Maybe but it's essentially the same thingOk, I have to ask. Is this the Aussie way of saying "to each their own"? This forum is the only time I have ever seen it said in this order of words. (thumb)
Last edited:
Maybe but it's essentially the same thingOk, I have to ask. Is this the Aussie way of saying "to each their own"? This forum is the only time I have ever seen it said in this order of words. (thumb)
Maybe but it's essentially the same thing
It is. Just my inquisitive mind wondering. I don't mean anything by it.
I always like your perspectives Xeler8! (thumb)
Interesting observation.
I'm a little late to the party, but my following .02C worth is not scientifically or technically based.
It is based purely on my butt dyno:
When shopping for a new ride last fall, I/we were already leaning towards a sedan vs. CUV.
To be fair though, I test drove the CX-5 as well as the 6, back to back.
The difference was noticeable.
The CX-5 felt heavier (which it is), slower (which it probably is), less athletic and spirited.
The 6 is also not as tall, so it's centre of gravity is lower, which makes a big difference turning corners.
The 4 banger in the 6 is more than adequate, but the CX-5 somehow felt underwhelming after driving the 6.
I really wanted to love the CX-5, and would still choose it over the competition if I was buying a midsize CUV, but compared to the lighter 6, it left me wanting for more.
Like others have said, if Mazda could somehow be convinced to drop the turbo in the CX-5, it would put the competition to shame.
I honestly don't notice much difference in daily driving with similar hp vehicles with over 100# torque difference. I was quite shocked. My 370z and ws.6 felt darn near the same when driven the same way. The only difference is the 370 was geared much more aggressively , so shifting was more frequent when puttering around.
Naturally aspirated 4cyl gas engines have very little torque at the low RPMs they cruise at for best fuel economy. So IMO their throttle response when cruising feels really soft. And even light acceleration to adjust for traffic often involves a downshift. Same for going up hills.
The diesel cars I've driven have some torque reserve on tap even at cruising RPM, so the throttle feels more responsive and there is less hesitation and downshifting. Some of the gas turbos tuned for low end are like that too, e.g. CX-9.
Yeah, agreed, but I'm still impressed with the 2.5 SA g making max torque at 3200ish rpm. That's v8 style.
That may have been the case for Gen 1 for you guys.
Over here it's always been 4000rpm for AWD (Gen 1 & Gen 2)
3200rpm is for FWD for you guys and AWD is 4000rpm like the rest of us
There's no market. Disproportionate or not. Manual transmissions make up 3% of the US Market. 3...percent. Face it, dinosaurs...the writing is on the wall.
The disappearing stick shift: Less than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
http://www.latimes.com/business/aut...-disappearing-stick-shift-20161115-story.html
Though I agree, they should. You can't blame them.
The last few manuals I've owned (the last was a 2012 MINI Paceman), they screwed with 1st and 2nd gear tuning, dropping the power so that idiots wouldn't dump the clutch and shred up the low gears. And I've heard from numerous drivers that most manufacturers do that now. One car I had tuned that mostly got rid of it, but not completely. Totally ruined the 3-pedal experience for me. That combined with hitting parking lots on the interstate every day on my work commute just killed any desire I had to bang gears. And believe me, up until then I loathed slush-o-matics. I'd still much rather be able to enjoy driving a stick, but I don't where I do most of my driving.