What? The cars you listed were actually lighter than a CX-5 in most cases. No wonder they were flexy-fliers with all the handling precision of drunk elephants.
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.
CX5 vs Forester XT
- Thread starter sbkim
- Start date
What? The cars you listed were actually lighter than a CX-5 in most cases. No wonder they were flexy-fliers with all the handling precision of drunk elephants.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
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.
The Camaro you listed weighed 3700 and change.
The Monte Carlo weighed around 3500#, depending on options.
The Chevelle ranged from 34-3800, depending on 2 or 4 door, and the motor.
The CX5 weighs 35-3600.
The current Mustang and Camaro weigh 36-3700#.
Just sayin'
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
IMO it has to do more with HOW that weight was used than WHAT they weighed. Engineering and materials and all that.What? The cars you listed were actually lighter than a CX-5 in most cases. No wonder they were flexy-fliers with all the handling precision of drunk elephants.
silvercoat
Member
- :
- Chevy
LOL Anyone want to do a cost analysis on Fuel price / Speed-HP? Yeh, 400HP motor looked great when gas was ~$0.60 a gal.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Want a real eye opener vs. Those cars vs cx5? Compare 60-0!
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
LOL Anyone want to do a cost analysis on Fuel price / Speed-HP? Yeh, 400HP motor looked great when gas was ~$0.60 a gal.
My 350hp Ws6 took premium. Got 27 or so freeway and around 19 around town. My cx5 gets similar highway if I drive slow, and around 22.5 highway and city combined. Don't dog on bigger motors! They don't work as hard to get the same results as the tiny mill in the cx5
My 350hp Ws6 took premium. Got 27 or so freeway and around 19 around town.
My long experience with V-8's from that period was, in city traffic, you were lucky to get much above 10-13 mpg. That's because not only were the engines inefficient pigs, so were the transmissions. But we already know that every car you had before the CX-5 was blessed with dreamy fuel economy.
They don't work as hard to get the same results as the tiny mill in the cx5
This exposes a basic misunderstanding you have with engine efficiency (which is called "thermodynamic efficiency"). Most gas engines reach peak thermodynamic efficiency at around 70% of output. Which is the primary reason small engines get better mpg than large engines. Because the big engine is loafing along in a zone that is less efficient vs. a small engine is operating at a higher throttle setting that is more efficient.
You like to blather on but most of what you offer as knowledge is simply BS. Sorry but I feel compelled to point that out for the benefit of people who like to learn accurate stuff vs. old wives tales repeated endlessly.
CX5 won't put you back in your seat like a big block, though...
If the 0-60 times are similar then it's just an illusion.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
My long experience with V-8's from that period was, in city traffic, you were lucky to get much above 10-13 mpg. That's because not only were the engines inefficient pigs, so were the transmissions. But we already know that every car you had before the CX-5 was blessed with dreamy fuel economy.
This exposes a basic misunderstanding you have with engine efficiency (which is called "thermodynamic efficiency"). Most gas engines reach peak thermodynamic efficiency at around 70% of output. Which is the primary reason small engines get better mpg than large engines. Because the big engine is loafing along in a zone that is less efficient vs. a small engine is operating at a higher throttle setting that is more efficient.
You like to blather on but most of what you offer as knowledge is simply BS. Sorry but I feel compelled to point that out for the benefit of people who like to learn accurate stuff vs. old wives tales repeated endlessly.
While you're correct about efficiency, you're ignoring load, which plays a massive role. If all roads were flawlessly flat, and air did not exist, and...
Tell me, what vehicles with V8's "from that period" do you have any experience with at all? What on EARTH got that kind of junk mileage?! I think you will be very hard pressed to list a single car from the early 2000's that did that poorly until you reach in the Viper, SRT10 Truck, etc. realm.
My car got window sticker performance. What's so shocking? All of my cars have. All except one...
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
If the 0-60 times are similar then it's just an illusion.
Maybe not. The 0-10mph phase is what I find really "punches" the senses. Think Prius. 0-20 them is a beast!
What? The cars you listed were actually lighter than a CX-5 in most cases. No wonder they were flexy-fliers with all the handling precision of drunk elephants.
Only car lighter is the Camaro, other 2 beat the CX5 (AWD) by at least 200 pounds...have to consider engine/trans options if you're not talking generics.
Last edited:
While you're correct about efficiency, you're ignoring load, which plays a massive role. If all roads were flawlessly flat, and air did not exist, and...
Tell me, what vehicles with V8's "from that period" do you have any experience with at all?
My mistake, I was addressing the V8's from late '60's to early '70's.
My car got window sticker performance. What's so shocking? All of my cars have. All except one...
Yes, we know. You are one of the few happy with the (normally negative) delta between EPA MPG and actual MPG of all your cars until the CX-5.
Puff the magic dragon, lived by the sea...
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
My mistake, I was addressing the V8's from late '60's to early '70's.
Yes, we know. You are one of the few happy with the (normally negative) delta between EPA MPG and actual MPG of all your cars until the CX-5.
Puff the magic dragon, lived by the sea...
Luckily, your disbelief won't go back in time and cost me gas money...
Yes, in the 70's I'd believe it. I was referring to the LS1 powered WS.6, although, the WS6, I believe, has been used previously. Understandable.
Maybe not. The 0-10mph phase is what I find really "punches" the senses. Think Prius. 0-20 them is a beast!
Low reading comprehension. The statement was that the muscle cars with essentially same 0-60 times pushed you back harder in your seat. But, yes, a Prius will win that contest.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Low reading comprehension. The statement was that the muscle cars with essentially same 0-60 times pushed you back harder in your seat. But, yes, a Prius will win that contest.
I think you failed to comprehend what I said. Yes, they likely do. Humans perceive peak force with more cognitive weight than they do "force over time". The big-block may well have a higher peak force off the line, although the CX-5 makes up for it on the "big end" of that sprint to 60.
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.
There was doubt on mid 7sec time, so I posted on it. I used to race a supercharged 5.0 Mustang back in the day, so know something about hp/weight/et. I guarantee you the difference between a FWD and AWD is not a few hundreds of a second. The 100+ pound difference alone is equivalent 10hp, or a full car length in the quarter mile. It is probably double that since most of that weight is in reciprocating mass. I think people would want to know they are essentially losing 20hp when they go to AWD.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
There was doubt on mid 7sec time, so I posted on it. I used to race a supercharged 5.0 Mustang back in the day, so know something about hp/weight/et. I guarantee you the difference between a FWD and AWD is not a few hundreds of a second. The 100+ pound difference alone is equivalent 10hp, or a full car length in the quarter mile. It is probably double that since most of that weight is in reciprocating mass. I think people would want to know they are essentially losing 20hp when they go to AWD.
The 60' times more than make up for it, though. When my CX5 was FWD only, it spun more than I would have thought.
I guess I just don't get a kick out of extra acceleration unless it's ludicrously fast. Even my fastest motorcycle can't quite break a 10 second 1/4 mile or a 3 second 0-60. Braking and cornering hard, now that's fun! Mediocre acceleration? Meh, not gonna pay a lot of money, maintenance, fuel, reliability, etc. to get mediocre acceleration. As long as it doesn't strain to keep up with the traffic I'm happy. It's just a car. If I have to downshift to make it go, all the better.
All of that. My Triumph Sprint ST 955i is rated at 3.2s 0-60mph and 11.0s 1/4 mile, my Kawasaki Concours C14 is rated at 3.1s 0-60mph and 10.8s 1/4 mile. It will hit 120mph in 3rd gear and there are still 3 more to go. From a standing start 100mph comes up in about 6.6s on the Kawasaki, at which point the CUVs that we're talking about are still puffing their way to 50mph like a fat kid doing uphill sprints. Anything that I could afford on 4 wheels isn't going to come remotely close to bike performance levels, so splitting hairs between 6 and 7 second 0-60mph times is just a matter of which option is marginally less boring.
What the CX-5 does do is get there acceptably quickly, in comfort and safety, and with a chassis / suspension setup that's good enough to not make the ride a snoozefest. The fact that it delivers excellent fuel economy while doing so, and doesn't break the bank, is the icing on the cake.
I don't find the cabin to be noisy at all and my wife loves her bose system.
I'm guessing a lot of the complaints come from owners of < 2016 model years as the 2016 had extra sound insulation added. Certainly I don't have any problems with noise, the noisiest thing when cruising at night is the tires on the road. My last 3 cars were BMW, Infiniti, Infiniti and the CX-5 isn't noticeably better or worse in that respect. The Bose system could be a little better, but after spending a few minutes tweaking the equalizer settings I'm perfectly happy with that too.
Last edited:
I think people would want to know they are essentially losing 20hp when they go to AWD.
AWD vehicle versions of the CX5 are faster than the FWD versions. The power is distributed to all 4 wheels not just 2 wheels like it does in FWD.
Engineers stated that future AWD versions will get better MPG than FWD versions. It will happen, it's just a matter of time and software engineering.
You can have 300 HP but if you can't put it to the ground, it's useless and results in tire spin and breaking traction.
