2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017

J

jhu8

Member
:
16 CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech
Was reading the MT first test of the new 17 CX5, and I was surprised to see some of the results of the actual driving numbers we tend to look at. The 16 CX5 appears to pull a faster 0-60 at 7.8sec compared to the 17s 8.4. Quarter mile the 16 runs it at 16.0 compared to the 17s 16.4 seconds. The skidpad performance was equal but the 16 CX5 did better at the figure eight. The 16 CX5 also did better in the 60-0 brake test stopping short 10 feet shorter. In the MPG test the 17 CX5 did better highway, but combined fuel mileage, the 16 was able to achieve an overall 3 more mpg over the 17. Overall, it seems the 16 is still a better "driving machine" over the 17.

HOWEVER, I know these numbers don't tell the whole story. Most of these numbers won't matter to everyone and won't effect their daily driving with their 17 CX5. There are a lot of improvements that were put into the 2017 CX5. I am sure(haven't test drove one) it is a more improved commuter vehicle than the 16. But for myself and many here, we chose Mazda and the CX5 for its driving dynamics. If we didn't care about that aspect, I would of chose a more comfy, reliable?, boring CRV or Rav4. But I(we) do care. I am a little disappointed to see them go backwards with things that contribute to their mantra of "driving matters". Anyway, just thought it was interesting to compare the numbers here. I think Mazda has some improvement to do. Several of these numbers shouldn't be getting worse if Mazda wants to stay competitive to Honda, Toyota, etc.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2017/2017-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-first-test-review/
 
If I cared about 0-60/0-100/G's on the skid pad, I would have gotten a BMW X1 with M-Sport package. (BTW, their new X1 MUCH better looking than the previous version.)

Having said that, this is my wife's car, and she's a Mazda fan. Numbers don't always tell the whole story. She still refuses to drive the M4.... (rofl)
 
boandlkramer said:
If I cared about 0-60/0-100/G's on the skid pad, I would have gotten a BMW X1 with M-Sport package. (BTW, their new X1 MUCH better looking than the previous version.)

Having said that, this is my wife's car, and she's a Mazda fan. Numbers don't always tell the whole story. She still refuses to drive the M4.... (rofl)
Click to expand...

That's why I said most of these numbers won't matter to many people. I mean, they really don't mean much to me. But I think they're still something to think about regarding the overall decline in the numbers. Overall, the 17 is technically slower, handles worse, and brakes worse than the 16. Are the numbers significant? Not particularly. Will it effect daily driving? Absolutely not. But I think it's more just the fact that the 17 managed to get worse in those categories when it should be improving. Even if just a little bit.

That X1 is definitely very nice looking. But it starts at the price of a fully loaded CX5. Which then you have to add a $3250 package to get some stand GT features that are found on the CX5.

She probably just likes sitting up high while driving? I know my mom hatesss to drive my dads 06 Mustang GT and 16 MX-5. Especially the MX-5.
 
ahahaha!!!! This is great! Your dream machine is now a full half second slower to 60, brakes are nearly 10% worse, handling is worse.

"...but if people cared about that stuff..."

This forum is finally "getting it". THEY DON'T! And that's why Mazda sales numbers for the cx5 lag begin the others. Now, it seems, even this forum "doesn't care about that stuff".

Called it back in '15 before it was cool*


Enjoy then crv and rav4 tail lights if you opted for the 2017. I'll be enjoying my 2015 type R S trim racer :p. ....and desirability long term just went uppppl. Similar to how the 1991 mustang gt is far more desired than the 1993 due to being able to handle more power and more aggressive cam.


Sorry to be a dick, but i got rode all over when i suggested the same things Mazda has done. To the letter. And now im right and noone cares abiut the points made against my suggestions now that Mazda has taken the same route i suggested. Fanboyism.
 
I sure hope the CX5 isn't anyone's dream machine lol I think Mazda did some things right(more quiet ride, better amenities) but this performance thing just went backwards. The 17 CRV just about nailed it. I know Mazda can do it. 2.5T would do the trick.

My overall point was just about how Mazda surprisingly went backwards on many things that affect their "driving matters" mantra. the 17 CX5 is still awesome but just a little disappointing to see this.
 
Last edited:
boandlkramer said:
If I cared about 0-60/0-100/G's on the skid pad, I would have gotten a BMW X1 with M-Sport package. (BTW, their new X1 MUCH better looking than the previous version.)

Having said that, this is my wife's car, and she's a Mazda fan. Numbers don't always tell the whole story. She still refuses to drive the M4.... (rofl)
Click to expand...

Over here we don't test skid plans at all so I really don't care about that. We do pay attention to 0-100 etc but also actually driveability and this review does say:

"Around town, the 2017 CX-5 feels zippy and quick. The naturally aspirated I-4 revs quickly and makes a decent chunk of power right off the line, so the driver is never left wanting more power. Stay buried in the throttle, and the CX-5s engine will sweetly sing all the way to its redline, before the six-speed transmission rattles off a quick shift. With many of its competitors moving to CVTs, Mazda deserves particular praise for how well tuned the CX-5s automatic is; its near impossible to trip up. The transmission is super quick and smooth when changing gears, and it doesnt hunt much, noted associate editor Scott Evans. Itll even drop a cog or two immediately when you want even just a little more powerits clearly tuned for performance.

jhu8 said:
HOWEVER, I know these numbers don't tell the whole story. Most of these numbers won't matter to everyone and won't effect their daily driving with their 17 CX5. There are a lot of improvements that were put into the 2017 CX5. I am sure(haven't test drove one) it is a more improved commuter vehicle than the 16. But for myself and many here, we chose Mazda and the CX5 for its driving dynamics. If we didn't care about that aspect, I would of chose a more comfy, reliable?, boring CRV or Rav4. But I(we) do care. I am a little disappointed to see them go backwards with things that contribute to their mantra of "driving matters". Anyway, just thought it was interesting to compare the numbers here. I think Mazda has some improvement to do. Several of these numbers shouldn't be getting worse if Mazda wants to stay competitive to Honda, Toyota, etc.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2017/2017-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-first-test-review/
Click to expand...

The reviews I have read over here they say driving dynamics is quite good. For example

2017 Mazda CX-5 Touring petrol review

Mazda CX-5 Akera 2017 review: road test

Bear in mind that our suspension set up is different to USA, Europe & Japan. Maybe we got the good end of the stick :D
 
Last edited:
jhu8 said:
Very well possible. Seems to be a common thing with Mazda in other parts of the world versus us here in the US.
Click to expand...

Just found our suspension make up details:

"The fundamental chassis changes involved softer suspension settings offset by so-called smarter tuning so as to not degrade dynamic aptitude. Different dampers, bespoke springs, repositioned and more effective bushings; that sort of thing. Development was centred in Japan, with testing in California and Germany to tailor to unique US and EU tastes. Aussie CX-5s use the latter, but with small modifications, and is now regarded as a fourth chassis variation."

Source: Wheelsmag.com.au 2017 Mazda CX-5 international first drive
 
Unobtanium said:
Sorry to be a dick, but i got rode all over when i suggested the same things Mazda has done.
Click to expand...

No, you got "rode all over" because of your abrasiveness and attitude. I know this is falling on deaf ears, but wow.

This article isn't surprising anyone... we already knew the skid pad numbers were "worse" before this article. Luckily I buy based on an actual drive instead of just stats. You're free to enjoy your current CX-5 without feeling threatened you know, right? :)
 
Xeler8ing said:
The reviews I have read over here they say driving dynamics is quite good. For example

2017 Mazda CX-5 Touring petrol review

Mazda CX-5 Akera 2017 review: road test

Bear in mind that our suspension set up is different to USA, Europe & Japan. Maybe we got the good end of the stick :D
Click to expand...


And to add another review (Performance Drive) of the 17' CX-5's unit:

"Heres an area where the CX-5 has always majored, and right off the bat, we can confirm it still does.

The 2.5-litre engine is a superb unit, feeling punchy, super responsive and clean-revving. At no point in the rev range does it feel strained, and there is a nice surge available at all times. Its not sports car fast, but it has an immediacy that downsized-and-turbocharged rivals simply cant match. Its tied to a very intuitive and fast-acting six-speed automatic unit that is standard fare on all CX-5s except the base Maxx 2.0L FWD. Were confident that car would go well too, since it doesnt have the weight of AWD."

Not surprising of the slower times of the 17 CX-5 due to added weight. They still have that option to put that 2.5L Turbo into it which could make it a class leader undoubtedly. The CX-5 is an SUV first and foremost or CUV as you guys call it. It's not meant to be a sports car but for an SUV it is definitely sportier than most. Half the enjoyment is from carving corners. How often does one floor the throttle from standstill to 60 mph? Not often if at all I'd say. Though the 17 CX-5 may be slower by half a second or so to 60 mph, most owners would be happier to drive in a more quieter and premium feeling vehicle if comparing to the previous model.
 
When Unobtanium suggested Mazda should add 50 pounds of sound deadening materials for quieter cabin a while ago, so many people jumped out and defended Mazda's decision in this forum even said it'd hurt the "performance" of the CX-5 as the "performance" is the most important virtue for our CX-5! I wonder where are those people now or those people just have a sudden change of heart? In fact, I wonder where are many old-timers in this CX-5 forum as I don't see them posting here anymore? Mazda's low retention rate? (uhm)
 
jhu8 said:
Was reading the MT first test of the new 17 CX5, and I was surprised to see some of the results of the actual driving numbers we tend to look at. The 16 CX5 appears to pull a faster 0-60 at 7.8sec compared to the 17s 8.4. Quarter mile the 16 runs it at 16.0 compared to the 17s 16.4 seconds. The skidpad performance was equal but the 16 CX5 did better at the figure eight. The 16 CX5 also did better in the 60-0 brake test stopping short 10 feet shorter. In the MPG test the 17 CX5 did better highway, but combined fuel mileage, the 16 was able to achieve an overall 3 more mpg over the 17. Overall, it seems the 16 is still a better "driving machine" over the 17.

HOWEVER, I know these numbers don't tell the whole story. Most of these numbers won't matter to everyone and won't effect their daily driving with their 17 CX5. There are a lot of improvements that were put into the 2017 CX5. I am sure(haven't test drove one) it is a more improved commuter vehicle than the 16. But for myself and many here, we chose Mazda and the CX5 for its driving dynamics. If we didn't care about that aspect, I would of chose a more comfy, reliable?, boring CRV or Rav4. But I(we) do care. I am a little disappointed to see them go backwards with things that contribute to their mantra of "driving matters". Anyway, just thought it was interesting to compare the numbers here. I think Mazda has some improvement to do. Several of these numbers shouldn't be getting worse if Mazda wants to stay competitive to Honda, Toyota, etc.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2017/2017-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-first-test-review/
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that but am taking it with a grain of salt at this moment. Waiting to see what Car and Driver get as well. But it may be the result of not being able to turn off traction control, which they did in the prior cars when doing these test. So in reality, this is most likely the same as before in the real world.
 
Last edited:
joe6864 said:
No, you got "rode all over" because of your abrasiveness and attitude. I know this is falling on deaf ears, but wow.

This article isn't surprising anyone... we already knew the skid pad numbers were "worse" before this article. Luckily I buy based on an actual drive instead of just stats. You're free to enjoy your current CX-5 without feeling threatened you know, right? :)
Click to expand...

Bingo, we have bingo!
 
dougal said:
Yeah, I saw that but am taking it with a grain of salt at this moment. Waiting to see what Car and Driver get as well. But it may be the result of not being able to turn off traction control, which they did in the prior cars when doing these test. So in reality, this is most likely the same as before in the real world.
Click to expand...

Traction control would have possibly harmed the times, but the nearly 2.5mph drop in the quarter isn't likely in a vehicle with this level of power and awd. That would be a hard dip for tc to cause. You can spin hard off the line and have a terrible ET, but the trap speed will typically tell the tale. With this, the trap and ET say the same thing: it is down on performance big-time.

Even the 100# gain is not likely the cause, considering the 3hp gain. That's like a 7whp loss. I just don't think 7whp will cure or cause this much difference. 10whp= 1 tenth in the quarter, and 100# of non-rotational mass = 10whp, basically. This is many times that. This formula has been around for decades, and although sometimes there is a tiny variance in the coefficient, it's usually spot-on. Something more is at play than 100#.
 
Last edited:
jhu8 said:
Ahh good ol MikeM haha
Click to expand...

Yep, and if you will note, that was who was abrasive to me, and I gave it right back. I am not at ALL claiming I am not/was not, but I am saying...told you so.

On another note, the 2017 CR-V is a much better performance machine than the CX-5, so the Mazda fans will now need to revise their "but zoom zoom..." chant and focus more on the other ways the CX-5 beats the CRV, such as "I am loyal to Mazda" "I hate turbos...but the CX9 is okay..." and "CVT's are bad, because the little "jerks" my 6-speed gives hides the fact that my vehicle is much slower..." , "it has too much chrome...but the grill and window-trim on the '17 CX5 is cool by me!", "Fuelly is my source of real world data when I talk about CX5's under-performance in many cases on the forum, but it's probably wrong just this once about the CR-V" and other such gems.
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/cr-v/2017/2017-honda-cr-v-touring-awd-first-test-review/

My stance? "I am hoping my CX-5 continues to be reliable, it is plenty functional, and I have no desire to incur financial loss by trading it at this time." Basically...what/why I bought it initially. Function/cost/why not?

It's also kindof an easter-egg that it trounces all over the 2017 from a performance perspective, and you can bet that a 140# weight gain is NOT what has cost it this much performance. It did hurt some , I am sure, but it is not what cost it a full half-second to 60. Something else is afoot.
http://www.060calculator.com/
 
Last edited:
yrwei52 said:
When Unobtanium suggested Mazda should add 50 pounds of sound deadening materials for quieter cabin a while ago, so many people jumped out and defended Mazda's decision in this forum even said it'd hurt the "performance" of the CX-5 as the "performance" is the most important virtue for our CX-5! I wonder where are those people now or those people just have a sudden change of heart? In fact, I wonder where are many old-timers in this CX-5 forum as I don't see them posting here anymore? Mazda's low retention rate? (uhm)
Click to expand...

Thinks that make you go, hmm...
 
m8te said:
Half the enjoyment is from carving corners
.
Click to expand...

Oh wait, but the 16 does that better as well. My comments from the black 16 vs black 17 thread is spot on. One look at them and you can clearly tell the 16 is more planted to the ground and ready for more aggressive driving. Yes, I've driven both, and this was clear from the start.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
    • Like
CX-5 Fuel efficiency, comfort and handling
Replies
12
Views
3K
sonny1
S
C
Front Camera Failed in Light Mist! 2024 Turbo CX-5
Replies
5
Views
758
CX5Nut
C
C
    • Like
Long time lurker, second account here
Replies
3
Views
846
CruzinCX
C

Latest posts

Back