CX5 vs Forester XT

[TimelessMazda]

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.

Not sure what your point is of your post...

I will say that a very good friend just got a 2016 Sorento EX that I travel in quite often and it PALES in comparison to the 2016 CX-5 GT my wife owns. I trust my own experiences to that of magazine reviews.

Now, it is just an EX with no other options which means she paid probably $2K less than my wife did on her CX-5 with her options....so perhaps that is a good reason for the differences.

The Sorento is larger and probably not a good comparison to the CX-5...a CX-9 might be more in size comparison.

 

[Unobtanium]

Day in, day out, does anyone feel the need for more power than is on tap in their CX-5? If yes, quit bitching. You bought the wrong vehicle. It's your own fault. You did, after all, get to test drive it.

Certainly not, but some of us do miss it, however, the practicality of a cheap CUV overwhelms that one aspect.

 

[Pototoy]

Not sure what your point is of your post...

I will say that a very good friend just got a 2016 Sorento EX that I travel in quite often and it PALES in comparison to the 2016 CX-5 GT my wife owns. I trust my own experiences to that of magazine reviews.

Now, it is just an EX with no other options which means she paid probably $2K less than my wife did on her CX-5 with her options....so perhaps that is a good reason for the differences.

The Sorento is larger and probably not a good comparison to the CX-5...a CX-9 might be more in size comparison.

pales with what? driving dynamics? what? wow.

I brought it as an alternative to the Subaru which the OP is considering.

I guess I'm in the minority that CUV's doesn't need to driven like a madman. But a few will say otherwise, because RACECAR! hehe.

An SUV/CUV is for hauling people, freeway comfort, good amount of power for effortless driving, and quiet interior. If I want to race, I'll go pick up my manual Miata!

 

[madar]

I was a teenager during the 70s and was involved with the muscle cars of said period. I had a 70 Monte Carlo with a small block 400 cid engine, friend of mine had a 70 Chevelle Supersport with a 396 with cowl induction, another had a 69 Chevy Camaro original Z28 with a 302. When I read of 0-60 times about an SUV with a 2.5 liter engine I have to choke. Seems silly. Not even a consideration when looking at an SUV. Either has decent 4-bangor pickup or it doesn’t. The CX5 does IMO. Not meant to insult you folks discussing it.

 

[sbkim]

While it may seem silly, some people want more than a basic transportation and willing to pay more for it. I think that's why Subie offers the XT and Mazda with GT 2.5L.
Furthermore, some people may not want two cars. I want one decent car that fulfills what I need and OK accepting a vehicle that's jack of all trades but master of none. In the end, this is personal choice. I was seeking feedback from folks that have driven both and may have even owned XT in the past before switching over to CX5. I am not splitting hairs about 0-60 specs or discussing merits of 0-60 performance that seems to be the benchmark among all car publications.

 

[sillyxone]

While it may seem silly, some people want more than a basic transportation and willing to pay more for it. I think that's why Subie offers the XT and Mazda with GT 2.5L.
Furthermore, some people may not want two cars. I want one decent car that fulfills what I need and OK accepting a vehicle that's jack of all trades but master of none. In the end, this is personal choice. I was seeking feedback from folks that have driven both and may have even owned XT in the past before switching over to CX5. I am not splitting hairs about 0-60 specs or discussing merits of 0-60 performance that seems to be the benchmark among all car publications.

"silly" is my name, and I indeed fall into the category you described I've never owned or driven a race car, I didn't even know I like cars or driving until I get to drive the CX-5. Frankly, I still couldn't tell the difference or why I prefer driving the CX-5 over my wife's Accord Sport, or my brother's CR-V, but it's true that the CX-5 makes me enjoy driving. Maybe I'll get a Miata someday, or not, as I often consider it as a low-priority luxury thing or just a big waste of money. To me, the CX-5 is more fun than enough. Also, part of the reason I picked the CX-5 is because the nerd in me got hooked into the details of how Mazda innovated with the whole SkyActiv thing.

It could be the location where I live. In Minnesota, people don't usually show off their vehicles, we don't see a lot of performance or race cars around here, and the cars don't stay clean/pretty for long before covered in snow and mud. People often get to 80mph on 70mph-limit roads, but I feel that as far as we can push without getting attention from law enforcement. My nephew is really into cars, he keeps selling/buying his cars every few months (Subaru, BMW, ...) but he got quite a few tickets already.

 

[sbkim]

LOL - I respect your views! I have gotten silly over the years as well after having couple kids. Nice cars I had just seem to sit in my garage depreciating away. I have no doubt CX5 is a fine car that delivers what most people want and need.

"silly" is my name, and I indeed fall into the category you described I've never owned or driven a race car, I didn't even know I like cars or driving until I get to drive the CX-5. Frankly, I still couldn't tell the difference or why I prefer driving the CX-5 over my wife's Accord Sport, or my brother's CR-V, but it's true that the CX-5 makes me enjoy driving. Maybe I'll get a Miata someday, or not, as I often consider it as a low-priority luxury thing or just a big waste of money. To me, the CX-5 is more fun than enough. Also, part of the reason I picked the CX-5 is because the nerd in me got hooked into the details of how Mazda innovated with the whole SkyActiv thing.

It could be the location where I live. In Minnesota, people don't usually show off their vehicles, we don't see a lot of performance or race cars around here, and the cars don't stay clean/pretty for long before covered in snow and mud. People often get to 80mph on 70mph-limit roads, but I feel that as far as we can push without getting attention from law enforcement. My nephew is really into cars, he keeps selling/buying his cars every few months (Subaru, BMW, ...) but he got quite a few tickets already.

 

[MikeM.]

I think there is a lot of simplistic and uneducated thinking going on here (no, you don't know who you are). (whistle)

Some people are equating balanced handling, excellent braking and steering response and well controlled body motion with people thinking it a sports car that will dominate on a racing track. I'm not talking about people discussing 0-60 mph times, that is a fine metric to see where a daily driver stands in terms of being "peppy". It tells you something about the driving experience of various cars. But it is only one small part (and not a very important one at that). I'm talking about people who don't seem to understand that not all CUV's need to drive like dogs. People that don't appreciate good driving dynamics unless it's a F1 racer.

More important is the entire package. A quick 0-60 time does little for me if the other driving dynamics don't inspire. And the sad fact of most CUV's is that they leave me wanting in that department. As practical as their boxy shapes are for the daily movement of people and gear, parking in small spots, etc., the cost in driving experience/safety/enjoyment is too large. The CX-5 is a stand-out exception. Only a wannabe enthusiast defines performance solely by acceleration metrics. And only those who don't have experience pushing handling and braking to the limit can't tell the difference. Anyone who has driven in traffic long enough has had to perform extreme avoidance maneuvers to keep themselves, their family and their car out of harms way. When pushed to the extremes, braking while turning, dodging a deer on a wet off-camber corner, hitting an unexpected patch of vapor deposited black ice, etc., this is where the CX-5 shines. And a contributing factor to that is saving 30 lbs. here and 20 lbs. there. It all adds up. Mazda put more steel (and more high strength steel) into the uni-body structure and less into just about everything else to make up the difference. That is a big part of where it's good driving dynamics come from. Only an wannabe car enthusiast would think that makes it an F1 racer. Sadly, this kind of thinking is common in America. (rolleyes)

Most cars in the segment have top tier safety ratings. But, in the hands of a skilled driver, the CX-5, with it's quicker and more precise turn initiation, superior driver feedback and well controlled chassis motion, is considerably safer in terms of being able to avoid some accidents in the first place. It's called accident avoidance. If you don't care about safety, driving dynamics and driving enjoyment, you would probably be better served by a Kia or a Honda.

Thankfully, those who take pleasure in driving (beyond mashing the "go" pedal to the floor) have a great alternative. (2cents)

 

[madar]

"silly" is my name, and I indeed fall into the category you described I've never owned or driven a race car, I didn't even know I like cars or driving until I get to drive the CX-5. Frankly, I still couldn't tell the difference or why I prefer driving the CX-5 over my wife's Accord Sport, or my brother's CR-V, but it's true that the CX-5 makes me enjoy driving. Maybe I'll get a Miata someday, or not, as I often consider it as a low-priority luxury thing or just a big waste of money. To me, the CX-5 is more fun than enough. Also, part of the reason I picked the CX-5 is because the nerd in me got hooked into the details of how Mazda innovated with the whole SkyActiv thing.

It could be the location where I live. In Minnesota, people don't usually show off their vehicles, we don't see a lot of performance or race cars around here, and the cars don't stay clean/pretty for long before covered in snow and mud. People often get to 80mph on 70mph-limit roads, but I feel that as far as we can push without getting attention from law enforcement. My nephew is really into cars, he keeps selling/buying his cars every few months (Subaru, BMW, ...) but he got quite a few tickets already.

SkyActiv is the biggest reason for me. 87 octane, high compression, good gas mileage and enough power to get out of a paper bag, 6 speed transmission, good handling. Forget all the other nonsense like Bluetooth, USB ports, and all the other fluff.

 

[sbkim]

(rofl2)

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.

 

[Pototoy]

^^ very treu UNO!

 

[Lbear]

I didn't even know I like cars or driving until I get to drive the CX-5. Frankly, I still couldn't tell the difference or why I prefer driving the CX-5 over my wife's Accord Sport, or my brother's CR-V, but it's true that the CX-5 makes me enjoy driving.

That's the key to the Mazda CX5 (and pretty much their entire lineup). Driving matters and the CX5 is a drivers CUV. Most of the vehicles in this segment are numb and boring to drive. They don't engage the driver. The CX5 is a fun to drive CUV.

I've driven boring vehicles (Toyota, Nissan, Chevy, etc) and I've driven exciting to drive vehicles like Mazda. That and the reliability is what keeps me coming back to Mazda.

 

[Unobtanium]

I was a teenager during the 70s and was involved with the muscle cars of said period. I had a 70 Monte Carlo with a small block 400 cid engine, friend of mine had a 70 Chevelle Supersport with a 396 with cowl induction, another had a 69 Chevy Camaro original Z28 with a 302. When I read of 0-60 times about an SUV with a 2.5 liter engine I have to choke. Seems silly. Not even a consideration when looking at an SUV. Either has decent 4-bangor pickup or it doesn’t. The CX5 does IMO. Not meant to insult you folks discussing it.

Amusingly...

1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS454 (CL)
454ci/360hp, 3spd auto, 2.73, 0-60 - 7.7, 1/4 mile - 16.2 @ 90.1mph

1969 Camaro Z/28 (CL)
302ci/290hp, 4spd, 4.10, 0-60 - 7.4, 1/4 mile - 15.12 @ 94.8mph

1970 Chevelle SS396 (CL)
396ci/350hp, 3spd auto, 3.31, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 15.5 @ 90mph

http://roadtests.tripod.com/

2014 CX5 2.5L AWD
0-60 7.6 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.8@87mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-cx-5-25-awd-test-review
The fact of the matter about none of the cars you mentioned being able to have much of a victory over a 2.5L CUV (and some were slower, as you see...) today might make you choke even harder...

Way to crush them childhood memories, I guess...but remember, everything in scale. Back then, your cars WERE fast. Things change...once upon a time, a man running a 4:30 mile was world record material. Now we are in the 3's...

 

[madar]

Amusingly...

1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS454 (CL)
454ci/360hp, 3spd auto, 2.73, 0-60 - 7.7, 1/4 mile - 16.2 @ 90.1mph

1969 Camaro Z/28 (CL)
302ci/290hp, 4spd, 4.10, 0-60 - 7.4, 1/4 mile - 15.12 @ 94.8mph

1970 Chevelle SS396 (CL)
396ci/350hp, 3spd auto, 3.31, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 15.5 @ 90mph

http://roadtests.tripod.com/

2014 CX5 2.5L AWD
0-60 7.6 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.8@87mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-cx-5-25-awd-test-review
The fact of the matter about none of the cars you mentioned being able to have much of a victory over a 2.5L CUV (and some were slower, as you see...) today might make you choke even harder...

Way to crush them childhood memories, I guess...but remember, everything in scale. Back then, your cars WERE fast. Things change...once upon a time, a man running a 4:30 mile was world record material. Now we are in the 3's...

Point number 1: those specs are for stock motors, nothing was stock with us

Point number 2: didn't care then, don't care now...

 

[Lbear]

Amusingly...

1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS454 (CL)
454ci/360hp, 3spd auto, 2.73, 0-60 - 7.7, 1/4 mile - 16.2 @ 90.1mph

1969 Camaro Z/28 (CL)
302ci/290hp, 4spd, 4.10, 0-60 - 7.4, 1/4 mile - 15.12 @ 94.8mph

1970 Chevelle SS396 (CL)
396ci/350hp, 3spd auto, 3.31, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 15.5 @ 90mph

http://roadtests.tripod.com/

2014 CX5 2.5L AWD
0-60 7.6 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.8@87mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-cx-5-25-awd-test-review
The fact of the matter about none of the cars you mentioned being able to have much of a victory over a 2.5L CUV (and some were slower, as you see...) today might make you choke even harder...

Way to crush them childhood memories, I guess...but remember, everything in scale. Back then, your cars WERE fast. Things change...once upon a time, a man running a 4:30 mile was world record material. Now we are in the 3's...

Exactly. A lot of the 60's and early 70's muscle cars were slow compared to modern cars. People think that because they were loud, vibrated the cars with their rough idle cams, had big engines, etc., somehow made them appear fast but the reality is that they were not that fast and the reliability of those cars stunk.

The CX5 would beat all of the above vehicles in the 1/4 mile with it's 4-cylinder.

I've driven those 60's and 70's muscle cars and they were a reliability nightmare. Hard starts, overheating, fouled plugs, carb problems, etc. Not to mention the 8 mpg they got and how much they polluted. Technology has trumped old school cars like that.

 

[MikeM.]

Way to crush them childhood memories, I guess...

When I read Madar's comments, I took them to mean he is shocked at how fast modern CUV's with 4-bangers are relative to the "muscle" cars he used to drive.

 

[Unobtanium]

Point number 1: those specs are for stock motors, nothing was stock with us

Point number 2: didn't care then, don't care now...

I know, 70's cars COULD be fast. My cousin owned a drag strip back in the day, and had some low 11 second timeslips in the mid 120 mph range to prove he knew how to make them fast. He also taught me something...Believe nothing you hear, only half of what you see.

Just curious, but what did your cars run at the strip? Because ya know? I had a mustang. Fully built. Heads, cam, 4.10's, TKO500 5-speed, it sounded like a MONSTER! The best I ever got out of it was 14.7@97mph with a 2.15 60' on street tires. But god it was a 13 second car AT LEAST in my mind based on dozens of runs on the street...until that day when I learned it weren't so. (That day was full of butthurt, and I never really modded a car again. I just bought what I wanted that would solve the equation out of the box, well, minus window tint and a catback).

 

[Unobtanium]

When I read Madar's comments, I took them to mean he is shocked at how fast modern CUV's with 4-bangers are relative to the "muscle" cars he used to drive.

I took it to mean he drove "real performance cars" back in the day, and thought us discussing it in relation to the CX5 was stupid and he found it weird and pointless.

Maybe he will clarify what he meant for us? Madar? Did I misunderstand you, or did Mike?

 

[madar]

I took it to mean he drove "real performance cars" back in the day, and thought us discussing it in relation to the CX5 was stupid and he found it weird and pointless.

Maybe he will clarify what he meant for us? Madar? Did I misunderstand you, or did Mike?

Reread the last sentence of post 45, reread point number 2 of my last post....

 

[madar]

When I read Madar's comments, I took them to mean he is shocked at how fast modern CUV's with 4-bangers are relative to the "muscle" cars he used to drive.

Actually, good point. Considering the weight and size of those old muscle cars and what it took to get them going the way they did compared to todays vehicles, things have indeed come a long way.