Car and Driver 2019 CX5 article.

Can someone please advise whom the 2019 Car & Driver best Compact SUV and Mid-Size SUV winners are? (headbang)

Thanks!!
 
I rented a new Ford Explorer and the sound system in that vehicle was WAY better than the Bose in my 2017 CX5. The Explorer radio system was so crisp and balanced, it blew me away. One of the best stereos I have ever listened to inside a vehicle. When I went back to drive my CX5, it was a downgrade for sure. Not sure what system Ford uses, in house or Nsync or something like that.

New Fords are pretty much all using Bang & Olufsen systems now. You would have seen B&O logos on the grills. If it was more than a couple of years old it would have been a Sony.
 
To their credit, Bose makes paper cones sound pretty good. Its their sound signature which is more catered to say Orchestra music of news talk radio.

Some of the best sounding drivers in the world are paper cone. It's all in how the paper is treated. Speaker design is a battle of stiffness (to prevent distortion from cone flex) vs. weight (which affects the driver's ability to start and stop precisely and thus accurately reproduce transients). A good paper design can still offer a better stiffness to weight ratio than many other materials. The problem with Bose is that they don't use *good* paper cones, they use cheap wax treated ones. The wax doesn't enhance stiffness so much as it simply prevents rot. Bose's whole design ethos is to compensate for the use of cheap materials with digital signal processing. To some extent it works, but it's bad design philosophy from an engineering perspective and there are some things you can't just DSP your way out of. This is why the CX-5 system sounds "alright" at lower volumes but completely falls apart if you play it even moderately loud.
 
I'd be pretty happy with an eventual 2.5L version of the 'X' motor in that config (cool)

I wonder if a turbo SkyActiv-X will make it to market? If performance could be maintained...what MPG improvements there would be compared to 2.5T?
 
I wonder if a turbo SkyActiv-X will make it to market? If performance could be maintained...what MPG improvements there would be compared to 2.5T?

Much of the articles I read regarding magazine staff testing and Mazda reps regarding the 2.0 version was that it pulled almost like a 2.5 but with slightly better mpgs than current gen 2.0.

2.5X may be comparable to the RAV4's Hybrid in terms of power and but should be lower in MPGs....but should be cheaper?
 
Much of the articles I read regarding magazine staff testing and Mazda reps regarding the 2.0 version was that it pulled almost like a 2.5 but with slightly better mpgs than current gen 2.0.

2.5X may be comparable to the RAV4's Hybrid in terms of power and but should be lower in MPGs....but should be cheaper?


Yeah, I think that was the rumor but MPG is supposed to be even better with the new mild hybrid for low RPM conditions. With gas prices what they are, the USA might not see the Sky-X til 2020. Mazda said it will be sold first in countries with higher gas prices first (ie. Europe and China).
 
"Alex On Autos" review recorded 6.4 sec 0-60 time. Not sure what octane gas though, probably 93 but maybe not. This guy is really obsessed with putting wider tires on the CX-5. I don't think it's a huge deal, but I do kind of wish they were 1 size wider, they seem a tiny bit narrow for a vehicle this size.
 
Yeah...he did kinda went on diatribe about the handling and tires.

For good reason. The same skinny wheel/rubber you find on a base model 2.0L 155tq from 2013 are on a 310TQ version. That's poor from power delivery and handling perspective. Once you upgrade your wheel and tire you will understand the difference even 1" wider a wheel can make on handling and grip. I like this guy.. he actually mentioned gearing and acceleration. I notice a lot of these reviewers just cover gimmicks or useuless stuff like driving around in circles in the snow.. and don't talk about actual performance
 
Last edited:
For good reason. The same skinny wheel/rubber you find on a base model 2.0L 155tq from 2013 are on a 310TQ version. That's poor from power delivery and handling perspective. Once you upgrade your wheel and tire you will understand the difference even 1" wider a wheel can make on handling and grip. I like this guy.. he actually mentioned gearing and acceleration. I notice a lot of these reviewers just cover gimmicks or useuless stuff like driving around in circles in the snow.. and don't talk about actual performance

Yeah, Mazda's in general are all under-tired. The stock wheels on the CX-5 look way to skinny and tucked in.
 
For good reason. The same skinny wheel/rubber you find on a base model 2.0L 155tq from 2013 are on a 310TQ version. That's poor from power delivery and handling perspective. Once you upgrade your wheel and tire you will understand the difference even 1" wider a wheel can make on handling and grip. I like this guy.. he actually mentioned gearing and acceleration. I notice a lot of these reviewers just cover gimmicks or useuless stuff like driving around in circles in the snow.. and don't talk about actual performance

Got it. I know I'm the minority here...but if I'm really concerned about the drive/handling...I wouldn't buy the CX-5. I'll spend the extra $$$ for that performance on an a different vehicle, like the RDX.

But there are so much more features on the CX-5 that appeal to me that I'd pick it over the RDX. Just my .02
 
New forum member here. Probably coming home to Mazda after 20 years with Acura. The new RDX is too long, wide, and has too much bling for me so the CX-5 Signature seems ideal. Alex gives really balanced reviews that are driver focused. He*s likely right about the wheels (and maybe adding a couple more gears to the transmission) but I wonder how many owners will spend another $2k for wider wheels and better tires?
 
New forum member here. Probably coming home to Mazda after 20 years with Acura. The new RDX is too long, wide, and has too much bling for me so the CX-5 Signature seems ideal. Alex gives really balanced reviews that are driver focused. He*s likely right about the wheels (and maybe adding a couple more gears to the transmission) but I wonder how many owners will spend another $2k for wider wheels and better tires?

I won't spend $2K for wheels and tires, but it would only be $100 or $200 marginal difference if Mazda had made wider standard. I guess it adds up, and probably would reduce their fleet MPG.
 
"Alex On Autos" review recorded 6.4 sec 0-60 time. Not sure what octane gas though, probably 93 but maybe not. This guy is really obsessed with putting wider tires on the CX-5. I don't think it's a huge deal, but I do kind of wish they were 1 size wider, they seem a tiny bit narrow for a vehicle this size.

It annoyed me a little that he gave the 2019 a ride quality rating of "B-" when the 2017 received an "A" rating. Both vehicles have identical tires and suspension. I realize these ratings are subjective and that what other vehicles you have reviewed recently can and will color your perceptions. The brain can't help but make a comparative analysis with other recent experiences. But, Alex's review was one of the things I used to put myself at ease when I was concerned about stiff ride quality before I bought my 2017. His new B- rating seems quite a bit more on the money and I wish the 2017 review had been on the money in time for it to help my decision making.
 
I have a 2017 and the ride quality seems fine and A appropriate to me. Have not driven the upper trim 2019 yet and I also heard its a tad stiffer. I wouldnt mind that honestly.
 
Back