2017 Mazda CX-5 Touring

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Kira
We have no complaints with the 3 Mazdas (a 3, a CX3 and a CX5) in the family.

SEPARATE LEGITIMATE QUESTION...asked in a playful way: Is there an accepted scale of "power adequacy"? It seems there's always a camp that says they need more power.
Seven adults with luggage in a car in Colorado needs power. I get that.

It's just that the scale which exists now is, "too low - barely gets up to ramp speed - 320+ hp"

Gotta look into a Faraday Pouch. Are these the silvery ones circuit boards come in?

In Colorado in any kind of SUV, small, big, if it does not have at minimum 200lb-ft of torque, it is not adequate, and I am talking empty vehicle. And those 200lb-ft better be turbo charged. Otherwise, at least 6 pistons.


I've never driven at elevation before, really, but a simple online calculator shows just how absolutely destructive it is to NA engine output. This is part of why I view FI as the future of vehicles, just like EFI was to carburetor.




Funny, I've driven over many passes including some high ones and never felt this destructive performance. That includes both 4 and six cylinder engines, all naturally aspirated.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Kira
We have no complaints with the 3 Mazdas (a 3, a CX3 and a CX5) in the family.

SEPARATE LEGITIMATE QUESTION...asked in a playful way: Is there an accepted scale of "power adequacy"? It seems there's always a camp that says they need more power.
Seven adults with luggage in a car in Colorado needs power. I get that.

It's just that the scale which exists now is, "too low - barely gets up to ramp speed - 320+ hp"

Gotta look into a Faraday Pouch. Are these the silvery ones circuit boards come in?

In Colorado in any kind of SUV, small, big, if it does not have at minimum 200lb-ft of torque, it is not adequate, and I am talking empty vehicle. And those 200lb-ft better be turbo charged. Otherwise, at least 6 pistons.


I've never driven at elevation before, really, but a simple online calculator shows just how absolutely destructive it is to NA engine output. This is part of why I view FI as the future of vehicles, just like EFI was to carburetor.




Funny, I've driven over many passes including some high ones and never felt this destructive performance. That includes both 4 and six cylinder engines, all naturally aspirated.


Your experience and expectations and environment and so forth are all a factor, of course.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Kira
We have no complaints with the 3 Mazdas (a 3, a CX3 and a CX5) in the family.

SEPARATE LEGITIMATE QUESTION...asked in a playful way: Is there an accepted scale of "power adequacy"? It seems there's always a camp that says they need more power.
Seven adults with luggage in a car in Colorado needs power. I get that.

It's just that the scale which exists now is, "too low - barely gets up to ramp speed - 320+ hp"

Gotta look into a Faraday Pouch. Are these the silvery ones circuit boards come in?

In Colorado in any kind of SUV, small, big, if it does not have at minimum 200lb-ft of torque, it is not adequate, and I am talking empty vehicle. And those 200lb-ft better be turbo charged. Otherwise, at least 6 pistons.


I've never driven at elevation before, really, but a simple online calculator shows just how absolutely destructive it is to NA engine output. This is part of why I view FI as the future of vehicles, just like EFI was to carburetor.




Funny, I've driven over many passes including some high ones and never felt this destructive performance. That includes both 4 and six cylinder engines, all naturally aspirated.

Depends on your expectations. Yugo can go up the Rockies at 60mph too.
The issue is: getting to 60, and dropping to 30, and going back to 60.
I am talking interstate, not passing on local roads at 10,000ft. For example in Sienna you start wondering what is faster: moving of the sun across the sky or speedometer.

 

[bachman]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Kira
We have no complaints with the 3 Mazdas (a 3, a CX3 and a CX5) in the family.

SEPARATE LEGITIMATE QUESTION...asked in a playful way: Is there an accepted scale of "power adequacy"? It seems there's always a camp that says they need more power.
Seven adults with luggage in a car in Colorado needs power. I get that.

It's just that the scale which exists now is, "too low - barely gets up to ramp speed - 320+ hp"

Gotta look into a Faraday Pouch. Are these the silvery ones circuit boards come in?

In Colorado in any kind of SUV, small, big, if it does not have at minimum 200lb-ft of torque, it is not adequate, and I am talking empty vehicle. And those 200lb-ft better be turbo charged. Otherwise, at least 6 pistons.


I've never driven at elevation before, really, but a simple online calculator shows just how absolutely destructive it is to NA engine output. This is part of why I view FI as the future of vehicles, just like EFI was to carburetor.




Funny, I've driven over many passes including some high ones and never felt this destructive performance. That includes both 4 and six cylinder engines, all naturally aspirated.


Me 2

It's the nut that holds the steering wheel !

The real mystery to me is I can walk out the door and slip and fall on my kiester with ice or snow yet somehow pilot the car to work on those roads while others are selling off that car as "don't work in snow!"

as they say,
Your Medications May Vary !

 

[pbm]

So...(as I asked previously).....is 5w30...in a 145K NA Skyactive that calls for 0w20...OK?

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by pbm
So...(as I asked previously).....is 5w30...in a 145K NA Skyactive that calls for 0w20...OK?

It probably didnt hurt anything, but as Robin Williams said...follow the path great men went before you. Stay on the sidewalk. There is no need or sense in second guessing Mazdas engineers here. Use the 0-20.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by pbm
So...(as I asked previously).....is 5w30...in a 145K NA Skyactive that calls for 0w20...OK?




It will run okay but it is not optimal.

 

[pbm]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by pbm
So...(as I asked previously).....is 5w30...in a 145K NA Skyactive that calls for 0w20...OK?


It will run okay but it is not optimal.


Thanks guys....I wasn't sure if this was one that spec'd 5w30 in other parts of the world. I thought that since
she had high mileage and was using some oil it might be better off with 5w30 (syn. of course)..and I would
get to use up some of my stash...

 

[VQ35DE]

0W-20

 

[grampi]

Before all of this social distancing began, my wife and I started looking at SUVs. We currently have a minivan, but it's way too much vehicle for just the two of us. We actually drove an Edge and an Explorer, and though we liked the Edge (the Explorer was too big for us), the engine choices were a turn-off. We also drove a Rav 4, but it was too small and had a very choppy ride. When the dealerships reopen we plan on looking at the CRV...it sounds like we also need to be looking at CX-5...

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by grampi
Before all of this social distancing began, my wife and I started looking at SUVs. We currently have a minivan, but it's way too much vehicle for just the two of us. We actually drove an Edge and an Explorer, and though we liked the Edge (the Explorer was too big for us), the engine choices were a turn-off. We also drove a Rav 4, but it was too small and had a very choppy ride. When the dealerships reopen we plan on looking at the CRV...it sounds like we also need to be looking at CX-5...


The CX5 is far and away the funnest. Especially if you get the turbo model. The CRV will likely have a more cushy ride. Noone really likes the RAV except people who bought one.

 

[Luftmasse]

Out of the 3 popular SUV - CX-5 first, RAV4 second and CR-V third. Unless you like turbo, that is another story.

You can check on youtube for comparison.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by painfx
Out of the 3 popular SUV - CX-5 first, RAV4 second and CR-V third. Unless you like turbo, that is another story.

You can check on youtube for comparison.

I don't even consider the Rav comparable. It has less interior space (especially compared to the CRV). The CRV also has a much nicer ride....

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by painfx
Out of the 3 popular SUV - CX-5 first, RAV4 second and CR-V third. Unless you like turbo, that is another story.

You can check on youtube for comparison.

I don't even consider the Rav comparable. It has less interior space (especially compared to the CRV). The CRV also has a much nicer ride....




Are you talking about older models grampi? The new RAV4 has gotten quite a bit bigger.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by painfx
Out of the 3 popular SUV - CX-5 first, RAV4 second and CR-V third. Unless you like turbo, that is another story.

You can check on youtube for comparison.

I don't even consider the Rav comparable. It has less interior space (especially compared to the CRV). The CRV also has a much nicer ride....




Are you talking about older models grampi? The new RAV4 has gotten quite a bit bigger.

Yes, the 2020 models are bigger, but I'm looking at 2016-2018 models...in that year group, the CRV is quite a bit bigger...