2017 CX5 Touring AWD

It seems to be a natural evolution for carmakers to first design and build certain cars with good handling and sportiness but consumer demand softer rides and more comforts. These take away from the vehicle’s original intent but end up selling better. Now I think Mazda is following this cycle but only to a point. They still want to stay true with their heritage but some purists will disagree anyway. Look at BMW. Many say they have lost their way as they went mainstream. It’s a evolution, some good and some not so good.

Mazda's slogan is still Zoom Zoom here. They actively promote it
 
I remember the MotoMan YouTube video of the ‘17 CX5 and Dave Coleman said that he wished that they would have put the 2.5t in instead of the naturally aspirated but higher ups prevailed.

I think SkyActiv X is the engine to watch with its supercharger.
 
Funny, I don’t see any Mazda commercials since I am on streaming tv. I don’t see any commercials for that matter. It does say Zoom Zoom on the manual.

Looks like we might be one of the few markets that Mazda actively use Zoom Zoom in the promotions including commercials.

I just checked Mazda USA and Mazda Europe websites and they do have Zoom Zoom on them.
 
I remember the MotoMan YouTube video of the ‘17 CX5 and Dave Coleman said that he wished that they would have put the 2.5t in instead of the naturally aspirated but higher ups prevailed.

I think SkyActiv X is the engine to watch with its supercharger.

Dave Coleman in one of the YouTube videos I watched did sort of hint that the 2.5L would fit in the current model....
 
Dave Coleman in one of the YouTube videos I watched did sort of hint that the 2.5L would fit in the current model....


Yep and it’s my guess that Mazda decided to save money by continuing with the na 2.5 since SA-X is due for 2019 or 2020. It’s actually a smart business decision though disappointing for some.

I’m happy with the naturally aspirated engine.
 
Yep and it’s my guess that Mazda decided to save money by continuing with the na 2.5 since SA-X is due for 2019 or 2020. It’s actually a smart business decision though disappointing for some.

I’m happy with the naturally aspirated engine.

You are probably right.

I think I'll be happy with the NA 2.5 too judging by the couple of test drives I've done already.
 
I remember the MotoMan YouTube video of the ‘17 CX5 and Dave Coleman said that he wished that they would have put the 2.5t in instead of the naturally aspirated but higher ups prevailed.

I think SkyActiv X is the engine to watch with its supercharger.

The supercharger is not meant to increase HP -it is actually meant to lean out the fuel air mixture even more. I have a feeling people on this board are going to be disappointed by the Sky-X engine. The 2.0L-X engine will have the close to the same HP and torque as the 2.5L engine but with much better gas mileage. The torque curve is better and the car might make the diesel obsolete. But the 0-60 times might not be hugely different and I could see people complaining about the "numbers".

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a17171105/mazda-skyactiv-x-how-it-works/
 
Last edited:
The supercharger is not meant to increase HP -it is actually meant to lean out the fuel air mixture even more. I have a feeling people on this board are going to be disappointed by the Sky-X engine. The 2.0L-X engine will have the close to the same HP and torque as the 2.5L engine but with much better gas mileage. The torque curve is better and the car might make the diesel obsolete. But the 0-60 times might not be hugely different and I could see people complaining about the "numbers".

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a17171105/mazda-skyactiv-x-how-it-works/

Right, but Mazda is about slow cars that handle well, historically. Now they are about slow SUV's that handle well, and get good mileage. I think a 2.0 SA-X getting nearly 50mpg highway would be absolutely tits.
 
Right, but Mazda is about slow cars that handle well, historically. Now they are about slow SUV's that handle well, and get good mileage. I think a 2.0 SA-X getting nearly 50mpg highway would be absolutely tits.


I don't think it will hit 50 mpg but 40mpg should be easy. Also, they may see some performance boost as Mazda people have said the Mazda 3 with the new engine should have the same 0-60 time as a MX-5.
 
Seen videos of the 6 getting 46 mpg. That's bonkers. Plus a decent low end torque and nice looks and handling is a bonus, for a daily it's not slow. We are renting a 3 with 2.5L and driving 500+ miles hitting 30 mpg on most freeway drives. But its a brand new rental. Plus one needs to know shift points for better mpg which is hard in the 3 as it's digital rpm display. I love that 2.0 CX-5 is a 32+ mpg unicorn. Great for kids first car.
 
Seen videos of the 6 getting 46 mpg. That's bonkers. Plus a decent low end torque and nice looks and handling is a bonus, for a daily it's not slow. We are renting a 3 with 2.5L and driving 500+ miles hitting 30 mpg on most freeway drives. But its a brand new rental. Plus one needs to know shift points for better mpg which is hard in the 3 as it's digital rpm display. I love that 2.0 CX-5 is a 32+ mpg unicorn. Great for kids first car.


My son's 2.0L Mazda 3, is getting 30+ MPG in city traffic. Driving at 60 MPG, I am confident he could see 45 MPG easily.
 
My son's 2.0L Mazda 3, is getting 30+ MPG in city traffic. Driving at 60 MPG, I am confident he could see 45 MPG easily.

+1

When I had my 2.0L 2014 3 HB, I once got 44 mpg on a 4-5 hour round trip. Max speed limit was 55 MPH (so I was going 60), but I spent a lot of time around 30-40 going through small towns as we meandered our way up and down coastal Maine.
 
The supercharger is not meant to increase HP -it is actually meant to lean out the fuel air mixture even more. I have a feeling people on this board are going to be disappointed by the Sky-X engine. The 2.0L-X engine will have the close to the same HP and torque as the 2.5L engine but with much better gas mileage. The torque curve is better and the car might make the diesel obsolete. But the 0-60 times might not be hugely different and I could see people complaining about the "numbers".

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a17171105/mazda-skyactiv-x-how-it-works/

As I understand it, the supercharger is to give the bottom end power/torque until HCCI kicks in.
 
Here are my impressions with the new 2017, coming from a 2016:

No doubt, the 2017 is a lot quieter and more refined to drive. Noise levels inside are greatly reduced over the 2016. The interior is more elegant and upscale. It is also more comfortable to drive. I don't get as "tired" as I did with the 2016 when on the highway for 30 miles or so.

As far as handling goes. Not sure yet. Haven't taken it through the turns or pushed it hard in the corners.

All-in-all, I really like the 2017 over the 2016.

My 1st 30 mile trip I averaged 34 MPG.
 
Handling should be a bit less that 2016 model as they have improved ride comfort
 
^^Sounds good, amazing mpg- better than your 16?

My 2016 got around 30-31 MPG highway so it is better but will see with time.

Are the rear taillights LED on the 2017's? I know the front headlights are LED as are the reverse lights but not sure about the taillights.
 
My 2016 got around 30-31 MPG highway so it is better but will see with time.

Are the rear taillights LED on the 2017's? I know the front headlights are LED as are the reverse lights but not sure about the taillights.

For 2017, only on GT:

14mqvrb.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back