- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
No real beef, just saying it again...I was right, and Mazda did what I thought they should have...but the slower acceleration can't just be from 140#. It's much greater a disparity than that would account for.
2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017
- Thread starter jhu8
- Start date
No real beef, just saying it again...I was right, and Mazda did what I thought they should have...but the slower acceleration can't just be from 140#. It's much greater a disparity than that would account for.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Makes sense on the IT thing. I did sales for a while, and it was a lot like that.
Regarding your wife, Dim, that's awesome. Live smart and it will really pay off, but it also under-scores why I did not get my MD. I was worried that if I undertook that, something would happen that would prevent my graduation, and all I'd leave college with was a mountain of debt. That, and the MD's I know work crazy hours (counting call). Me personally? I like my 3 days a week and done, and have no plans to advance my career, as I live pretty small aside from my shooting hobby and occasional sports car hobby. No desire to marry or have kids either, and that makes a huge impact on how far my money can go. To each their own though, and that's awesome! I need to find myself a good optometrist, but have been lazy about it as I maintain 20/10 in both eyes and have not had issues thus far, so obviously I do what a typical American does and neglect it.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
That sounds very good, I'm just not the type that wants to tie myself to someone. It's for some people, for sure, I'm just not one of them. I hope when it's all said and done, it's as good a decision for you two, as it is now, sincerely.
- :
- Denver, CO
Yep, I agree. Most of the highest paid IT folks I know (think $160k/year consultants, etc.) don't even have degrees. On the flip side, I knew a guy that was getting his Ph.D. but still worked on a tier 1 or 2 help desk which makes no sense to me.
Good work ethic, taking risks on jobs you might not have the on-paper skills for, and constantly learning/refining your skills get's you farther has been the key. And figuring out the path you want to go down too. Some areas of IT get to be dead end and you work way more for less than others where you work normal for more.
Edit: Oh! And being good at talking with people and different groups, which let's face it, a lot of IT people are not. LOL
Last edited:
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
I think you guys are missing the point of the article:
"The 2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD can be looked at similarly. Mazda redesigned its worldwide best-seller for the 2017 model year, and if you look at it by the numbers, its both heavier and smaller than the model it replacesyet its by far a much better family crossover than ever before. Its the intangibles that the Mazda CX-5 excels at."
Even if the absolute numbers are worse than before, the car is better.
"The 2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD can be looked at similarly. Mazda redesigned its worldwide best-seller for the 2017 model year, and if you look at it by the numbers, its both heavier and smaller than the model it replacesyet its by far a much better family crossover than ever before. Its the intangibles that the Mazda CX-5 excels at."
Even if the absolute numbers are worse than before, the car is better.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Nobody missed anything. Even us that have been labeled as "haters" admitted that...
Agreed. Looks like gear rations and final drive are the same, and the engine is just about the same. I know they altered the throttle and transmission behavior a little bit, but I wouldn't have expected that to make a big difference under full acceleration. Given that the time difference is 0.6s from 0-60 and 0.4s in the 1/4 mile, that suggests the gap happens right off the line.
I saw this article yesterday and I was wondering when someone would make a thread about it here. After reading the article yesterday, I immediately thought, oh boy Unobtanium is going to have a field day tomorrow LOL. After reading the comments in this thread, he did not disappoint haha.
Anyway, I skew towards the performance side when selecting cars, so needless to say I was disappointed to see the performance numbers for the 2017 CX-5. I knew it was going to be heavier and I expected this will no doubt affect performance. I expected it to be 0.2-0.3 seconds slower than the 2016 model, you know just a little off the pace. It is 0.5 seconds slower to 60 though. I don't know what to make of that. Can I even feel that difference in real world driving? Maybe not, but it is still is disappointing for me. If it is slower to 60, it will most likely be also slower in highway passing, which if true, is really a big issue for me. At 8.4 seconds to 60, if I'm not mistaken, it is slower than a CX-3 that has the 2.0 engine; disappointing. Now they didn't mention anything about the 45-65 mph passing times. If it is slower to 60, but faster in this metric, then that's an advantage in my book.
Skidpad numbers matches the 2016 model, which is good, cornering should still be fun in the 2017 model. The figure 8 numbers are interestingly slower than the 2016 model. They mentioned not being able to fully disable the stability control. Is this something that you can do with the 2016 AWD model?
Lastly, real world mpg results are also disappointing. It got better highway mileage, but it also got worse city and combined mileage. This is subjective though and will totally depend on the driver's driving style and environment.
So it looks like for the 2017 models, we have to concede that as far as performance metrics goes, the CX-5 is no longer at the top of the hill. The move to "premium" seems to have affected the driving performance of the new CX-5. What is interesting is that even with the test results showing it is in fact slower than the 2016 model, the review doesn't seem to indicate that the 2016 model is the better CUV. Driving feel and driving fun is still intact on the 2017 model along with the extra amenities that the 2016 model does not have. As someone has mentioned, it is a better family car and is a more balanced car I suppose. What I find ironic is that instead of buying the CX-5 because of its performance virtues (as was done in the past), it is now the extra amenities/creature comforts that will be used to sell the car to buyers.
For the people who bought the 2017 model, there is no reason to feel bad at all. The 2017 model has more "premium" features that the 2016 and older models will never have. It also rides better and has a quieter cabin.
Mazda has work to do with the 2018 and up models as far as performance goes. They need to hurry up with the gen 2 SkyActiv engines, or find a way to get that 2.5T engine into the CX-5 pronto. Bonus points if they can turbocharge the 2.0 engine to get a better mix of performance and fuel efficiency.
Anyway, I skew towards the performance side when selecting cars, so needless to say I was disappointed to see the performance numbers for the 2017 CX-5. I knew it was going to be heavier and I expected this will no doubt affect performance. I expected it to be 0.2-0.3 seconds slower than the 2016 model, you know just a little off the pace. It is 0.5 seconds slower to 60 though. I don't know what to make of that. Can I even feel that difference in real world driving? Maybe not, but it is still is disappointing for me. If it is slower to 60, it will most likely be also slower in highway passing, which if true, is really a big issue for me. At 8.4 seconds to 60, if I'm not mistaken, it is slower than a CX-3 that has the 2.0 engine; disappointing. Now they didn't mention anything about the 45-65 mph passing times. If it is slower to 60, but faster in this metric, then that's an advantage in my book.
Skidpad numbers matches the 2016 model, which is good, cornering should still be fun in the 2017 model. The figure 8 numbers are interestingly slower than the 2016 model. They mentioned not being able to fully disable the stability control. Is this something that you can do with the 2016 AWD model?
Lastly, real world mpg results are also disappointing. It got better highway mileage, but it also got worse city and combined mileage. This is subjective though and will totally depend on the driver's driving style and environment.
So it looks like for the 2017 models, we have to concede that as far as performance metrics goes, the CX-5 is no longer at the top of the hill. The move to "premium" seems to have affected the driving performance of the new CX-5. What is interesting is that even with the test results showing it is in fact slower than the 2016 model, the review doesn't seem to indicate that the 2016 model is the better CUV. Driving feel and driving fun is still intact on the 2017 model along with the extra amenities that the 2016 model does not have. As someone has mentioned, it is a better family car and is a more balanced car I suppose. What I find ironic is that instead of buying the CX-5 because of its performance virtues (as was done in the past), it is now the extra amenities/creature comforts that will be used to sell the car to buyers.
For the people who bought the 2017 model, there is no reason to feel bad at all. The 2017 model has more "premium" features that the 2016 and older models will never have. It also rides better and has a quieter cabin.
Mazda has work to do with the 2018 and up models as far as performance goes. They need to hurry up with the gen 2 SkyActiv engines, or find a way to get that 2.5T engine into the CX-5 pronto. Bonus points if they can turbocharge the 2.0 engine to get a better mix of performance and fuel efficiency.
Last edited:
Yeah this was pretty much my point. It was disappointing to see this. I did note that honestly none of it will really affect its daily drivability, but I hope Mazda fixes things next year and gets back at the top. Gotta keep that zoom zoom going.
Oh look a bunch of people that haven't driven the 2017 are complaining about it again. Makes me wonder why so many who haven't tried it put so much effort to convince us it's bad. Oh well, thankfully there are many that see through it and actually drive it to decide. Keep your previous versions and be happy with them... you do know we can coexist, right?
Who is trying to convince you guys that it's bad? Many of us are just expressing our opinions of the 17. And of course compare it to our current CX5. Only natural to do so. It's okay for your 17 to be compared to an older car and than not liked. I don't have to drive it to have that opinion. Which mostly stems from the styling change.
paging_drburgos
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX5 GT - Premium
Why do gen 1 owners think their car is a GTR in disguise?
Who has said that? Who has implied that? I feel like many just don't like the new styling. Something that has nothing to do with performance. Or does it? I've heard slapping on some stickers on the bumper is good for 3-4 hp.
Maybe not convincing, but I've seen the words "turd" and "terrible" dropped here in the last couple days, when discussing the 17. Not that I care one whit - I am happy with my purchase
paging_drburgos
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX5 GT - Premium
Maybe not convincing, but I've seen the words "turd" and "terrible" dropped here in the last couple days, when discussing the 17. Not that I care one whit - I am happy with my purchase
Yeah, same. I didn't reply because I'm tired of the fight. I come to this forum to relax and be one with my fellow Mazda peeps (BECAUSE MAZDA PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT!!!). Instead lately everyone seems to be turning into Mango.
- :
- Denver, CO
Glad I am not the only one noticing that.
Last edited:
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Nothing wrong with your 2016 at all, I prefer it over the 2017 as well. Don't worry too much about getting attacked for your opinions, you brought up some valid concerns regarding the 2017 model. Fuel economy, acceleration, safety concerns are all valid points. These are all things that are supposed to be better in a new model, not worse. It's not like people are making this stuff up, the numbers speak for themselves.