Man I hate driving my CX-5

Unobtanium said:
My 0-60 was about 10.5 seconds on clean ,dry pavement with no spin, in 15*F-ish weather.
Click to expand...

I don't have a CX-5T, but holy crap man, a 0-60 time of over ten seconds? That is sooooo not acceptable.
If I owned that thing here in Canada, and had that kind of performance during our 5 month long winters, I'd be parked at the dealership 24/7 demanding a fix.
For the price you paid?
That is just not right.
 
BrentJustice said:
Everyone is different, everyone's needs are different.

I personally don't need the turbo on the CX-5. I'm not a race car driver, I don't take my car onto the track. I need a reliable, good powered, well drivable, good gas milleage car. Unlike many here, I actually feel the default engine on the 2017+ CX-5 is powerful enough. Especially compared to previous vehicles I've owned, this one has the most horsepower and torque I've ever owned. Therefore, it is all relative, and our history of cars we drive does influence the need or desire for more horsepower and torque. I'm thoroughly impressed by the naturally aspirated engine and its power from a start. I have plenty of take-off power and plenty of power on the freeway. /shrug

Three negatives that swayed me away from a turbo on my new 2019 I just bought is that it is more expensive to buy the car, second, the gas mileage is technically better on the natural aspirated, third long term maintenance could be more expensive and require it more frequently with a turbo. I'm sure it's reliable, but ultimately it could be more costly for owning a car long-term. There are more parts that can wear out, or fail, and thus cost more money, plus the natural progression of having that much compression and pressure on the engine long term, it could potentially mean more maintenance.

For those that chose that, that's great, and all that matters is that you are happy.

I just wanted to make this post to propose an alternate view about needing or wanting a Turbo on the CX-5. For me, I'm happier without the Turbo for those three reasons above.

If you really want to talk about an anemic car, drive the new Forester. I test drove it the other day for comparison, and it is completely underpowered, to the extreme. I floored it and barely anything happened. That poor 2.5i boxer they have in there is just hilariously underpowered. That car needs the turbo, the fact they removed the XT turbo engine in the 2019 model was a stupid, stupid, decision. Comparing the power of that car, to my CX-5 is night and day. So there is certainly worse out there that does NEED a turbo.

Hope everyone has a great day
Click to expand...

I have a 19 GT and for the most part agree with you as far as adequate power but man the turbo is night and day better. Much more effortless while the 2.5 needs to be caned to run. Also a lot more downshifting going on with the NA motor. If I could have made a comparable deal on a turbo, it would be sitting in my garage right now. I just couldn't justify the premium they wanted for it. If I buy next time, it will be a GTR for sure.
 
chickdr said:
I have a 19 GT and for the most part agree with you as far as adequate power but man the turbo is night and day better. Much more effortless while the 2.5 needs to be caned to run. Also a lot more downshifting going on with the NA motor. If I could have made a comparable deal on a turbo, it would be sitting in my garage right now. I just couldn't justify the premium they wanted for it. If I buy next time, it will be a GTR for sure.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I've made peace with mine. It's adequate, just not exciting. Not exceptional, like the rest of the car is.

The next time you or I buy, there will be something even better than today's turbo, too. Even if it's just tomorrow's turbo. :)
 
shadonoz said:
Agreed, but I've made peace with mine. It's adequate, just not exciting. Not exceptional, like the rest of the car is.

The next time you or I buy, there will be something even better than today's turbo, too. Even if it's just tomorrow's turbo. :)
Click to expand...

Motor Trend has the CX-5 AWD's 0-60 at 8.3 seconds. Good enough for me. My previous vehicles have been quicker, but they have had six and eight cylinder engines. The standard 2.5L won't win any races, but it's also about 7,000 dollars less and doesn't have the complexity of additional turbocharger and intercooler components. Which might lead one to want to purchase... the dreaded extended warranty (cha-ching).

If you're buying a more expensive CX, the resale value is accordingly higher, which does help offset some of the price difference.
 
BrentJustice said:
Everyone is different, everyone's needs are different.

I personally don't need the turbo on the CX-5. I'm not a race car driver, I don't take my car onto the track.
Click to expand...

When I was shopping, I read some comments about the NA lacking power, so I went back for another test drive paying particular attention to my ability to pass on the highway. My exact words were "I don't see what everyone's talking about. It does fine."

I got the turbo because I only buy a new car every 15 years, I'm in a rural area where I'm always moving, and I pass on a lot of single lane 55MPH roads. If I still lived in the suburbs of DC, I would own the NA model...the turbo would literally be a waste of money.
 
ruthrj said:
Lol, here I am put-putting along in my 13 2 liter. Its a perfect commuter, and it handles curvy hilly roads very nicely. Will it shoot up these tall hills in Northern Alabama? Nope. But it handles confidently and gets 32 mpg to and from work :D
Click to expand...

Ha, I had the same thought after reading the original post. I've had my 2014 for over a year and I'm averaging 34mpg. This out of an SUV with no hybrid craziness, no soul-sucking CVT, no LRR tires, nothing. Just a well-designed 4 banger and, in my case, a manual transmission.

Now, once I drive the CX-5 for a weekend then get back into my 3 with the same size engine, less horsepower, and over 200k miles on it, it does make the 3 feel a bit quicker. :)
 
The turbo sure feels get when time to accelerate. Zoom-Zoom. 5,100 miles today's trip 24.5mpg on regular. Anyone with Turbo check mileage with premium gas...250hp?

My first car was 63 1/2 Ford Galaxie XL with a 427 cubic inch engine, 2 4 barrel carbs, and solid lifters. The mileage was 8 miles per gallon but gas was like .30/gallon. I used to put in $2.00 at a time and make it to the next gas station. Sure was fun until it was stolen 6 months later. It was found in pieces but the engine was gone. Went a different direction and bought a used 1960 MGA for $1,100 in 1964 and a new 15ft boat with 65hp Mercury with the insurance money.

To be young again.

Signature is a nice driving SUV with great handling and good power. I have no complaints and would recommend it to anyone. looking for a suv under $40,000.
 
Last edited:
Hi All...new forum member, but previously owned a Tribute. Have started looking for a replacement for my VW GTI and have been researching CX-5s, but was greeted by a bunch of negatives wrt the acceleration capabilities. After reading this thread you guys have helped me to make up my mind (2.5L Turbo). Trading in the GTI because I need a more comfortable and larger vehicle, but I just can*t bring myself to drive an underpowered car. Anyway...just wanted to say thanks to all for the info!
 
Chevyrelic said:
Hi All...new forum member, but previously owned a Tribute. Have started looking for a replacement for my VW GTI and have been researching CX-5s, but was greeted by a bunch of negatives wrt the acceleration capabilities. After reading this thread you guys have helped me to make up my mind (2.5L Turbo). Trading in the GTI because I need a more comfortable and larger vehicle, but I just can*t bring myself to drive an underpowered car. Anyway...just wanted to say thanks to all for the info!
Click to expand...

The RAV4 Hybrid gets up and goes pretty quickly, too. Less than 8 second 0-60 time. An XSE is pricey though at like $37k but not much price difference vs the CX-5 Signature trim.
 
Chevyrelic said:
Hi All...new forum member, but previously owned a Tribute. Have started looking for a replacement for my VW GTI and have been researching CX-5s, but was greeted by a bunch of negatives wrt the acceleration capabilities. After reading this thread you guys have helped me to make up my mind (2.5L Turbo). Trading in the GTI because I need a more comfortable and larger vehicle, but I just can*t bring myself to drive an underpowered car. Anyway...just wanted to say thanks to all for the info!
Click to expand...

I also liked the RDX a lot when we were test driving. Ultimately, I thought the signature was the best value out there.
 
kkim said:
I also liked the RDX a lot when we were test driving. Ultimately, I thought the signature was the best value out there.
Click to expand...

Be glad you opted for the Mazda, The RDX would have driven you crazy. Our 2nd gen 2016 (leased new) was a POS from the get go. Lots of build quality issues and the transmission simply sucked. We had a 3rd generation loaner for a week and put a lot of miles on it. Didn't like the new 10-sp transmission either. Very finicky infotainment as well. I will say the overall sound system quality isn't as good as the top of the line system we had in the Acura but then again, the Acura was $43K in 2016.
 
chickdr said:
Be glad you opted for the Mazda, The RDX would have driven you crazy. Our 2nd gen 2016 (leased new) was a POS from the get go. Lots of build quality issues and the transmission simply sucked. We had a 3rd generation loaner for a week and put a lot of miles on it. Didn't like the new 10-sp transmission either. Very finicky infotainment as well. I will say the overall sound system quality isn't as good as the top of the line system we had in the Acura but then again, the Acura was $43K in 2016.
Click to expand...

The sound system was amazing and I was intrigued by sh-awd. Ultimately, though, I liked the Mazda handling. Mazda just tells you how a car should handle. Acura was trying to Disconnect your from the road and be anything you wanted it to be. I just didn*t trust it.
 
CX_FIVER said:
The turbo sure feels get when time to accelerate. Zoom-Zoom. 5,100 miles today's trip 24.5mpg on regular. Anyone with Turbo check mileage with premium gas...250hp?
Click to expand...


I consistently get 1 MPG more out of 93 than I did out of 87. I keep close tabs of my mileage by brand/by octane in a spreadsheet.

That slightly narrows the cost between the two, and since a couple of folks here have stated that the way the engine timing changes for high octane also helps with oil dilution (some others disagree), and because there are a few roads around here where I cannot resist winding the thing out in 3rd gear, I always use 93.
 
Avoidin Deer said:
I consistently get 1 MPG more out of 93 than I did out of 87. I keep close tabs of my mileage by brand/by octane in a spreadsheet.

That slightly narrows the cost between the two, and since a couple of folks here have stated that the way the engine timing changes for high octane also helps with oil dilution (some others disagree), and because there are a few roads around here where I cannot resist winding the thing out in 3rd gear, I always use 93.
Click to expand...

So you're getting approx 4% better mileage, right? I don't know what gas costs where you live, but here premium is approx 11% more expensive.

Slightly narrows the cost, as you say, but may well be worth it for some... like you. :) It's less costly than I would have thought, based on those numbers.

C'mon, turbo owners. Break out your stop watches and let's see some informal testing!
 
shadonoz said:
So you're getting approx 4% better mileage, right? I don't know what gas costs where you live, but here premium is approx 11% more expensive.

Slightly narrows the cost, as you say, but may well be worth it for some... like you. :) It's less costly than I would have thought, based on those numbers.

C'mon, turbo owners. Break out your stop watches and let's see some informal testing!
Click to expand...

Here's the current spread:

87 Octane: $2.72
93 Octane: $3.02

Price for 300 miles worth of gas, at their respective mileages at today's respective prices:
87 Octane: $35.96
93 Octane: $37.40

So a 300 mile tank of gas currently costs an extra $1.44 for 93 octane.

My spreadsheet is set up so I can enter the current price of 87 and 93 to see what that tank-cost spread is. At one time the "300 mile's worth" spread approached $5...that was an abnormally high differential when prices went wacky this summer. I stopped worrying about the cost a while ago and have stuck with 93 since the middle of June (2 months into ownership).

Being retired and living where I do, I'm on track to put less than 10,000 miles/year on my CX-5. The extra $$$ for 93 aren't gonna kill me. And there's this one stretch of winding, hilly country road I'm on every so often that my car begs to be put into Manual transmission mode and given an Italian tune-up! I just can't seem to refuse...
 
Avoidin Deer said:
Here's the current spread:

87 Octane: $2.72
93 Octane: $3.02

Price for 300 miles worth of gas, at their respective mileages at today's respective prices:
87 Octane: $35.96
93 Octane: $37.40

So a 300 mile tank of gas currently costs an extra $1.44 for 93 octane.

My spreadsheet is set up so I can enter the current price of 87 and 93 to see what that tank-cost spread is. At one time the "300 mile's worth" spread approached $5...that was an abnormally high differential when prices went wacky this summer. I stopped worrying about the cost a while ago and have stuck with 93 since the middle of June (2 months into ownership).

Being retired and living where I do, I'm on track to put less than 10,000 miles/year on my CX-5. The extra $$$ for 93 aren't gonna kill me. And there's this one stretch of winding, hilly country road I'm on every so often that my car begs to be put into Manual transmission mode and given an Italian tune-up! I just can't seem to refuse...
Click to expand...
right..at a .30 cent difference and getting 1 MPG more with 93 octane, driving 10k miles a year will cost about $75 more.
I'm at about 2k miles on my GTR all with 87. I wanted to measure my MPG for a while before I switched to 93. So far I'm averaging 28 MPG.
 
Interesting how much the spread varies. There's a big difference in fuel price between grades around here. Of course, prices can change very quickly.

Kfp86fn.jpg
 
If you're cheap like me, use the Gasbuddy app when traveling long distances so you can avoid the overpriced stations. It's not going to save you any real money, but some stations charge way higher than market rates. I stick with name brand, top tier fuel.
 
$2.09 this morning for 87, $2.39 for 93. Only offer 87, 89, 93 at most stations here, a few do 91 and even 110.

Glad to see them close the gap on the premium some as I miss the $.10 increments between the two. $.15 is the lowest increment I've seen in awhile, and even around here, that is not the norm, it's normally $.50 cent more a gallon now for premium.

All in all, it's another plus to buy a 2.5T as any other turbo car I've had would jump down the road like a frog and rip the engine mounts out if you tried to run 87.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
2024 Test Drive: CX-5, Outback and Forester
Replies
3
Views
608
yrwei52
yrwei52
R
  • Question
New CX-5 Pre Test Drive Question
Replies
3
Views
560
Bulldog Dad
B
I
  • Question
Pre-purchase help 2020 CX-5 Turbo?
Replies
9
Views
584
Mazdiod2
Mazdiod2

Latest posts

Back