexus have nearly the same level of smoothness too. (All of this is premium 6 cylinder machinery in a different price bracket too.)

But since we are talking about 4 banger engines (CX-5 2.0L specifically), there are smoother and better designed 4 bangers from a NVH standpoint available (many 2.0L and smaller with balance shafts). A 4 banger can be designed to have acceptable smoothness.

CX-SV said:

Yes, BMW inline 6's and Porsche flat 6's are benchmarks for smooth and sweet engines. Many of the best 60 degree V6's by Mercedes and Lexus have nearly the same level of smoothness too. All of this is premium machinery in a different price bracket btw.

But since we are talking about 4 banger engines (CX-5 2.0L specifically), there are smoother and better designed 4 bangers from a NVH standpoint available (many 2.0L and smaller with balance shafts). A 4 banger can be designed to have acceptable smoothness.

Click to expand...

The smooth skyactiv transmission has a lot to do with that imho. I had the new style corolla with cvt as a rental car recently. That was one course sounding ride. Gave me an appreciation fot the skyactive tranny.

http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-drive/

CX-5um said:

The smooth skyactiv transmission has a lot to do with that imho. I had the new style corolla with cvt as a rental car recently. That was one course sounding ride. Gave me an appreciation fot the skyactive tranny.

http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-drive/

Click to expand...

A CVT just exaggerates the 4 banger drone. Ford, GM and Chrysler produce 4 bangers that are considerably more coarse and unrefined than the 2.0L Skyactiv engine. Honda has made some of the smoothest 4 bangers in the affordable categories.

CX-SV said:

Not a representative example of the better modern turbo engines, since nearly all BMWs in that timeframe have had below average reliability. For example, the 7 series (non-turbos engines) and on and on. We know about the junky 1.8T of the past (a friend of mine owns one, and the turbo itself is about the only thing not yet replaced), no longer produced today for good reasons. Blanket statements and the usual internet generalizations about turbo engines are no longer applicable, especially when using BMW as the main representative example.
The better automakers are capable of doing reliability and durability testing that greatly exceeds "~6 years or 50K~80K miles of its service life", it can be duplicated and exceeded before first customer shipment.

Click to expand...

So when I named two examples of modern turbo engines NOT from 80's or 90's as you said earlier which involved class action lawsuit, you'd blame it on poor reliability of BMW. BMW is using "award-winning" N54 3.0L twin-turbo inline-6 since 2008 and it couldn't escape the inherent turbo issues. And BMW is NOT one of the better automakers who are capable of doing reliability and durability testing? Audi's 1.8T 20V may be a thing of the past. But it had been used by VW until 2009 and got replaced by bigger displacement 2.0T TSI/TFSI with direction injection and timing chain. Don't accuse me using blanket statements based on some internet rumors. BMW N54 and VW/Audi's 1.8T 20V class action lawsuit shouldn't be a main representative examples for problematic turbo but the 1.8T, a thing of the past you said, from a single friend of yours can be a good example of how reliable the modern turbo is?

If you enjoy turbo power with turbo whining and lag. and don't care about long-term reliability, sure, you can get a turbo, Just don't expect to get EPA rated fuel economy and 200K miles of service life form it!

yrwei52 said:

So when I named two examples of modern turbo engines NOT from 80's or 90's as you said earlier which involved class action lawsuit, you'd blame it on poor reliability of BMW. BMW is using "award-winning" N54 3.0L twin-turbo inline-6 since 2008 and it couldn't escape the inherent turbo issues. And BMW is NOT one of the better automakers who are capable of doing reliability and durability testing? Audi's 1.8T 20V may be a thing of the past. But it had been used by VW until 2009 and got replaced by bigger displacement 2.0T TSI/TFSI with direction injection and timing chain. Don't accuse me using blanket statements based on some internet rumors. BMW N54 and VW/Audi's 1.8T 20V class action lawsuit shouldn't be a main representative examples for problematic turbo but the 1.8T, a thing of the past you said, from a single friend of yours can be a good example of how reliable the modern turbo is?

Click to expand...

Now that you've gone beyond your blanket statement above "But no. any engine with turbo charger is not sweet with turbo whining, turbo lag, and problematic... " I'm not accusing, just referencing what you said above as a direct quote from post #77.

I referred to my friends Audi 1.8T, mainly because it's truly a piece of crap.

Your question "And BMW is NOT one of the better automakers who are capable of doing reliability and durability testing?" Obviously not in some cases, and you answered it well with your cited example and documented problems. Yep, award-winning, lol.

Agreed, those are excellent factual examples of unreliable turbo engines of the past (but not the 80's and 90's), most of which have been replaced with better designs.

CX-SV said:

yrwei52 said:

So when I named two examples of modern turbo engines NOT from 80's or 90's as you said earlier which involved class action lawsuit, you'd blame it on poor reliability of BMW. BMW is using "award-winning" N54 3.0L twin-turbo inline-6 since 2008 and it couldn't escape the inherent turbo issues. And BMW is NOT one of the better automakers who are capable of doing reliability and durability testing? Audi's 1.8T 20V may be a thing of the past. But it had been used by VW until 2009 and got replaced by bigger displacement 2.0T TSI/TFSI with direction injection and timing chain. Don't accuse me using blanket statements based on some internet rumors. BMW N54 and VW/Audi's 1.8T 20V class action lawsuit shouldn't be a main representative examples for problematic turbo but the 1.8T, a thing of the past you said, from a single friend of yours can be a good example of how reliable the modern turbo is?
If you enjoy turbo power with turbo whining and lag. and don't care about long-term reliability, sure, you can get a turbo, Just don't expect to get EPA rated fuel economy and 200K miles of service life form it!

Click to expand...

Now that you've gone beyond your blanket statement above "But no. any engine with turbo charger is not sweet with turbo whining, turbo lag, and problematic... " I'm not accusing, just referencing what you said above as a direct quote from post #77.
I referred to my friends Audi 1.8T, mainly because it's truly a piece of crap.
Your question "And BMW is NOT one of the better automakers who are capable of doing reliability and durability testing?" Obviously not in some cases, and you answered it well with your cited example and documented problems. Yep, award-winning, lol.
Agreed, those are excellent examples of unreliable engines of the past (but not the 80's and 90's), most of which have been replaced with better designs.

Click to expand...

I'm sory, BMW's N54 is still in production, not a thing of past. N54 has won FIVE straight "International Engine of the Year" awards, and THREE straight "Ward's 10 Best Engines" awards since 2007. My point has always been that the turbo engine has inherent issues which are difficult to overcome such as the extremely high temperature (can be as high as 1,050C/1,922F). Until the engineers found a way to lower the temperature which is almost impossible, this will always be an issue.

yrwei52 said:

I'm sory, BMW's N54 is still in production, not a thing of past. N54 has won FIVE straight "International Engine of the Year" awards, and THREE straight "Ward's 10 Best Engines" awards since 2007. My point has always been that the turbo engine has inherent issues which are difficult to overcome such as the extremely high temperature (can be as high as 1,050C/1,922F). Until the engineers found a way to lower the temperature which is almost impossible, this will always be an issue.

Click to expand...

Yes, got your point regarding the BMW turbo N54. Let's see if they addressed the problem(s) successfully with design changes, still TBD.

Ninja - How's the transition going from a CX-5 to a Miata? Using it as a DD?