Facts and figures that have really surprised me!

R

Road Warrior2

:
Mazda CX5 Touring with PEP
My thread below, on the fence as to whether to buy now or later.

Something that I was concerned about and did not mention, was why I like my Xterra. It is rugged and heavy, feels strong and powerful. Relatively certain it can go anywhere due to it's ground clearance. I like the size of the X and thought the CX5 was smaller. I do not go off road (much, fire roads for the most part) and am just like about 99%+ of the SUV type vehicles on the road today. People like the look of rugged high off the ground driving, Going to a CX5....am I giving that up for a lesser potential all around vehicle?

Did a side by side fact comparison. What I found that has really changed a perception.

The Xterra AT tale of the tape:

180hp/202 ft lb of torque, 178" long, 10" of ground clearance, 104" wheelbase, 3777 lb curb weight

The CX5 with AWD AT tale of tape:

187hp/ 185 ft lb of torque, 179" long, 7.6" ground clearance, 106" wheelbase, 3655 lb curb weight.



So WOW, the CX5 has a longer wheelbase which gives a less bouncy ride, what I lose in clearance height, I seem to gain in almost all categories including gas mileage with flatter cornering. Same size! Waaaaaay nicer interior. And better road manners.
 
Last edited:
This comparison isnt very fair because one car is designed around being used on pavement while the other is for off road.
 
Granted the frame for the X is a truck frame, the CX5 is the 6 frame, but if I read correctly, has been stiffened.

I know what you are saying, I would buy another X or a Toyota FJ as that is what i liked, unfortunately they are out of production, I refuse to buy a Jeep, and the CX is the direction car manufacturers are going. Another positive with the CX is the AT does not have that snowmobile feel like the Rogue does.

I had also looked at trucks last year, had sticker shock of what a used with 50K miles Taco had, yikes!
 
Last edited:
Ya, completely different animals. The CX-5 will no doubt be a better pavement pounder. It's basically a jacked up hatchback.

Where the Nissan is a true truck.
 
The CX-5 is a far superior road car, no doubt about it; as you'd expect compared to a 14 year old car set up for offroad. Going from my 26 year old Pathfinder to the 2017 CX-5 was a revelation!

But the Xterra is going to be much more capable in deep snow and snow on unplowed roads. 2.5" more clearance is a lot, and true 4wd with a limited slip diff is much more capable in challenging enviroments!
 
Also noticed, one of those things I had not really considered until I got a chance to car shop......both of my vehicles look really dated. Having worked at a dealership and doing close up detailed examination of new cars every day, you get sick of looking at vehicles that closely(I inspected almost every new vehicle at a large dealership for shipping damage).
 
Road Warrior2 said:
Granted the frame for the X is a truck frame, the CX5 is the 6 frame, but if I read correctly, has been stiffened.

I know what you are saying, I would buy another X or a Toyota FJ as that is what i liked, unfortunately they are out of production, I refuse to buy a Jeep, and the CX is the direction car manufacturers are going. Another positive with the CX is the AT does not have that snowmobile feel like the Rogue does.
Click to expand...

The CX-5 apparently rides on a Mazda 3 chassis, although I dont believe it because the interior looks identical to my 6 Sedan.
 
Oh and jeeps are pieces of s***, I would never buy one if I needed an off-road car. Id get a 4Runner, FJ Cruiser or an Xterra
 
The Mazda 3/CX-5 is unibody (although with stiffening structures), the Xterra is body on frame ("C" channel with full box ends, if it's like my '91 Pathfinder).
 
Last edited:
Road Warrior2 said:
My thread below, on the fence as to whether to buy now or later.

Something that I was concerned about and did not mention, was why I like my Xterra. It is rugged and heavy, feels strong and powerful. Relatively certain it can go anywhere due to it's ground clearance. I like the size of the X and thought the CX5 was smaller. I do not go off road (much, fire roads for the most part) and am just like about 99%+ of the SUV type vehicles on the road today. People like the look of rugged high off the ground driving, Going to a CX5....am I giving that up for a lesser potential all around vehicle?

Did a side by side fact comparison.
The Xterra AT tale of the tape:

180hp/202 ft lb of torque,
Click to expand...

They are rated at 261 HP, not 180hp. Not sure where you got your numbers.

I am a Nissan Pathfinder owner (2002 model) and have been looking for a replacement vehicle.
Top of my list is/was an Xterra. 2015 is the last year of production.
I am still contemplating searching for a low mileage 2015 Pro-X.
I like the body on frame construction, and suits my needs a lot more than a softer car based SUV/CUV.
Time will tell.
In the meantime, I have just purchased a new Mazda 6 to replace my 2006 Altima.
The new Altima's are crap.
Cheers.
 
2003 Xterra XE: 180hp/202 ft.-lbs
2003 Xterra SE: 210hp/246ft-lbs
2015 Xterra (all models): 261hp/281 ft-lbs
 
The whole off road thing is a luxury. Few people do not have a driveway to their home or roads to daily life. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND, not dissing the off road crowd. If you want to do that have as much fun as you can. Family has property up in the big woods of PA, mostly has fire roads up there. That is as far off road as I have gotten in my Xterra. I like driving up tall with it too.
 
Buzzman12 said:
They are rated at 261 HP, not 180hp. Not sure where you got your numbers.

I am a Nissan Pathfinder owner (2002 model) and have been looking for a replacement vehicle.
Top of my list is/was an Xterra. 2015 is the last year of production.
I am still contemplating searching for a low mileage 2015 Pro-X.
I like the body on frame construction, and suits my needs a lot more than a softer car based SUV/CUV.
Time will tell.
In the meantime, I have just purchased a new Mazda 6 to replace my 2006 Altima.
The new Altima's are crap.
Cheers.
Click to expand...

Good choice, we love our Mazda. Try keeping the rpms between 3000-4000RPM and just flick it into a corner smoothly while on throttle. Great handling car if you keep the suspension within its limits.
Road Warrior2 said:
The whole off road thing is a luxury. Few people do not have a driveway to their home or roads to daily life. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND, not dissing the off road crowd. If you want to do that have as much fun as you can. Family has property up in the big woods of PA, mostly has fire roads up there. That is as far off road as I have gotten in my Xterra. I like driving up tall with it too.
Click to expand...

How does the CX-5 fare on a dirt road? Have you tried yet?
 
I live down a mile of dirt road, with a couple of decent hills on it. In the summer when we get monsoons it can get a little torn up. The CX-5 FWD does fine, it's no rock crawler but on a moderately rough unpaved road it's fine. I've done quite a bit of more serious off-roading in my time and I know that the driver is just as important as the car, but you won't get stuck as long as you can keep momentum over stuff that'll raise a driven wheel off the ground.

The suspension is OK on unimproved roads, has reasonable travel not too prone to bottoming as long as you're not pushing it hard. The suspension is soft though so you could dent a rocker panel over rough stuff. Approach and departure is less than ideal.

Plus torquing the body back and forth over time I'd worry that things would loosen up and/or maybe crack a windshield. So I drive slow over the rough parts of my road.

It's no off-road vehicle, it's a road car that has enough clearance to deal with a moderate dirt road, but not a jeep trail.
 
Last edited:
Do not own one yet, did get to watch a few torture tests of people driving them off road, one guy stopped the test as he was certain he would tear the front end off trying to get up a steppish incline. From what I have seen, if you have the right tires, you can within reason easily handle fire roads and some obstructions. Was watching somewhere that a guy had put a set of beefy Falken AT tires on his, looked kinda neat, but a question in my mind is how far you want to go in trying to make the vehicle something it is not. It is "like" a Grand Cherokee, more luxury than mudder. I'm not real familiar with the AWD set up that is becoming more mainstream these days (WRX, Ford Fusion Sport, Audi, BMW etc) but absolutely not 4WD, so I'm not getting confused there.

I like to think of it this way, if you get equal amounts of power to all 4 wheels in 4WD, you can get about 50% max with variable power trailing off with speed to the rear wheels and 100% to the front all the time with AWD.
 
Hmmm, you mention Jeep. Guy I work with has a Patriot. He likes it, but he is not a "car guy". He just drives it back and forth to work, unsure if it is AWD or 4WD.

ps: I would never own one.
 
sonoran said:
I live down a mile of dirt road, with a couple of decent hills on it. In the summer when we get monsoons it can get a little torn up. The CX-5 FWD does fine, it's no rock crawler but on a moderately rough unpaved road it's fine. I've done quite a bit of more serious off-roading in my time and I know that the driver is just as important as the car, but you won't get stuck as long as you can keep momentum over stuff that'll raise a driven wheel off the ground.

The suspension is OK on unimproved roads, has reasonable travel not too prone to bottoming as long as you're not pushing it hard. The suspension is soft though so you could dent a rocker panel over rough stuff. Approach and departure is less than ideal.

Plus torquing the body back and forth over time I'd worry that things would loosen up and/or maybe crack a windshield. So I drive slow over the rough parts of my road.

It's no off-road vehicle, it's a road car that has enough clearance to deal with a moderate dirt road, but not a jeep trail.
Click to expand...

the car is designed around being soft and comfortable for daily driving on pavement with family. it's not at home riding over rough roads.

the chassis feels nice and taut, but I feel like the suspension is a little too soft for aggressive cornering.
 
banjos-n-beer said:
CX3 shares the platform with the 2.
CX5 shares the platform with the 3.
Click to expand...

Mazda uses a somewhat modular platform system - it is NOT shared with the 3, at least not directly. It has a similar wheelbase to the 3 but the width is shared with the 6 and so drives very differently. The 6 is longer in length. The traditional notion of "platforms" is a little outdated with Mazda now.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Any cross shopping with the 2019 RAV4?
10 11 12
Replies
233
Views
34K
Avoidin Deer
Avoidin Deer
L
2019 CX-5 Details
4 5 6
Replies
119
Views
22K
Ricsta
R
yrwei52
Mazda CX-5 2017 and 2016.5 US/NA Spec Comparison
2 3
Replies
58
Views
16K
CX-5um
C

Latest posts

Back