US Diesel's big splash introduction

Sure can: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2017/2017-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-first-test-review/

Across the board, the only test it could come close to the previous gen was a tie in lateral g skid pad numbers. It stopped worse, turned worse, accelerated worse , changed direction worse...




Sorry bout that.

The average driver does not notice the fraction of a second differences in 0-60 or quarter mile runs. All in all this was a favorable article but you try to make it negative by cherry picking a few numbers and pushing that beyond the rest of the story.
 
The average driver does not notice the fraction of a second differences in 0-60 or quarter mile runs. All in all this was a favorable article but you try to make it negative by cherry picking a few numbers and pushing that beyond the rest of the story.

Emotions > Facts, like always.

I like how you left out the worse braking, worse direction change, etc. Too. People notice that extra 10 feet stopping distance all too often...in tire tests, that's often what separates last of the pack from the best one tested. That's a lot...
 
Last edited:
Good data. If the driver and passengers lost the 141 lbs, then you would likely get the 2017 refinement with the 2016 performance.
 
Uno might be gruff, but he's right regarding #s on paper.

How discernible those numbers might be to drivers is a whole different story.
 
Last edited:
Good data. If the driver and passengers lost the 141 lbs, then you would likely get the 2017 refinement with the 2016 performance.

Not so fast. The reason is the electronic nannies have been tightened up, and cannot be turned off. That's why it feels good to drive but can't perform at the limit like the previous models.

The main thing that bothers me is the extra 10 feet stopping distance. That's pretty noteworthy. Like I said, in a tire test that might be that difference between the lowest and top performer. Pretty big deal.
 
Thats an issue if true but kinda don't believe it..can you/anyone substantiate this cant disable nannies claim? Nothing to do with 0-60 I would think either..calling bs actually!
 
Uno might be gruff, but he's right regarding #s on paper.

How discernible those numbers might be to drivers is a whole different story.

Right. That was the whole point of the article. The numbers are worse, but the drive is better.

Not so fast. The reason is the electronic nannies have been tightened up, and cannot be turned off. That's why it feels good to drive but can't perform at the limit like the previous models.

The main thing that bothers me is the extra 10 feet stopping distance. That's pretty noteworthy. Like I said, in a tire test that might be that difference between the lowest and top performer. Pretty big deal.

First, I'd like to verify that their tests were done at similar temperature, overall weather and locations [were they the same track?]. And that the cars had similar mileage on them. And were they both on 19" wheels, identical tires? All of those factors can make a big difference in the numbers.

The only thing stability control [which seems to be your biggest complaint] affected in their tests was the figure eight. When was the last time any of us did a figure eight in our cars? Or did anything like that maneuver? Do you run rallys in your CX-5? Do you just love drifting? That's not what the vast majority of CX-5 owers are doing with their cars.

The point is: who ever drives a CX-5 "at the limit", and where? No one, nowhere. So why is performance at the limit important? [Except braking-- that's important, and unfortunate]

What MT said was that the "intangibles" make it a better car overall. That's what most of us are interested in. It's the entire driving experience, not the numbers.

And then the next month they said the CR-V kicks the CX-5's ass. Mostly because of the numbers. So much for MT, then, anyway.
 
Good question on the reported 10 ft extra stopping distance. What caused that?

Added weight, different tires, thinking added unsprung weight too..but that's a guess. Conditions temperature also pretty important but 19s went from Toyo A23 to A36 +1lb per TR but could be more or less depending on rounding..wheels different also.
 
Last edited:
Sure can: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2017/2017-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-first-test-review/

Across the board, the only test it could come close to the previous gen was a tie in lateral g skid pad numbers. It stopped worse, turned worse, accelerated worse , changed direction worse...

Sorry bout that.

Yeah, I think this was pretty well established when the 2017's came out that they were worse than Gen1 in those regards, and pretty well established on this board when they came out too. Perhaps not enough to be overly noticeable to the average driver, or a driver who hasn't compared to Gen1, but worse nonetheless. Not sure why the argument coming about now. (uhm)

There's a reason I have no interest in Gen2 CX-5s, and that's part of it.
 
Last edited:
... Not sure why the argument coming about now. (uhm)...

Consider the source. uno takes any and every opportunity to dis Gen2 and Mazda in general. Same old. My old grandmother used to call that "s*** stirring".

Funny, tho, that he said "Damn. That might honestly get me to trade." about that 18 in DFW. Seems clear a lot of it's about the money, and the value he feels he hasn't gotten from his Gen1. Can't blame him for that. ;)
 
Consider the source. uno takes any and every opportunity to dis Gen2 and Mazda in general. Same old. My old grandmother used to call that "s*** stirring".

Funny, tho, that he said "Damn. That might honestly get me to trade." about that 18 in DFW. Seems clear a lot of it's about the money, and the value he feels he hasn't gotten from his Gen1. Can't blame him for that. ;)

So, to clarify, I meant that I did not understand where the argument came from against the fact that Gen2's are worse on the numbers than Gen1. Uno is correct. This is a fact, and an accepted fact on this board when the Gen2's dropped last year.

As to your other point, Uno sees it as an appliance and nothing more, so could be the trade comment, who knows. (scratch)

Edit: As to the drive being "better" on the worse numbers. Yeah I guess. That's what attracts some to the Gen2's and why others like me won't touch 'em. Define this "better".
 
Last edited:
So, to clarify, I meant that I did not understand where the argument came from against the fact that Gen2's are worse on the numbers than Gen1. Uno is correct. This is a fact, and an accepted fact on this board when the Gen2's dropped last year.

As to your other point, Uno sees it as an appliance and nothing more, so could be the trade comment, who knows. (scratch)

Edit: As to the drive being "better" on the worse numbers. Yeah I guess. That's what attracts some to the Gen2's and why others like me won't touch 'em. Define this "better".

I misunderstood your question. This time it was because uno said they handle "worse", and Puyapim took exception to that, said prove it. So uno quoted numbers. And P said it's not all about the numbers.

I agree with you: define better, define worse. It's different for different drivers. U likes the old one, P likes the new one. There is no "right", no universal better or worse [at least in this case]. Don't most of us like our CX-5s, which ever gen we have? Except unobtanium. :)

If it's just an appliance, and he's just waiting to get something fun, I don't know how why he'd want an 18, similar to a 17 but with the added attraction of cylinder deactivation. But I imagine he'll tell us shortly. ;)
 
I misunderstood your question. This time it was because uno said they handle "worse", and Puyapim took exception to that, said prove it. So uno quoted numbers. And P said it's not all about the numbers.

I agree with you: define better, define worse. It's different for different drivers. U likes the old one, P likes the new one. There is no "right", no universal better or worse [at least in this case]. Don't most of us like our CX-5s, which ever gen we have? Except unobtanium. :)

If it's just an appliance, and he's just waiting to get something fun, I don't know how why he'd want an 18, similar to a 17 but with the added attraction of cylinder deactivation. But I imagine he'll tell us shortly. ;)


I think he just likes to stir things up with negativity. I cannot see him buying another Mazda. The braking distance of ten feet seems like a lot but who really notices it? I admit that the brakes do not seem as firm as on previous cars I’ve owned but then I just allow more distance between myself and cars in front. The other numbers were insignificant. Half a second isn’t worth quibbling. In fact Car&Driver has faster numbers.

It’s the glass half full vs half empty argument.
 
^^Yes shadonoz..gen2 has obvious upsides but I like my gen1 to the point that I'm not looking forward to selling it which nearing 80k is saying something.. especially for me I'm kinda picky even with my appliances that I don't historically run into the ground. Gen1 is just sportier it feels more tossable, connected and unfiltered..but its louder, stiffer and generally less composed on the hwy so there is a definite tradeoff there. Gen2 is more things to more ppl but for me its no diesel probably no sale in favor of a late loaded gen1.

I did find some Q5 tdis new but can't justify that cost, don't want to give vw a dime frankly.. didn't like them before so instead of fringe consideration they get zero, zip, nothing from this guy.
 
Last edited:
This! And why I have no interest in Gen2.

To each their own, of course.

I've never driven a Gen1, so I can't compare. All I know is what I read about it. That's not enough to have an opinion.

But I sure like mine!
 
Consider the source. uno takes any and every opportunity to dis Gen2 and Mazda in general. Same old. My old grandmother used to call that "s*** stirring".

Funny, tho, that he said "Damn. That might honestly get me to trade." about that 18 in DFW. Seems clear a lot of it's about the money, and the value he feels he hasn't gotten from his Gen1. Can't blame him for that. ;)

Its an appliance and that was a good deal. All cx5s are slow as hell and handle for crap as far as I'm concerned. It's this board that initially made such a huge deal of the 0-60, handling, etc. So muchso that I was told by multiple members that sound deadening would ruin what the cx5was about...and now look at you all "half a second slower to 60 and worse braking isn't important!"

I have gotten and will get a ton of value from my gen 1. I thought of replacing it with everything from a GLC43 AMG to a wrx sti, but ultimately, I'll probably keep it and buy the 8 acres with corresponding riverfront next to my 6 acres once this is paid off instead.
 
I misunderstood your question. This time it was because uno said they handle "worse", and Puyapim took exception to that, said prove it. So uno quoted numbers. And P said it's not all about the numbers.

I agree with you: define better, define worse. It's different for different drivers. U likes the old one, P likes the new one. There is no "right", no universal better or worse [at least in this case]. Don't most of us like our CX-5s, which ever gen we have? Except unobtanium. :)

If it's just an appliance, and he's just waiting to get something fun, I don't know how why he'd want an 18, similar to a 17 but with the added attraction of cylinder deactivation. But I imagine he'll tell us shortly. ;)

It was a good deal that would carry equal negative equity, not add more, and would give me a 0 mile vehicle without increasing note. Downside would be starting over on paying it off. Good deal really, but my cx5 is reliable so far, so I soldier on with it.
 
Back