You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CX-5 vs. CR-V and Escape
- Thread starter ManMachine
- Start date
Im having a hard time deciding between the cx-5 and forester right now.
See my comparison of 11 SUV's in Australia including the Forester and CX-5.
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123815578-Wheels-Magazine-(AUS)-11-SUV-Mega-Test
Forester came 6th with 6.5/10 while Mazda CX-5 came 1st with 9/10.
Quote for the Forester:
"How the mighty have fallen. The one class leading Forester now finds itself in a mediocrity-sandwich between the Renault Koleos to the north and the Korean cousins from Hyundai and Kia in the south. And the Koreans are only a decent suspension tune and, in the case of the Kia, a better engine away from pushing the Forester south."
But more convincingly:
"Buyers will still default to the Forester on its past reputation, but it must rattle the brand when Mazda's first-time* attempt at a compact SUV beats it on almost every score"
* The definition for a compact SUV changed in Australia last year, and it excludes the CX-7 from being including in the same definition. So effectively, the CX-5 is the first attempt.
I'm surprised the Bose SS holds only one CD. The unit in my CX7 holds 6 CDs.
They changed the design shortly after the CX-7. The stackers were seem as a complicated, non required design.
Given that each CD can hold 10 CD's of music, and you can get endless CD's worth of music from the bluetooth, AUX and iPod connectivity... there is absolutely no requirement for a 6 stacker. And it also reduces warranty claims from the 6 stacker.
Likewise. I'm choosing the diesel for the high torque and hence good in-gear acceleration for overtaking.
Recent overtaking tests done with Compact SUV's in Australia in the June issue of Australia's highest selling car magazine, Wheels, showed that there was a massive differential on overtaking speeds.
They were so surprised by the Diesel's 5.7 second 80-120. They said it was faster that the very high selling Holden Commodore, which is a V6 powered sedan which has twice the power.
Thing is, that review is based on hard numbers it seems. Acceleration times, MPG, etc. While I don't discount those numbers, they are also for the diesel, which is not available to me. The numbers are also close enough that if one vehicle "feels" right to me, I place that at a higher importance than if its 0-60 time was 0.8 seconds slower (or whatever..) I still find the petrol CX-5 very attractive, but the "fit and feel" for me of the forester is pretty close to the CX-5 anyway. For example, I thought I would really like the rav4 but after driving one I found it to be completely boring, especially did not like the interior.
Anyway, I think the CX-5 is my favorite anyway, but numbers don't mean everything.
Anyway, I think the CX-5 is my favorite anyway, but numbers don't mean everything.
JordanLindsay
Member
- :
- 1992 Geo Metro
But CX-5 diesel is not significantly better from a measured/instrumented testing performance standpoint, despite torquey feel in regular driving. It does get much better MPG, that's a big difference in measured data. That's why economy aspect is played up.
Got some figures to explain this to be incorrect.
Wheels magazine is Australia did drag strip testing with identical driver and came up with this little summary:
0-100km/h:
Diesel 8.0 seconds
Petrol: 9.6 seconds
Overtaking: 80-120km/h.
Diesel: 5.7 seconds
Petrol 8.7 seconds
No comparison when done by experts.
Maybe some English or Germans can comment on their experiences when comparing the petrol and diesel. A second opinion would seal the deal here.
Last edited:
MarysCX-5GT
I thought I'd let you know that I ordered my GT five weeks ago and don't even have a VIN# yet. My dealer told me it would be 2-4 months for delivery. I think some dealers are off on their estimates for delivery. He said that some other dealers were quoting 4-6 weeks and were going to have some unhappy customers.
I thought I'd let you know that I ordered my GT five weeks ago and don't even have a VIN# yet. My dealer told me it would be 2-4 months for delivery. I think some dealers are off on their estimates for delivery. He said that some other dealers were quoting 4-6 weeks and were going to have some unhappy customers.
For those that want truly quick , here it is (since the topic is CX-5/CRV/Escape):
Per MT, the Escape 2.0Lturbo AWD tested out at 0-60mph in 6.8 seconds. Curb weight was a robust 3791 pounds, but the acceleration is sport sedan-like. Let's see if C&D and R&T has similar results.
Per MT, the Escape 2.0Lturbo AWD tested out at 0-60mph in 6.8 seconds. Curb weight was a robust 3791 pounds, but the acceleration is sport sedan-like. Let's see if C&D and R&T has similar results.
Last edited:
Got some figures to explain this to be incorrect.
Wheels magazine is Australia did drag strip testing with identical driver and came up with this little summary:
0-100km/h:
Diesel 8.0 seconds
Petrol: 9.6 seconds
Overtaking: 80-120km/h.
Diesel: 5.7 seconds
Petrol 8.7 seconds
No comparison when done by experts.
Maybe some English or Germans can comment on their experiences when comparing the petrol and diesel. A second opinion would seal the deal here.
Finally, thanks for some good info, even if this is a cherry-picked sample size of 1 diesel unit, from one source, subject to typos, production variations, selective variations due to tuning by the supplier/manufacturer (yes this does happen), etc. Surprise, surprise, this is the only source showing this much variation in measured acceleration 0-62mph, even Mazda UK only shows usual 1/2 second difference.
Again (as I said earlier), diesels in most cases show greater fuel efficiency gains (%) versus performance gains (%) in most common applications versus gasser alternatives. Regardless, plenty of truly high-performance engine SUVs are available (of which the CX-5 is not with any config) for those that want it.
Agreed, other sources will add good info too.
(I apologize to all others on this thread for allowing this to just be another thread derailed by the same old diesel discussion, now back to the CX-5/CRV/Escape topic.)
Last edited:
ManMachine
Member
Sport trim 6MT: 0-60 in 9.2 sec, tested by Car and Driver
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review
In comparison, C/D tested CR-V at 8.5 sec.
I think one thing is clear - you want high mileage, you have to give up straight line performance. There's no way around it. Turbos will not change that. Good thing the handling of the vehicle will make up for it.
In comparison, Mazda3 sedan with Skyactiv and 6mt takes 7.9 sec 0-60 by C/D, with 27/39 mpg rating. So, smaller/lighter will be better. the next Mazda3 should be a car to look forward to - in terms of design and perhaps improved performance/handling/efficiency.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review
In comparison, C/D tested CR-V at 8.5 sec.
I think one thing is clear - you want high mileage, you have to give up straight line performance. There's no way around it. Turbos will not change that. Good thing the handling of the vehicle will make up for it.
In comparison, Mazda3 sedan with Skyactiv and 6mt takes 7.9 sec 0-60 by C/D, with 27/39 mpg rating. So, smaller/lighter will be better. the next Mazda3 should be a car to look forward to - in terms of design and perhaps improved performance/handling/efficiency.
doughboy52
Contributor
- :
- 2013 CX-5 Touring FWD Sky Blue
Since everyone's discussing 0-60 on the CX-5 vs. some of its competition, I figured I'd mention this nice little blog post on fun cars I just read, on "The Unimportance of Speed."
A snippet of the post specifically mentions the CX-5:
"'Driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast.' Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess. We wait to welcome the FR-S and BR-Z with open arms, surely, but we also hail the CX-5 and the Sonic Turbo, the Kia Rio and the Volkswagen GLI."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/the-unimportance-of-speed/
I just test drove the CX-5 last week and it was, admittedly, a little slow out of the gate. But the thing drove like a dream and I can't wait to pull the trigger on one in a few months!
A snippet of the post specifically mentions the CX-5:
"'Driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast.' Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess. We wait to welcome the FR-S and BR-Z with open arms, surely, but we also hail the CX-5 and the Sonic Turbo, the Kia Rio and the Volkswagen GLI."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/the-unimportance-of-speed/
I just test drove the CX-5 last week and it was, admittedly, a little slow out of the gate. But the thing drove like a dream and I can't wait to pull the trigger on one in a few months!
Frisco CX-5
Member
- :
- 2016 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech
Just saw a commercial to boast the new Ford line: Focus, Fusion and Escape. One feature I noticed exclusively to the Escape was a feature when a man put his foot under the rear bumper and the lift gate opened. It seems like a pretty useful feature when your hands are full.
IMO Ford is, and has always, been geared around the luxuries in technology including SYNC and self parking monitors seen in the new Fusion.
Mazda has roots of style and gas efficiency. Loving my CX5
I imagine it would be fairly easy to damage the rear liftgate sensors over time, especially if you live in northern climates.
About the Escape foot activated lift gate. I can't speak for all spouses, but mine is not much of an acrobat, to the point where if it required doing the hokey pokey to get the gate to open I would likely find her lying behing the vehicle covered in whatever her hands had been full of at the moment of the attempt.
Brian
Brian
Finally, thanks for some good info, even if this is a cherry-picked sample size of 1 diesel unit, from one source, subject to typos, production variations, selective variations due to tuning by the supplier/manufacturer (yes this does happen), etc. Surprise, surprise, this is the only source showing this much variation in measured acceleration 0-62mph, even Mazda UK only shows usual 1/2 second difference.
The UK has two diesels. The poorer of the two outperforms the petrol, but only be a small distance.
We don't sell that diesel in Australia. We only sell the greater of the two.
Completely agree on your comment that the petrol outperforms the diesel in most cases. So do the car magazines.
In every comparison for performance reasons alone, they will choose the petrol over diesel.
But Wheels stated in their comparison, there is a major difference with the CX-5. The design of the diesel differs from all competitors due to it being a very light, high revving diesel.
The said that in the VW Tiguan for example, the diesel was the better for fuel economy by a large margin, but the petrol Tiguan was the better performer by a large margin. Not a surprise.
Ironically though, the CX-5 Diesel (top diesel, not the lower UK one), was significantly higher in performance (30% better acceleration off line, 50% on highway), but marginally better fuel economy.
In a like for like comparison with the Tiguan, the said that the Diesel CX-5 was similar to the petrol Tiguan and the petrol CX-5 was like the diesel Tiguan. It had them confused.
Performance wise it was:
Petrol Tiguan slightly ahead of Diesel CX-5 (except on highway overtake) - then massive gap back to petrol CX-5 which was a little ahead of diesel Tiguan.
Economy wise it was:
Diesel CX-5 a little ahead of diesel Tiguan, a little ahead of petrol CX-5 - then a massive gap back to petrol Tiguan.
CX-SV - you seem to make lots of comments on how close they are, and you haven't even driven them both?
I'd suggest to go to a country that has both and drive before comment.
I am quoting magazines, but I have driven both petrol/diesel CX-5 and petrol/diesel Tiguan. The comments are spot on correct. And it's the reason I bought the Diesel CX-5 in the first place. I was actually in the market for a diesel VW Passat when I was shopping, but fell in love with the performance of the CX-7 turbo.
When I first drove the petrol CX-5, it couldn't match the CX-7 at all. But the CX-7's biggest problem was fuel.
After driving the CX-5 Diesel, it had similar performance (turbos are addictive on both) - CX-7 still has edge.
inodes - Yes, aware of the 2 diesels in UK market, and aware of the tt 2.2 175 ps being only CX-5 diesel sold in Australia, thanks. btw-Mazda UK publishes separate specs for the 2 different diesels, as expected.
Agreed, the 2.2 tt is the strongest engine, but only 1 source has the measured performance gap 0-100km being so large. Regardless cherry-picked reports or not the performance gap is significant per all sources reporting as you have said.
I expect to see the high output 2.2 tt diesel made available in North American market next year and think it will be an important addition to CX-5 product line, even if not the top-selling version.
For something truly quick (in line with this thread topic), the Escape 2.0L turbo sb considered.
Agreed, the 2.2 tt is the strongest engine, but only 1 source has the measured performance gap 0-100km being so large. Regardless cherry-picked reports or not the performance gap is significant per all sources reporting as you have said.
I expect to see the high output 2.2 tt diesel made available in North American market next year and think it will be an important addition to CX-5 product line, even if not the top-selling version.
For something truly quick (in line with this thread topic), the Escape 2.0L turbo sb considered.
Last edited:
I expect to see the high output 2.2 tt diesel made available in North American market next year and think it will be an important addition to CX-5 product line, even if not the top-selling version.
This would be good to see. I expect there to be significant changes to the diesel as well.
The Wheels magazine that is the most trusted source in this country anyway, has lined up all the available diesels on the market today. I'll have to re-print the section so you get it verbatim, but they ranked the CX-5 Diesel as the second best on the market.
The design is very different from any diesel on the market. The low compression really does make it almost quiet. When driving around town, it actually makes less noise than my Mazda 3's engine. It also performs MUCH better than my SP23. Off the line, the CX-5 will thump the SP23 every time.
One catch though..... this new design may have some issues on the way:
Sydney Morning Herald: Backlash over Mazda CX-5 diesel oil issues
I noted excess oil (from oil foaming) at 7000km prior to heading to the snow. I had the dealer do the first 10,000km service, which included oil replacement.
I suspect that it's back with the same issue - will check oil tomorrow.
In terms of sales, Mazda Australia expected two things:
1. Sales would be a little better than CX-7
2. Highest selling models would be base petrol, diesel would be about 10% of sales
Instead.....
1. CX-5 has been highest selling SUV in past 2 years, skyrocketing to 7th highest seller and pushing Mazda to 2nd brand in Australia for first time
2. Highest selling models by far are the mid-spec diesels. Diesels account for 80-90% of sales.
One of my mates was saying unfortunately the orders for the latest diesels outstrip production numbers for Australia.
He said he is only getting 10% of the order numbers for the diesels. Meanwhile, petrols are easy ordered.
Maybe the oil issues will change peoples minds.
Last edited:
Yes, the DPF and oil level issues are still open items that are known issues with other diesels besides Mazda's.
Those issues plus maintenance related to DPF and twin turbos, higher purchase price of vehicle, higher fuel price of unsubsidized diesel, and diesel retail availability will constrain sales in US market.
CX-5 inventory levels are still very low here, especially the loaded models.
Those issues plus maintenance related to DPF and twin turbos, higher purchase price of vehicle, higher fuel price of unsubsidized diesel, and diesel retail availability will constrain sales in US market.
CX-5 inventory levels are still very low here, especially the loaded models.
...snip
I noted excess oil (from oil foaming) at 7000km prior to heading to the snow. I had the dealer do the first 10,000km service, which included oil replacement.
I suspect that it's back with the same issue - will check oil tomorrow.
...snip
Maybe the oil issues will change peoples minds.
It's not "excess oil", rather it's oil diluted with diesel fuel and causing unknown future engine problems. If enough diesel fuel is forced into the oil it will destroy the engine and void the warranty. That's a deal breaker for me...
