Drag race : Mazda Cx5 2016 vs 2018

Monterra said:
In mine gearing is almost meaningless if the vehicle is torqued properly. The 2.5g has very good bottom end torque output for an atmo4.
Click to expand...

Lol, it is a sliding scale going both ways. Use gearing or use output. The result is identical in my experience on the street, as one would expect, because torque is simply what the tires and pavement see, and neither care if it's from leverage or initial force, much as a bucket does not care if it is lifted by a strong man and a simple pulley, or a child with a complex pulley.
 
Unobtanium said:
To be fair, the 2.5 SA has a very good torque curve for a 4 cylinder na engine.
Click to expand...

True but it can only do so much when you add the extra weight to the vehicle (soundproofing, features etc).

Hence the 2.5 in the CX-9 has the addition of the turbo.

Could you imagine a 2.5 NA trying to haul the CX-9's weight (uhm)

I should also add I keep on forgetting to also include/add driver and/or passenger(s) weights to the equation ontop of the increased weight of the CX-5 itself.
 
Last edited:
All I am saying is if engine/transmission specs and it's execution etc are the basically same for Gen 1 and Gen 2 then the difference in performance could be tied to the increase in weight of the Gen 2
 
I think its still ok for what it is..but ahh the cost of refinement & sound deadening eh?..we knew this would happen Mike M!
 
Almost a full second to 60 lapse is bs imo..lets get 2 equal spec cx5s on the same track and watch oh nevermind its maybe a half sec not imperceivible but nothing to bam about either really other than that it went the wrong way.
 
Coming from a 2016 CX5, even though on paper it is quicker than my 2017 CX5, I really prefer the 2017. The refinement, ride quality, interior quietness, etc. is worth it to me to lose the on paper speed.

Which is strange as the 2017 feels faster than the 2016. The 2016 felt slower and not as responsive as the 2017 feels.

I know what the CX5 is and what it is not. It's not a sports car and it doesn't cost $50k+ like a sports CUV would. For $26k, it is a well optioned packaged CUV that is fun to drive, reliable and highly optioned.
 
Monterra said:
Almost a full second to 60 lapse is bs imo..lets get 2 equal spec cx5s on the same track and watch oh nevermind its maybe a half sec not imperceivible but nothing to bam about either really other than that it went the wrong way.
Click to expand...

What's the fastest 2017 or 2018 tested? For pre 17, it was 7.6 seconds iirc
 
Lbear said:
Coming from a 2016 CX5, even though on paper it is quicker than my 2017 CX5, I really prefer the 2017. The refinement, ride quality, interior quietness, etc. is worth it to me to lose the on paper speed.

Which is strange as the 2017 feels faster than the 2016. The 2016 felt slower and not as responsive as the 2017 feels.

I know what the CX5 is and what it is not. It's not a sports car and it doesn't cost $50k+ like a sports CUV would. For $26k, it is a well optioned packaged CUV that is fun to drive, reliable and highly optioned.
Click to expand...

The used cx5 represents an awesome cross section of durability, economy, and functionality.
 
Same day, same spec, same size/cond. stock rubber, same fuel, same driver I don't think this diff will be north of 0.4 and would bet on gen2 given anything over 0.5. Variables abound is my point and yeah best vs worst you could say it lost almost a full second to 60 wtf!..but its wrong. I would still like to know what the gen1 vs 2 unsprung weight delta is..the tire itself gained ~1lb.
 
Last edited:
i know these cars are relatively fun to drive and all, and some other competitors use turbos, but damn guys it's a CUV--if you want a true sporty car that's fun to drive then this isn't it! not even sure why 0-60 is relevant here, most of what this car will be doing at most is taking turns which it does very well, better than the competition
 
Carfo said:
i know these cars are relatively fun to drive and all, and some other competitors use turbos, but damn guys it's a CUV--if you want a true sporty car that's fun to drive then this isn't it! not even sure why 0-60 is relevant here, most of what this car will be doing at most is taking turns which it does very well, better than the competition
Click to expand...
Most of us know this. We are enthusiasts. We just like to talk about cars. [emoji38]
 
Unobtanium said:
In my experience, torque is meaningless if the vehicle is geared properly, which the cx5 is in my opinion.
Click to expand...

If all you care about is maximum acceleration, then yes, torque is meaningless if the vehicle is geared properly. Horsepower/weight wins. But I spend <1% of my time with the pedal to the metal, so to me, low end torque is good.
 
7eregrine said:
Most of us know this. We are enthusiasts. We just like to talk about cars. [emoji38]
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Also, even though it's a cuv, the redesign got slower, stops longer, and handles corners at a lower limit, while losing an inch of ground clearance. I don't care if it's a dump truck, that's not something any company strives for in their auto.
 
Red MC said:
If all you care about is maximum acceleration, then yes, torque is meaningless if the vehicle is geared properly. Horsepower/weight wins. But I spend <1% of my time with the pedal to the metal, so to me, low end torque is good.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ColoradoDriver said:
Ok, 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)
Click to expand...

lol. My wife says it the same way, too. Maybe because she watches a lot of BBC dramas. [She's pure American.]

Whenever she says it, I respond with "to each their own".

Remember the good old days when it was "to each HIS own"????!!
 
Xeler8ing said:
The 2.5 is better suited to Mazda 3 and Mazda 6

There could be other issues too but unless Mazda says something then probably extra weight is the issue.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
9K
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