- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
No it's not. They both do 0-60 around the same. 7.5-7.6 seconds.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...view-car-and-driver2015-honda-cr-v-ex-fwd.pdf
CX5 vs Forester XT
- Thread starter sbkim
- Start date
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...view-car-and-driver2015-honda-cr-v-ex-fwd.pdf
- :
- 2024 Toyota GHH MAX
2016 Mazda CX-5 GT (Wife)
1990 Miata (Zoom Zoom!)
I don't find the cabin to be noisy at all and my wife loves her bose system.
Friend of ours just bought a Sorento EX (no options) and it pales in comparison although it is a bit larger. By the time you add the options, the Sorento is a good 2-3K more money.
I agree. I don't find the cabin to be all that noisy either.
I also cross shopped the Forester (non turbo) and the CX-5. I was very close to buying the Forester, mostly because my wife liked the visibility and what felt like a little extra room. The giant sunroof was a nice plus too. It's a good car, no doubt. In the end, after test drivng both, the CX-5 just resonated with me more. It handled better and didnt feel as stodgy as the Subaru. I also didn't love the CVT either.
Mazda CX5 AWD - 1/4 mile =15.8 // 0-60mph= 7.6 // 70mph-0mph = 166 feet // 0.81g
Honda CRV AWD - 1/4 mile =16.6 // 0-60mph= 8.2 // 70mph-0mph = 171 feet // 0.76g
Ford Escape AWD - 1/4 mile =16.9 // 0-60mph = 9.1 // 70mph-0mph = 174 feet // 0.81g
Chevy Trax AWD - 1/4 mile =17.5 // 0-60mph = 9.8 // 70mph-0mph = 169 feet // 0.72g
Kia Sportage AWD - 1/4 mile =17.3 // 0-60mph = 9.3 // 70mph-0mph = 179 feet // 0.79g
Subaru Forester AWD - 1/4 mile =16.7 // 0-60mph = 8.6 // 70mph-0mph = 166 feet // 0.78g
Honda CRV AWD - 1/4 mile =16.6 // 0-60mph= 8.2 // 70mph-0mph = 171 feet // 0.76g
Ford Escape AWD - 1/4 mile =16.9 // 0-60mph = 9.1 // 70mph-0mph = 174 feet // 0.81g
Chevy Trax AWD - 1/4 mile =17.5 // 0-60mph = 9.8 // 70mph-0mph = 169 feet // 0.72g
Kia Sportage AWD - 1/4 mile =17.3 // 0-60mph = 9.3 // 70mph-0mph = 179 feet // 0.79g
Subaru Forester AWD - 1/4 mile =16.7 // 0-60mph = 8.6 // 70mph-0mph = 166 feet // 0.78g
- :
- 2024 Toyota GHH MAX
2016 Mazda CX-5 GT (Wife)
1990 Miata (Zoom Zoom!)
Unfortunately those don't mean much as it leaves off the trim levels. Are these all base models?
MikeyMcFly
Member
- :
- 2016 CX-5 Touring
My Mom doesn't have the XT, but a 2015 2.5i Premium with the All Weather Package, and we've got a CX-5 Touring as our family car. I've also got a 2006 WRX STi, so I can give you a pretty feel for Subaru.
Turbo Subarus are very finicky. I know the FA motor isn't the EJ series from yore, but all Subaru are extremely picky with oil. Last I checked I think they were asking for 0w-20 for the turbo cars, which is a recipe for disaster.
That being said, the Forester is MUCH better on outward visibility than the CX-5. It's one of the main areas I felt the Subaru excelled compared to the Mazda. When you sit in it, the greenhouse is very tall and airy, and doesn't have that high sill feeling you get with most new cars. I will be curious to see how the Mazda's interior materials wear, but they have a higher quality feel than the Subaru. Unless Subaru has upped their quality in the past few years, the interior materials will wear faster than you expect (I am shocked how easily scratched my STi's HVAC console was scratched. I purchased it used with 16K and there were many fine scratches around the knobs). The Subaru has a decent amount of torque from the 2.5i and the CVT didn't bother me all that much, at least compared to my Mom's Rogue's CVT, which was painfully awful to drive.
The Subaru is noisier than the CX-5 on the highway in terms of tire noise and overall cruising. I've heard the 2016 CX-5 has more sound insulation than the previous years, so that might play a role. That being said, during initial startup and acceleration, the Subaru is quieter. I'm actually surprised the Mazda has as much growl as it does. It doesn't necessarily bother me since I have had loud cars forever and I do enjoy it, but it is a point to note. The CX-5 is more fun to drive than the 2.5i Premium, but I suspect the XT has a more sport tuned suspension. If not, a quick stop at Cobb Tuning or Whiteline/RCE and I'm sure you could have some real fun in the corners. I actually think most of the STi's suspension will bolt up to it.
The turbo models are pricey compared to the NA. I found that the NA Forester was significantly cheaper per content than the CX-5. My Mom's was approximately $3,000 less than mine, came with a much larger sunroof, heated mirrors, seats and wipers and roof rails and currently gets 1 MPG better combined (although our CX-5 isn't broken in yet). We have the leather wrapped steering wheel and Bose system, which does sound better than the Subaru's base unit. Neither model has navigation, although the Mazda SD card would be a cheap upgrade.
Depending on your preferences and the deal you can get with the XT, I'd almost be tempted to cross-shop the new CX-9 turbo.
Turbo Subarus are very finicky. I know the FA motor isn't the EJ series from yore, but all Subaru are extremely picky with oil. Last I checked I think they were asking for 0w-20 for the turbo cars, which is a recipe for disaster.
That being said, the Forester is MUCH better on outward visibility than the CX-5. It's one of the main areas I felt the Subaru excelled compared to the Mazda. When you sit in it, the greenhouse is very tall and airy, and doesn't have that high sill feeling you get with most new cars. I will be curious to see how the Mazda's interior materials wear, but they have a higher quality feel than the Subaru. Unless Subaru has upped their quality in the past few years, the interior materials will wear faster than you expect (I am shocked how easily scratched my STi's HVAC console was scratched. I purchased it used with 16K and there were many fine scratches around the knobs). The Subaru has a decent amount of torque from the 2.5i and the CVT didn't bother me all that much, at least compared to my Mom's Rogue's CVT, which was painfully awful to drive.
The Subaru is noisier than the CX-5 on the highway in terms of tire noise and overall cruising. I've heard the 2016 CX-5 has more sound insulation than the previous years, so that might play a role. That being said, during initial startup and acceleration, the Subaru is quieter. I'm actually surprised the Mazda has as much growl as it does. It doesn't necessarily bother me since I have had loud cars forever and I do enjoy it, but it is a point to note. The CX-5 is more fun to drive than the 2.5i Premium, but I suspect the XT has a more sport tuned suspension. If not, a quick stop at Cobb Tuning or Whiteline/RCE and I'm sure you could have some real fun in the corners. I actually think most of the STi's suspension will bolt up to it.
The turbo models are pricey compared to the NA. I found that the NA Forester was significantly cheaper per content than the CX-5. My Mom's was approximately $3,000 less than mine, came with a much larger sunroof, heated mirrors, seats and wipers and roof rails and currently gets 1 MPG better combined (although our CX-5 isn't broken in yet). We have the leather wrapped steering wheel and Bose system, which does sound better than the Subaru's base unit. Neither model has navigation, although the Mazda SD card would be a cheap upgrade.
Depending on your preferences and the deal you can get with the XT, I'd almost be tempted to cross-shop the new CX-9 turbo.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I guess C&D just got them a Ringer of a CRV. I've NEVER seen a CX5 test in the low 7s. Got a link?
That C&D test was a FWD CRV.
AWD CRV's are slower in all the tests.
It doesn't look like any magazine has tested a FWD 2.5L CX-5? That's the one that'll do 7.2s according to mazda.
The AWD CX5 is faster than the FWD. Car and Driver proved this. AWD technology provides instant power to all 4 wheels without tire spin.
The 2016 AWD CX5 can do 0-60 in 7.6 seconds and the 1/4 miles in 15.8 seconds
I'm sure it could run 7.2 with someone who knew what they were doing on a cold 1/4 track at sea level.
I've seen a number of articles in the past testing the CX-5 at 7.5 seconds. One poster here clocked that time.
Here is a another relative MotorTrend test.
During our 0-60 run, the CX-5 clocked 7.8 seconds. Although that might not sound fast, it actually performed better than most of the front-wheel-drive, four-cylinder competition we’ve tested, and in many cases, the time disparity is enough to warrant consideration. Most recently, the 138-hp Chevrolet Trax took a full 9.0 seconds to hit 60 mph, and when we tested the current-gen Ford Escape with a 178-hp, 1.6-liter four-banger, we recorded 8.9 seconds. The current-gen 176-hp RAV4 XLE scooted to 60 in 8.4 seconds; the 182-hp 2014 Tucson made it in 8.2 seconds; and a pre-refresh 2012 CR-V did the deed in 8.7 seconds. The slowest compact SUV we tested was the 2013 Kia Sportage at 9.3 seconds, thanks to a 176-hp, 2.4-liter four-banger that has since been updated with just a couple more horses. But which comparable SUV was able to match the CX-5’s time? The Tiguan, which has 16 more hp than the CX-5.
Last edited:
0-60 figures are largely a waste of time, its the in gear performance that matters on the road, 30-50, 50-70, and 30-70mph.
Top speed is also irelivant for a bread and butter car.
My AWD 175ps car is slower 0-60 than nearly all those figures posted, but its performance is more than adequate, and tows 1565 kg with ease, i would be happy to tow 1700kg if i needed too.
Top speed is also irelivant for a bread and butter car.
My AWD 175ps car is slower 0-60 than nearly all those figures posted, but its performance is more than adequate, and tows 1565 kg with ease, i would be happy to tow 1700kg if i needed too.
The AWD will be quicker 60 foot time, but will loose ground after that due to extra 100+ pounds and more reciprocating mass. The GT 19" wheels will slow it down due to more reciprocating mass. The lightest 2.5L is the Touring FWD and the quickest 0-60 and quarter mile. Just noticed 2015 is 50# lighter than 2016 too.
Do you guys realize just how ridiculous it sounds to be arguing about 0-60 times on a SUV, let alone a couple hundredths of a second in most cases (comparing awd vs fwd). It's a SUV, 0-60 times don't mean s***. Your not going to drag race the thing. The only reason for power is either for towing or passing cars from a roll. Hills are no problem. I drove a modified evo for 10 years. Never once since switching to the CX-5 did I think to myself "man I wish I had more power". It accelerates just fine and I pass cars just fine when I need to. I don't tow, so I cant speak on that part of it.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
You might think that...but...THIS IS A CX-5! The same SUV that this forum feels 30# of sound-deadening would kill the performance of in the corners due to upsetting its knife-edge balance. This is no mere CUV. This is a race-car with a license plate. A ninja in a suite. A swaggering pimp in a conservative Southern church. The NHTSA probably accepted money under the table to ignore the lack of a 5-point in this bad boy. It's like a homologation car who's counterpart is so badass Mazda can't enter it into any racing brackets, so it's just a homologation car, until they invent a competition so badass that the CX5 won't be immediately disqualified.
In short...dude. Read this forum. Maybe then, after talking with these lucky drivers, will you begin to have an inkling of the sickhouse track domination that is the Seee Exxxxx Five!!!
In other news, I miss doing things like this. It was nice to have a car slow enough to play with without really having "too much power". This CX5? I could never get away with a WOT run in 2nd gear like that:
Last edited:
pales with what? the Bose 'sucking' sound system?
from Edmunds. check out the reviews if you're into that. but please take a time to test drive it before whining.
The 2016 Kia Sorento is a midsize SUV available in five- and seven-passenger configurations as well as five trim levels: L, LX, EX, SX and SX Limited. Note that the L model and all Sorentos equipped with the midrange turbocharged engine are five-passenger only, while V6-powered Sorentos are seven-passenger only. The four-cylinder LX can be had with either seating configuration.
The base L comes standard with 17-inch alloy wheels, LED running lights, three-mode drive settings (altering steering and transmission shift points), air-conditioning, cruise control, stain-resistant fabric upholstery, a tilt-and-telescoping steering wheel, 40/20/40-split second-row seats (fold, slide and recline), Bluetooth phone and audio connectivity, a CD player, satellite radio, an auxiliary audio jack and a USB/iPod interface.
The LX adds automatic headlights, a sound-reducing windshield, roof rails, a rearview camera, Uvo eServices, a 4.3-inch touchscreen interface and two rapid-charge USB ports. The Convenience package adds rear parking sensors, an eight-way power driver seat (plus two-way power lumbar), heated front seats, a leather-wrapped steering wheel and an auto-dimming mirror. The third-row seat can be added to the Convenience package.
The EX includes the Convenience package items and adds 18-inch wheels, sound-reducing front side glass, dual-zone automatic climate control and leather upholstery. Its Premium package adds a hands-free power liftgate, keyless ignition and entry, power-folding mirrors, blind-spot and rear cross-traffic warning systems, second-row side sunshades and a display screen speedometer/trip computer. The Touring package can be added to the Premium package and includes a panoramic sunroof, an 8-inch touchscreen interface, a navigation system, traffic reporting, a larger rearview camera display and a 10-speaker Infinity sound system with Clari-Fi digital music improvement technology.
