I think g vector control will let Mazda soften the suspension somewhat, while retaining similar or better cornering ability than before. Should help in the 'refinement' area and avoid complaints of harshness by non-enthusiasts.
2017 test drive CX-5 vs CR-V
- Thread starter Bcdad182
- Start date
I think g vector control will let Mazda soften the suspension somewhat, while retaining similar or better cornering ability than before. Should help in the 'refinement' area and avoid complaints of harshness by non-enthusiasts.
Torque of 2.5L is 251NM (185ft/lb) vs 2.2L which is 420NM (309ft/lb). Hence pulling harder for much longer in the diesel.
Also the 2.5L before this engine revision actually has 22HP more than the diesel. From 2017 onwards, it's now 24HP more.
So with all the changes Mazda has made with the 2017 model, is it supposed to fix some of the issues with regards to performance and response?
Ive been reading this thread with great interest. At the risk of getting flamed....Im pretty happy with the 2.5 L engine and the throttle response. Im coming off of a 2014 Santa Fe Sport 2.0 Turbo which makes 290 HP, though its a much heavier car. There is no doubt the SF is quicker (7.1 sec 0-60 vs 7.8 seconds for the CX-5 on paper), but I find the 2017 CX-5, as a total package, to be light years beyond the SF. The CX-5 drives and handles much better...and in my opinion...does not seem like it has 100 fewer ponies than the SF. I personally prefer the more linear response of a naturally aspirated engine and my (totally subjective) opinion is that the 2.5 L will give longer service than the 2.0 turbo, which is personally important to me since I bought the CX-5...the SF was a lease. Maybe Im just getting old...but I find the 2.5 L perfectly adequate to the task...providing that the task is not breaking the land speed record...
G
Guest2019C20
Indeed a great engine. If it wasn't, wouldn't be used in their 3 or 6!
1
123373
Remind me not to buy the one you beat the s**** out of on your test drive!
Just check the vin and you'll be fine [emoji28]
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
Not to discredit your findings which I generally agree with but 264 was the rating on your SF sport turbo with that being said I'm skeptical of Hyundai/Kia numbers and BMWs but in the opposite direction...The CX5 and its existing 2.5l na gas engine and transmission are both adequate and impressive if not so much on paper but in real world applications. Flooring it at 80.. well it sure ain't gonna pin you back in the seat that's what my underrated 240hp rwd x1 is for
You wouldn't expect it to pin you back. That's what foreced induction or six/eight cylinders are for [emoji3]Not to discredit your findings which I generally agree with but 264 was the rating on your SF sport turbo with that being said I'm skeptical of Hyundai/Kia numbers and BMWs but in the opposite direction...The CX5 and its existing 2.5l na gas engine and transmission are both adequate and impressive if not so much on paper but in real world applications. Flooring it at 80.. well it ain't gonna pin you back in the seat that's what my underrated 240hp x1 is for
So long as it goes, that's all that matters
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
You're correct...apologies for the mistake. None the less we agree on the CX-5. I'm very happy with her....
You will adjust your opinion - as you have more experience with it.
As for the land speed record, keep that aside. Reaching 100 mph (US) will be hard if some of the combination of factors come in play.
1. High winds
2. Alternator on load - AC/Lights/Music etc.
3. More than one 175 lb adult in car + gear
4. Slight uphill.
The 2.5L is perfect fit for 6 / 6 Wagon. But with CX-5 being so tall and having to push so much air out of the way. No land speed record - I think some of the other CUVs will beat it in top speed.
In the 34 years I have been driving....I don't think Ive ever gone 100MPH...thats not a valid concern where I live...and drive... and for what its worth...the CX-5 engine is in line with nearly all other vehicles in its class....so I don't really get what its detractors are comparing it to...
No need to apologize, i still love mine as a dd after 3.5 yrs and 67k. Does it satisfy my occasional need for speed-not really but so long as we don't have 80 or 85mph posted limits around here in ny it does the job i need it to and more with zero fuss or pretense. If I traveled on roads i could do 85 or 90 on I'd want something lower and or more substantial with more power though I must admit. I generally don't break 75 in the mazdarati.
If it has some get up and go when overtaking plus can move from a stand still reasonably well and can also do both of these with 2-3 people on board (when this happens) then that is enough for me
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
Where is the limiter on these things? I love the mazda and going fast but its not something id feel comfortable breaking 100 in and i have but not in a 68in tall pretty light and short cuv with brakes that are well they're ok but..100+ in the cx5 let's just say that's outside my comfort zone.
