Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

CX-5 2.5l engine: lackluster

micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
edited February 2016 in Mazda
I just tested a 2016.5 CX-5 Grand Touring, which has the higher 2.5l engine, and contrary to what Edmunds says in the car's review ("... the most striking thing about the 2016 Mazda CX-5 is its athletic character"), I found the engine lacking (a lot of) power...

Have others found the engine also underwhelming, especially compared to what the Edmunds "expert" review says about it?


  • micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
    by the way, I am trying to decide which car to buy, and here are the ones I tested so far, with a brief comment:
    - Honda H-RV: great interior, engine is too weak
    - Toyota RAV-4 (Limited): interior is good (a lot of hard plastic), engine is underwhelming, CVT transmission makes the car lag, a lot.
    - Subaru Forester 2.0XT (Turbo): interior is very simple, engine is (compared to the other cars tested) *very* responsive and powerful
    - Subaru Crosstrek Limited: nice interior, lackluster engine
    - Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring: very nice interior so far, very disappointing engine
    - Jeep Cherokee Limited (note this is not a Grand Cherokee): best, luxury interior, ok engine, dangerous 9-gear transmission (that has caused more than one legal action against Chrysler).

    All in all, I think I'd love a Mazda CX-5 with the Subaru Turbo engine...
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,708
    edited February 2016
    Comparing the Mazda to the turbo Forester isn't quite fair, is it? The regular Forester is no faster than a CX-5. The turbo Forester owners report about 22 mpg over all, compared to 25-26 mpg for the CX-5. But yes, the Turbo Forester will certainly be faster.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Car & Driver pegged the CX-5 at 0-60 in 7.7 seconds....not too bad of course, but it's not the Forester's 6.0 or so.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,708
    When they tested the non-turbo Forester, they got an 8.6 second 0-60, and worse mpg than the CX-5 by 2 mpgs.
  • micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
    Thanks texases and Mr_Shiftright for your comments.

    I agree that comparing the Turbo to the CX-5 might not be fair. My main point is duofold:
    - the Edmunds review praises the CX-5 as a fun, sporty car, even "athletic" (sic). After a test drive (which is a limited, but still relevant experience, imho) I fully disagree with that part of the review.
    - I wish Mazda offered the CX-5 with a more powerful engine. In such case, I would have found my next car...

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I've seen some reports around the forums complaining that the CX-5 isn't as peppy as, say, an Escape. Can't find the post, but I think I penned a mini-review here a couple of years ago about test driving a CX-5. We were mostly comparing to the CR-V and smaller rides, like the HR-V you mention.

    After slinging my wife around in a Sport trim and about making her car sick, I didn't find the alleged lack of pep to be an issue. :) Pretty fun ride for an "SUV" I thought.

    Really liked the job did Honda with the HR-V btw, but the AC couldn't keep up here in the tester we drove. We're looking more for comfort and tech than stoplight racing ability though.
  • micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
    stever said:

    Really liked the job did Honda with the HR-V btw, but the AC couldn't keep up here in the tester we drove. We're looking more for comfort and tech than stoplight racing ability though.

    Stever, I am in a similar situation to yours (except the AC - not an issue in Northern CA). I'd be happy with a CX-5 from a comfort and tech perspective (even happier than with a Subaru, I think) if I felt I had a bit more engine to get out of hairy situations on the road - my desire for more engine does not come from wanting a racing car (I'm 50 and mostly commuting to work and going surfing), but more from, as I mentioned, feeling I have a car that responds quickly when I hit the gas.

    my 3 current contenders are the CX-5, the Forester Turbo and the Cherokee (with the 3.2 engine)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    You probably wouldn't like my recommendation of those three. :D
  • micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
    I guess it'd be the CX-5? not completely against it, yet! :)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited February 2016
    Bingo. :)

    Of course, I haven't driven the other two on your list, so ...
  • micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
    by the way, I could also add the Mercedes GLA to the list of cars I tested:
    - great engine, very responsive
    - interior: it's a Mercedes, but: for a 6.1 guy like me it felt too low/small, and the LCD screen is attached as if it was an afterthought.
    - price is very competitive, as after negotiation you can get it for around 35k
    - I took it off my list of contenders basically due to the cabin's size/height, and for the high cost of maintenance of Mercedes cars
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,708
    I'd run away from the Cherokee, Fiat/Chrysler has the unfortunate distinction of having the least reliable cars on the road, all makes are at the bottom of the list.
  • micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
    Agree on being careful with Jeep/Fiat/Chrysler. Surprisingly, my wife has a 2012 grand Cherokee that has had no issues thus far... 
  • micochemicoche Member Posts: 17
    edited March 2016
    During a second test-drive of the CX-5, I got a much better impression about it, so much so that I got my CX-5 yesterday in Northern California. With regards to my decision to get the CX-5 instead of the Subaru Turbo, I'd say that the decisive factor was how nice the car is inside (especially with all the packages), and how smooth the ride was.

    Here are some details and experience while negotiating:

    - Model: CX-5 Grand Touring, FWD, 2016.5
    - Packages: Tech and I-active
    - MSRP: $32,400
    - Invoice: $31,600
    - Paid: $30,300 (before taxes and registration - there were no "dealer fees")

    (financed part of it through Mazda Finance at a 60 months/2.99% rate)

    Spent 3.5 hours negotiating - Knowing it was almost the last day of the month, I started offering a **very** low amount. I do this in order to check where the dealer's limit is at. In this case, they "sent" me home twice during the negotiation (I left once, and came back). This whole thing resembles some sort of "mating dance" :D

    After 3 hours negotiating, it was pretty clear to me that they would not accept anything less than what they had offered, and I had to make a decision. Given that this is a nice car, fully equipped, I accepted their last price ($30,300).

    After having negotiated for new cars at Jeep and Mercedes, it looks to me that Mazda dealers have less room to accept a discounted offer like mine (my initial offer was about 20% lower than MSRP)... something I have also seen at Honda, at least in this area.

    Anyway, happy with my new car, although I will always wonder if I could have gotten it for less... what do you think? did I get a good deal?

    thanks @stever and @texases for your comments on this thread!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Sounds like you did great - Cali, as you say, has "price problems" with some brands and it looks like Mazda is right in there with the Honda reputation.

  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,708
    Congrats! Sounds like a great car. Those prices are a good example of how 'invoice' price is anything but. Now that everyone can find out the invoice price, it's been increased to maintain dealer profit.
Sign In or Register to comment.