2012 Mazda CX-5 | MPG Numbers are in | $20,695 US

  • Thread starter Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 139 comments
  • 17,556 views
So, assuming the 163hp four I read about is the best gas engine... and the CX-5 is a Tribute replacement... horsepower is slowly dying, at least as far as mainstream cars are concerned.
 
Yeah, because you only need 150hp. I do fine with ~100. Wish I had a longer highway gear. But most cars now will have that with the extra 50.
 
If I remember correctly this thing also weighs less than the Tribute it's replacing. Your average commuter doesn't need more power than that.
 
It's not going to win any drag races or hill climbs, but for a daily-commuter, the power is adequate. Nobody has figured out how to make a 350-hp, 3500 lb, 35 mpg SUV...you can't have it all.
 
Kylehnat
It's not going to win any drag races or hill climbs, but for a daily-commuter, the power is adequate. Nobody has figured out how to make a 350-hp, 3500 lb, 35 mpg SUV...you can't have it all.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking for 350. If the Tribute retained the same engines the Explorer was using, the base engine had something like 170 HP and the top version - a V6 - had 240.

Also, anyone buying an SUV for daily commuting isn't too bright, in my opinion. If you need the space, buy a station wagon. It'll handle better, go faster, and get better gas mileage too. And it actually looks better.
 
Even with the V6, the Tribute was no dragster. Last I drove the (old) Tribby V6, I was thinking: "My 4-pot CR-V is punchier than this..."

It's not just power... it's weight. And gearing. When you're doing well over the speed limit, maybe you'll be wishing for much more horsepower, but from 0-60, less weight and more gears can compensate for the lack.

If I recall right, the SkyActiv Diesel is supposed to share many components with the gasoline one... and, by virtue of its low 14:1 compression, it can use a similar open-deck aluminum block, which means the diesel CX-5 won't be a nose-heavy pig. With that little weight and a 175 hp diesel, it should get up to speed much quicker than the 200 hp V6 Tribby did. 240 hp Tribby, maybe not so much, but the 170 hp diesel shouldn't be more than half-a-second behind to 60 mph, due to the extra down-low torque of the diesel.
 
Last edited:
Well... true that, and don't diesels respond especially well to tuning? So, theoretically, someone could easily extract more power from the diesel than the Tribute ever had.

Thing is, this being an SUV, most people won't bother.
 
Depends on where you live. With tuning and bolt-ons, you can typically get between 20-50 more hp out of turbodiesels. There are lots of companies in Europe and here in Asia that offer tuning packages for common diesel platforms.

The issue with the SkyActiv will be that it's so different from everything else that your typical tricks may either not work or end up blowing the engine to smithereens.
 
niky


The issue with the SkyActiv will be that it's so different from everything else that your typical tricks may either not work or end up blowing the engine to smithereens.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. SkyActive is basically direct injection mixed with high compression(at high rpm), new piston dome shape, a 5th or 6th injector to help with combustion even further, then a purty 4-2-1 exhaust manifold. Intake valves stay open longer like in Atkinson engines. That's all I found for now.
 
White & Nerdy
Also, anyone buying an SUV for daily commuting isn't too bright, in my opinion. If you need the space, buy a station wagon. It'll handle better, go faster, and get better gas mileage too. And it actually looks better.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not quite the same between a station wagon and SUV for space. My mom drives a Golf wagon, and dad has a VW Touareg. The Touareg is wider and taller, the width in particular makes it easier to carry your stuff. When I pack my hockey gear in the Golf I have to fold down one of the rear seats, in the Touareg I don't need to. Also, once in dad's old Buick Enclave I carried 5 people and 4 hockey bags (including one massive goalie bag) comfortably. You can't do that in a station wagon.

That being said, I could do it in a minivan too, but the level of refinement in a Touareg/Enclave vs a minivan isn't even close. As an aside, I would probably buy a station wagon over an SUV for myself, because I don't have kids and don't need the extra space. If I needed the space, I'd buy a minivan or an SUV depending on how much money I had to spend on a car.
 
Noob616
Well, it's not quite the same between a station wagon and SUV for space. My mom drives a Golf wagon, and dad has a VW Touareg. The Touareg is wider and taller, the width in particular makes it easier to carry your stuff. When I pack my hockey gear in the Golf I have to fold down one of the rear seats, in the Touareg I don't need to. Also, once in dad's old Buick Enclave I carried 5 people and 4 hockey bags (including one massive goalie bag) comfortably. You can't do that in a station wagon.

That being said, I could do it in a minivan too, but the level of refinement in a Touareg/Enclave vs a minivan isn't even close. As an aside, I would probably buy a station wagon over an SUV for myself, because I don't have kids and don't need the extra space. If I needed the space, I'd buy a minivan or an SUV depending on how much money I had to spend on a car.
Click to expand...

A Toureg is quite a bit larger than this lifted wagon, and probably better off road too.
 
White & Nerdy
If you need the space, buy a station wagon. It'll handle better, go faster, and get better gas mileage too. And it actually looks better.
Click to expand...
Which station wagons have comparable cargo space, handle better and get better mileage?
 
That's a good one, but a bit expensive. Bear in mind I'm mainly referring to the SUVs that can't go offroad (typically FWD or front-based AWD) and basically serve no purpose except extra ride height. Crossovers are included in this.
 
Kylehnat
Which station wagons have comparable cargo space, handle better and get better mileage?
Click to expand...

That's why I asked how this compares to the 2012 Impreza 5-door.
 
White & Nerdy
That's a good one, but a bit expensive. Bear in mind I'm mainly referring to the SUVs that can't go offroad (typically FWD or front-based AWD) and basically serve no purpose except extra ride height. Crossovers are included in this.
Click to expand...
You say they are useless off-road, so go buy a station wagon to tackle those logging roads? :odd:
 
White & Nerdy
Also, anyone buying an SUV for daily commuting isn't too bright, in my opinion. If you need the space, buy a station wagon. It'll handle better, go faster, and get better gas mileage too. And it actually looks better.
Click to expand...
Find me a wagon that is better but no more expensive than the FWD CX5, then post it here.
 
2012-subaru-impreza-5door-6.jpg


I'd like to know.
 
Son, go to the dealership and find out! Damn!

And the Subaru is a Subaru - obviously it's designed to go off-road. But it's not even worth buying the FWD version because there are other cars that do that better than the Subaru will. Like the CX5. The CX5 is a soft-roader. That's what Mazda does.
 
Yeah, I know. I could have been in a position to be like, yo, the CX-5 is the bomb, or, yo, the CX-5 is a bomb. But, no, Mazda decided not to show up at the car show. I ask because I want a car like the 5-door or the CX-5. They seem like the best cars that you might possibly be able to fit a bedroom full of crap inside (minus the bed).
 
Kylehnat
You say they are useless off-road, so go buy a station wagon to tackle those logging roads? :odd:
Click to expand...

No, what I mean is, if you're buying an SUV that can't go off road, then why bother getting an SUV at all. Most of them are basically station wagons with higher suspension/bigger tires anyway, so why not dispense with the bad parts of SUV ownership as well?
 
My wife prefers an SUV over an MPV or station wagon because of the high entry. If you have small kids and lots of stuff, you'll know why. ;)
 
White & Nerdy
No, what I mean is, if you're buying an SUV that can't go off road, then why bother getting an SUV at all. Most of them are basically station wagons with higher suspension/bigger tires anyway, so why not dispense with the bad parts of SUV ownership as well?
Click to expand...

Because people like the false security of being higher off the ground than in a wagon.
 

Latest Posts

Back