Drag race : Mazda Cx5 2016 vs 2018

Natey said:
Agreed. Next up, a video of which Miata can handle a mud pit better, a 1st gen or a new ND
Click to expand...

(thought) Hell, may as well.

who the hell is going to be drag racing their CX-5 out in the real world? the 2018 model has improved transmission mapping which makes it feel faster to the average driver even though it's not. that's all that matters out in the real world.
 
shadonoz said:
If it's not the "driver's cuv" now, what is [under $35k] ????

I've never driven a Gen1, but if the throttle mapping is improved, who cares if Gen2's a tad slower? Isn't driveability more important than drags?

I don't understand the rivalry between KE and KF owners. They are what they are. We should all be one big happy family. And like most families, don't we just love to argue!
Click to expand...

I think it still is the driver's CUV in its category, but some publications no longer think so, probably because it is slowly getting slower every time a new model comes out.

It is inevitable, this is a side effect of their move to go "premium". They just need to drop the 2.5T engine into the CX-5, or the new SkyActiv-X engine and it should rediscover its zoom-zoom.
 
shadonoz said:
If it's not the "driver's cuv" now, what is [under $35k] ????

I've never driven a Gen1, but if the throttle mapping is improved, who cares if Gen2's a tad slower? Isn't driveability more important than drags?

I don't understand the rivalry between KE and KF owners. They are what they are. We should all be one big happy family. And like most families, don't we just love to argue!
Click to expand...

well, they will continue to argue for whatever reason. owners who got used to their gen 1 will hate on the gen 2 (which looks 10x better and more premium than the first gen) and then owners who grown accustomed to their gen 2 always wonder what is so special about the gen 1, which makes sense.

and then we got owners like ColoradoDriver, who writes for days on end about how much he loves his 2014 Gen 1 and how it's the best CX-5, or CUV for that matter in the whole world.

finch204 said:
There's that yeah. The fuel economy numbers in Fuelly for the 2017 and up models don't look good. Maybe that's why they're adding cylinder deactivation to the 2018 model LOL.

It really is the "cheap" driver's CUV in its category, namely mainstream CUVs.
Click to expand...

that's because the the CX-5 is too heavy and high-up for it's powerplant. take a look at what MPG figures the Mazda 6 manages using the identical engine. 31 VS 38 mpg. that is a substantial difference. all you CX-5 owners better have a damn good reason to be pissing away that much fuel savings on the highway just to sit higher up.

finch204 said:
I think it still is the driver's CUV in its category, but some publications no longer think so, probably because it is slowly getting slower every time a new model comes out.

It is inevitable, this is a side effect of their move to go "premium". They just need to drop the 2.5T engine into the CX-5, or the new SkyActiv-X engine and it should rediscover its zoom-zoom.
Click to expand...

those publications can think whatever they want, because the RAV-4, santa fe, CRV and whatever is NOT better than the CX-5.

we will never, ever hear the end of this. everyone whines over and over again about how mazda is too sporty, too no-frills for the average consumer so they up luxury levels and increase comfort, and then we just have the drivers who appreciate sports driving complaining how Mazda is becoming too soft and premium. we will never hear the end of this, and it is getting ridiculous.
 
finch204 said:
There's that yeah. The fuel economy numbers in Fuelly for the 2017 and up models don't look good. Maybe that's why they're adding cylinder deactivation to the 2018 model LOL.

It really is the "cheap" driver's CUV in its category, namely mainstream CUVs.
Click to expand...

2017 not as bad as I thought 25.2 vs 26.1 for 2016..

2018 is actually where disaster has apparently struck @22.5(wink)
 
Thanks for posting. I have found myself looking at CX-5's for the wifey.
 
Then you got guys like GJM that don't actually own the car, basically saying that it and the forum as a whole are trash and yet here you are @5.5 posts/day! I assume not all of them on the cx5 board, but dude?
 
I don't know why anyone would have expected the 2016 to not win. Basically the same motor and lighter. It's also got the added advantage of being broken in as well.

That said, people need to stop acting like it's some night and day difference. Neither is particularly fast at the drag strip (nor is it remotely this vehicle's prime design directive, in either generation).

6529b13d6ba1c19708168783a09e6bc556ae1c1696a34b6a9156699a4c033247.jpg
 
shadonoz said:
The CX-5 NEVER WAS a "driver's car". It's always been a CUV, and a slow one at that. It drives better than any other CUV in its price range, but that's setting a pretty low bar.
Gen1 is a bit faster and has less agressive stability control than Gen2, but it's still just a slow, fat wagon.
Now it's quieter and more comfortable, and a slightly, just slightly, slower and fatter wagon.
And I love it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The Gen1 CX-5 was always aimed at the folks who needed a CUV but still wanted something built for the driver. And it accomplishes that. It's exactly why I bought a CX-5 and everything else in the CUV space was marked off my list (in the same price range). And it's why I am not keen on Gen2's. I sat in one and it felt like it was trying to be like the other CUV's with it's design.

Quit calling the CX-5 a wagon. I think some of you need your eyes checked if you can't differentiate a wagon from a hatchback from a CUV based off a hatchback (not a wagon).
 
Last edited:
GJ-Molestor said:
well, they will continue to argue for whatever reason. owners who got used to their gen 1 will hate on the gen 2 (which looks 10x better and more premium than the first gen) and then owners who grown accustomed to their gen 2 always wonder what is so special about the gen 1, which makes sense.

and then we got owners like ColoradoDriver, who writes for days on end about how much he loves his 2014 Gen 1 and how it's the best CX-5, or CUV for that matter in the whole world.
Click to expand...

So? I am allowed to have my opinions. I personally feel like the Gen2's look 10x worse. I really do not like their exterior redesign AT ALL. Not too mention all that freaking chrome they added.

And most of all, I never was in the market for a luxury vehicle or something pretending to be one.

I also have a real handbrake, shifter design I like, cloth seats in a Touring (my preferred type of seat), Kodo swoop, and perfect feeling/dynamics for me.

And then we got GJ-Molestor who doesn't have a CX-5 posting in the CX-5 forum... (scratch)

Oh and I thought the Mazda 6 was your Dad's car? (lol2)

GJ-Molestor said:
all you CX-5 owners better have a damn good reason to be pissing away that much fuel savings on the highway just to sit higher up.
Click to expand...

That's reason enough for me. If that's not good enough for you, then you can go fly a kite.
 
Last edited:
Well duh. Of course the 2016 would beat the 2018. It weighs less even though power and torque are essentially the same give or take a few hp/ft lbs
 
ColoradoDriver said:
I personally feel like the Gen2's look 10x worse. I really do not like their exterior redesign AT ALL
Click to expand...

Yeah but given how you feel about wagons, I'm going to have to take your opinions on style and design with a very large grain of salt :p (poke)
 
J.R. said:
Yeah but given how you feel about wagons, I'm going to have to take your opinions on style and design with a very large grain of salt :p (poke)
Click to expand...

If people confuse wagons with hatchbacks and CUV's based off of hatchback, I think they are going to need their eyes checked :p
 
The fuel economy you get is directly related to your foot. These engines are very particular with regards to throttle position. I noticed that right away.
 
Puyapim said:
The fuel economy you get is directly related to your foot. These engines are very particular with regards to throttle position. I noticed that right away.
Click to expand...

Always been that way. The more leadfoot one is, the worse the fuel economy will be.
 
Xeler8ing said:
Always been that way. The more leadfoot one is, the worse the fuel economy will be.
Click to expand...

True but the SkyActiv engine seems to be a lot more sensitive to the right foot. The real time meter in the info screen shows this. Just take some slight pressure off the throttle and watch the needle swing to the right.
 
Puyapim said:
True but the SkyActiv engine seems to be a lot more sensitive to the right foot. The real time meter in the info screen shows this. Just take some slight pressure off the throttle and watch the needle swing to the right.
Click to expand...

Something for me to pay attention to when I get mine :)
 
ColoradoDriver said:
Incorrect.

The Gen1 CX-5 was always aimed at the folks who needed a CUV but still wanted something built for the driver. And it accomplishes that. It's exactly why I bought a CX-5 and everything else in the CUV space was marked off my list (in the same price range). And it's why I am not keen on Gen2's. I sat in one and it felt like it was trying to be like the other CUV's with it's design.

Quit calling the CX-5 a wagon. I think some of you need your eyes checked if you can't differentiate a wagon from a hatchback from a CUV based off a hatchback (not a wagon).
Click to expand...

Actually, correct.

Hatchbacks and wagons are styles of car bodies. Wagons generally have longer rooflines and more upright rear hatches, but are otherwise basically the same as hatchbacks. When the first hatchbacks came out, they were marketed to people who wanted the "utility" of a wagon. But "wagons" had gone out of style, and fastbacks were "cool", so hatchbacks were designed. CUVs are raised wagons/hatchbacks with taller bodies, but still based on car unibody platforms [whereas SUVs are body on frame].

The CX-5 is a CUV, which is a fat, taller, raised hatchback or wagon, depending on how you look at that beautiful fat bootie.

But who cares what you call it. It seems like you've got that old American antipathy to "station wagons".

I'm really glad you love your 14, CD. Don't let anybody rain on your parade. Yours was the sportiest mid-priced CUV in 14. The CX-5 still is. But it ain't now and never was a "driver's car". It is, and was, the best CUV for people who like driving, a "driver's CUV" if you must. Which is probably the ultimate reason that any of us bought ours instead of one of those other brands.
 
Puyapim said:
The fuel economy you get is directly related to your foot. These engines are very particular with regards to throttle position. I noticed that right away.
Click to expand...

True of every car in the universe!
 
ColoradoDriver said:
If people confuse wagons with hatchbacks and CUV's based off of hatchback, I think they are going to need their eyes checked :p
Click to expand...

Nobody's confusing how they look. CUVs are raised and taller. People don't want to be seen in a minivan or a wagon these days. Styles come and go. But I'm eager to hear why you think CUVs are based on hatchbacks as opposed to wagons, when hatchbacks and wagons are virtually the same thing. Except to your eyes, of course.

Is there an ugly wagon story in your history?! ;)
 
shadonoz said:
Nobody's confusing how they look. CUVs are raised and taller. People don't want to be seen in a minivan or a wagon these days. Styles come and go. But I'm eager to hear why you think CUVs are based on hatchbacks as opposed to wagons, when hatchbacks and wagons are virtually the same thing. Except to your eyes, of course.

Is there an ugly wagon story in your history?! ;)
Click to expand...
Subaru Outbacks growing up [emoji14]
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
New 2024 CX-5 Build and Upgrades
Replies
6
Views
5K
gazelle
G
DG_1234
    • Like
Which 2024 CX-5 Trim level to buy today?
2
Replies
26
Views
8K
N7turbo
N7turbo
M
New 2023 CX-5 Turbo Signature for $40k vs Used 2022 Turbo Signature for $36k?
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
yamahaha
Y

Latest posts

Back