|
|
|
|
 |
BachelorFrog
 |
|
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1209_2012_2013_compact_crossover_suv_comparison/viewall.html
3RD PLACE: 2012 Honda CR-V
New, but only a bit better
By: Ron Kiino
"Feels like the old CR-V, but 10 percent better," said Scott Evans of Honda's fourth-generation crossover. Given that the "old" CR-V won a 2010 comparison against the likes of the GMC Terrain, Hyundai Tucson, and Subaru Forester, a 10 percent improvement for the 2012 model isn't necessarily a bad thing. But in this field, with fresh entries from Ford, Kia, and Mazda, not to mention a face-lifted VW Tiguan, 10 percent wasn't quite enough for the CR-V to retain its top spot.
Lieberman dubbed the Honda "the winner from the B-pillar back," thanks to a slick one-pull folding back seat, a flat floor, and a low cargo load height. So, if you deem the front seat less important than what's behind them, the CR-V is the CUV of choice. We wouldn't fault you for choosing the Honda, as it's a compellingly strong example of efficient packaging. Associate editor Mike Febbo noted, "Either the packaging is utterly brilliant, or Honda has sacrificed someplace. After seeing it next to the other cars, I am having a tough time seeing any sacrifice, so maybe it is packaged that well." Nor would we fault the 25,186 Americans who bought one in May, making the CR-V the best-selling SUV for that month and all of 2012. But for enthusiasts like us, the CR-V needed to be 10 percent better from behind the steering wheel.
Evans logged: "I don't remember the full-electric steering being this subpar. It's very light and artificial. At lower speeds, it's fine for the target audience, but it loses confidence as speeds increase." Lieberman noted: "You're lower in the Honda than in the others. Very flat driver seat -- obviously designed for ease of ingress/egress and not for holding a driver in place." With the smallest wheel/tire combination and the softest suspension, both of which deliver a cushy highway ride, the CR-V delivered the least lateral grip and slowest figure eight (0.78 g and 28.8 seconds at 0.57 g, respectively), and ultimately proved less inspiring on twisty roads.
In a straight line, though, the Honda, with its 185-hp I-4 and five-speed automatic, was anything but lackluster. From 0 to 60, the CR-V (8.4 seconds) trailed only the turbocharged Tiguan (7.8), and nearly caught the Vee-dub at the quarter mile (16.3 seconds at 85.6 mph versus 16.2 at 86.4). The CR-V may only have five gears, but its acceleration times were solid. And in 60-to-0 braking, its 117-foot distance placed it comfortably mid-pack.
At $29,575 as-tested, our CR-V with the EX-L trim and nav was neither the cheapest nor the most expensive, but it was the best equipped. The only items missing were a power tailgate, a blind-spot system, and alloys larger than 17 inches. The one item we deemed needing improvement was the navigation display ("compared with Ford's Sync, Honda's nav screen seems from a different decade," said Lieberman). Minor demerits, but combined with the unenthusiastic driving experience, they rendered the CR-V third. |
|
A.W.E.S.O.M. - O
|
|
CR-V is an awesome package ...
0-60 in 8.4 seconds for the CR-V too ... nice!
|
notyper
|
|
I can understand MotorTrend's rankings to some extent, but I think the comparison makes it quite clear why the CR-V is the best selling vehicle in this class. It simply delivers what people want from these vehicles. A nice ride, safe handling (and not that far below the others in absolute terms - most of it is due to the tall, narrow and squishy tires IMO), good economy and a great interior/cargo space. While I wish Honda would offer a sportier version to help generate more interest and positive press (18" wheels, sportier tires and maybe bigger swaybars would pretty much resolve those complaints), the only real fault that I think can affect sales of the CRV is the lack of a 6AT and the occasional caught out feeling it causes. Of course, if its being compared with the rather anemic CX-5 and the 1.6 turbo Escape, Honda has nothing to worry about as those cars were really, really slow.
Otherwise, I think the CR-V hits the 25 point ring on the dartboard. Add a 6AT and maybe a better tire package and it's a solid bullseye.
SC
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
CRV is nice but its so boring and man the new one has the horrible HUNCH BACK.
I can't stand looking at it.
But the soccer moms will love it.
|
Chocs
|
|
|
I'm sure we all could guess that Honda's stubborn use of 5AT at this point is due to the imminent application of ED CVT.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
2ND PLACE: 2013 Mazda CX-5
"SkyActively slow!" I shouted during my loop in the newest soft-roader from Mazda. Admittedly, not only is my phrase not very funny, but this comparison test isn't the first time I've uttered it. The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations. Why?
Wow.
|
A77
|
|
|
No details of fuel consumption, apart from EPA rubbish. As far as i can see. And surely surely surely in this day and age no conclusion should be reached without this data. I would expect the Mazda to win, followed by the CRV. The Tiguana needs premium of course. This is an excellent review for the CRV - most spacious, best equipped for the money, best ride, second best performance....the Ford is no good in the back, which buyers in this class really care about. And the Mazda is good, but slow.
|
ipribadi
|
|
Fully agree.
If I were Honda, I'd just come up with an optional dealer installed sport package: 18" wheels, high performance tires, stiffer suspension and voila ... no more complaints from mag comparos
To crush the CX-5, simply offer a MT6 trim in bold colors and sport package standard.
|
Rgist85
|
|
ipribadi wrote:
Fully agree.
If I were Honda, I'd just come up with an optional dealer installed sport package: 18" wheels, high performance tires, stiffer suspension and voila ... no more complaints from mag comparos
To crush the CX-5, simply offer a MT6 trim in bold colors and sport package standard.
|
The dealer-installed pkg would be too expensive and likely guady-looking. Just offer a CR-V Touring...18 inch wheels, blacked out headlamps with projector beams/HIDs, pano roof, LED taillights, Touring suspension, power passenger's seat, etc. etc. The CR-V is behind in content in the same way the current Accord is IMO.
|
A77
|
|
|
Canada at least already has a CRV Touring - but I don't think it is any different from a US EXL Navi? Chrome door handles, auto dipping mirror, and roof rails standard.....? Agreed re an 18" 6Mt version. Would be a small market but valuable and would keep the journos happy. Like an SE TSX.
|
DCR
|
|
|
That Touring would be damn near $35k or more I bet. Honda still has the Acura glass ceiling to deal with.
|
CivicB18
|
|
A good friend of mine works for a large local Ford dealer and I was over there this past weekend and examined a 2013 Ford Escape Ecoboost Platinum. The design is very nice as was the interior and of course it was fully loaded. The sticker was kissing $40k. That's ridiculous regardless of the options.
In regards to the CRV, I'm sure the next CRV (under Berkmans eye) will be more focused and tactile in terms of ride/handling and steering feedback as the current seems to be middle ofthe pack in those areas. Honda used to be #1 in those areas. Hopefully the next Odyssey will return to being the best "drivers van" also as I do miss the tactile/handling performance of our former 2005 Touring vs out 2011 Touring Elite. I do however enjoy the extra refinement of the 2011. If Berkman could only somehow combine the extra refinement and the ride/handling, tactile performance of last Hondas that would be awesome.
~Patrick
|
DCR
|
|
That will remain to be seen, as making a business case for increasing the performance traits would probably be especially hard at Honda these days.
The CR-V has evolved into the perfect point A to point B vehicle, and though the Mazda CX-5 might drive/handle better, I am sure that is now well outside of the demographic of the vehicle. The male-dominated car journos will decidely like these characteristics, but I fully get why most manufacturers aren't focusing on that in this segment.
|
Hondu
|
|
Rgist85 wrote:
ipribadi wrote:
Fully agree.
If I were Honda, I'd just come up with an optional dealer installed sport package: 18" wheels, high performance tires, stiffer suspension and voila ... no more complaints from mag comparos
To crush the CX-5, simply offer a MT6 trim in bold colors and sport package standard.
|
The dealer-installed pkg would be too expensive and likely guady-looking. Just offer a CR-V Touring...18 inch wheels, blacked out headlamps with projector beams/HIDs, pano roof, LED taillights, Touring suspension, power passenger's seat, etc. etc. The CR-V is behind in content in the same way the current Accord is IMO.
|
If they are going to start offering an Accord Sport option, why not the same for the CR-V? Could help with people who want a sportier package, but not the Touring price.
|
Gumbercules
|
|
A77 wrote:
No details of fuel consumption, apart from EPA rubbish. As far as i can see. And surely surely surely in this day and age no conclusion should be reached without this data. I would expect the Mazda to win, followed by the CRV. The Tiguana needs premium of course. This is an excellent review for the CRV - most spacious, best equipped for the money, best ride, second best performance....the Ford is no good in the back, which buyers in this class really care about. And the Mazda is good, but slow.
|
MT Observed MPG:
Escape 21.4
CR-V 21.4
Sportage 15.8 (lol, what a pathetic result, that's the hyundai/kia magic)
CX-5 22.3
Tiguan 20.7
The mazda has the best MPG in this test, by a modest 0.9 over the CR-V and Escape. With all the hype over SkyActive being no compromise over power and efficiency, I would expect more of an advantage.
And once again, Hyundai/Kia with horrendous mileage and, although well-equipped, terrible driving dynamics and comfort.
Please note that the absolute #'s are not as important as their relative result to each other, it is unkown how hard these cars were driven during testing but it's likely they were driven in similar ways.
|
MasterOfDaDomain
|
|
What's important is real world mileage, and CX-5 has delivered very well if you check Fuelly. Also, note that when the mileage is in the low 20's as tested by car magazines, the differences in mileage is actually quite significant vs. the difference in the 30's. i.e., 20 to 21 mpg increase is much more significant vs. 30 to 31 mpg increase. Many people still don't understand how mpg works - it's not linear!
This is the second comparison test that CR-V comes out behind. the previous one is from Automobile magazine. http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1204_ford_escape_vs_honda_cr_v_vs_mazda_cx_5_comparison/viewall.html
I've tested the CR-V - it's a nice package, but a very boring package. Works for the average consumer for sure.
Personally I dislike the styling - the backend just looks wrong, and feature/content is subpar. 5sp auto lacks manual shift, and no 40-20-40 split rear seat like the previous generation. Again, Honda delivers something that is good enough, like a Toyota, but not something to put a smile on my face.
|
JDMImport
|
|
DCR wrote:
That will remain to be seen, as making a business case for increasing the performance traits would probably be especially hard at Honda these days.
The CR-V has evolved into the perfect point A to point B vehicle, and though the Mazda CX-5 might drive/handle better, I am sure that is now well outside of the demographic of the vehicle. The male-dominated car journos will decidely like these characteristics, but I fully get why most manufacturers aren't focusing on that in this segment.
|
I read a press release a while back that Mazda only targets the 20% of people who actually care about how the car drives. Remember, being a small company, Mazda does not need to sell 200,000 CX-5's to be successful, current financial woes aside (due to Yen mainly). To date, Mazda has underestimated the demand and CX-5's are on dealer lots on average of 11 days. Obviously they have done something right.
I believed someone mentioned Fuelly.com. Proof is there that the economy is for real and the CX-5 is a fun car to drive. Sounds to me like Mazda has built a car people want.
Speaking of Fuelly the recorded CR-V owners are averaging 26.8mpg total with the majority of the owners reporting between 23-27mpg. The CX-5 owners are averaging 28.6mpg with the majority of owners reporting 27-31 mpg average.
|
THX17201
|
|
JDMImport wrote:
DCR wrote:
That will remain to be seen, as making a business case for increasing the performance traits would probably be especially hard at Honda these days.
The CR-V has evolved into the perfect point A to point B vehicle, and though the Mazda CX-5 might drive/handle better, I am sure that is now well outside of the demographic of the vehicle. The male-dominated car journos will decidely like these characteristics, but I fully get why most manufacturers aren't focusing on that in this segment.
|
I read a press release a while back that Mazda only targets the 20% of people who actually care about how the car drives. Remember, being a small company, Mazda does not need to sell 200,000 CX-5's to be successful, current financial woes aside (due to Yen mainly). To date, Mazda has underestimated the demand and CX-5's are on dealer lots on average of 11 days. Obviously they have done something right.
I believed someone mentioned Fuelly.com. Proof is there that the economy is for real and the CX-5 is a fun car to drive. Sounds to me like Mazda has built a car people want.
Speaking of Fuelly the recorded CR-V owners are averaging 26.8mpg total with the majority of the owners reporting between 23-27mpg. The CX-5 owners are averaging 28.6mpg with the majority of owners reporting 27-31 mpg average.
|
The CX-5 is beautiful and fuel efficient. That seems to be a good formula... With the new design language the front ends are going to make these new Mazdas much less polarizing than the smiley Mazda3.
|
ipribadi
|
|
A touring trim will be too expensive and anyone would simply go for a base RDX instead.
The sport package is simply a HFP kit: 18" wheels + sport suspension .. sure throw in a rear wing to help reduce the humpback look.
Since it's a dealer installed option, it can be applied to any trim level LX, EX, EX-L
Target is those who consider the CX-5 but prefer a Honda instead.
Simple, easy, done it b4 for Accord, crushes the CX-5, stops mag comparo complaints, doesn't impact the trim price lineup strategy or the RDX.
So why not Honda?
|
notyper
|
|
JDMImport wrote:
I believed someone mentioned Fuelly.com. Proof is there that the economy is for real and the CX-5 is a fun car to drive. Sounds to me like Mazda has built a car people want.
Speaking of Fuelly the recorded CR-V owners are averaging 26.8mpg total with the majority of the owners reporting between 23-27mpg. The CX-5 owners are averaging 28.6mpg with the majority of owners reporting 27-31 mpg average.
|
While I'm sure that 5-6% better fuel economy will sell some cars, I'm betting that more people get turned off by the serious power anemia that the CX-5 displays. You'd expect a little better economy when you're smaller, lighter and with less hp, but when you're that much slower than your competition, I think people will notice - far more than they'd notice at the limit handling improvements.
It would be nice to have it all, and Honda should work to improve the weak areas of the CR-V, but I think the CX-5 is soundly trounced by the CR-V where it counts in this class.
SC
|
A.W.E.S.O.M. - O
|
|
MasterOfDaDomain wrote:
What's important is real world mileage, and CX-5 has delivered very well if you check Fuelly. Also, note that when the mileage is in the low 20's as tested by car magazines, the differences in mileage is actually quite significant vs. the difference in the 30's. i.e., 20 to 21 mpg increase is much more significant vs. 30 to 31 mpg increase. Many people still don't understand how mpg works - it's not linear!
This is the second comparison test that CR-V comes out behind. the previous one is from Automobile magazine. http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1204_ford_escape_vs_honda_cr_v_vs_mazda_cx_5_comparison/viewall.html
I've tested the CR-V - it's a nice package, but a very boring package. Works for the average consumer for sure.
Personally I dislike the styling - the backend just looks wrong, and feature/content is subpar. 5sp auto lacks manual shift, and no 40-20-40 split rear seat like the previous generation. Again, Honda delivers something that is good enough, like a Toyota, but not something to put a smile on my face.
|
I think anyone that embraces Honda core values doesn't think they've "lost" these comparos. Frankly for the auto press "profound Honda goodness and competence wins again" just doesn't have any 'play' fo them. They have to create interest ... and also not alienate potential advertisers.
That's not to say the new Escape and CX-5 aren't good rigs but - detractors be damned - Honda got the CR-V right. Incredible packaging, great incremental refinement, industry's best resale for any vehicle, and value priced. They will sell a ton.
The only real misstep (until the EarthDreams powertrains arrive) is the package with the NAVI could have had both a more compelling NAVI and sound system. You need more than that, the RDX is waiting in the wings.
|
Rgist85
|
|
Hondu wrote:
Rgist85 wrote:
ipribadi wrote:
Fully agree.
If I were Honda, I'd just come up with an optional dealer installed sport package: 18" wheels, high performance tires, stiffer suspension and voila ... no more complaints from mag comparos
To crush the CX-5, simply offer a MT6 trim in bold colors and sport package standard.
|
The dealer-installed pkg would be too expensive and likely guady-looking. Just offer a CR-V Touring...18 inch wheels, blacked out headlamps with projector beams/HIDs, pano roof, LED taillights, Touring suspension, power passenger's seat, etc. etc. The CR-V is behind in content in the same way the current Accord is IMO.
|
If they are going to start offering an Accord Sport option, why not the same for the CR-V? Could help with people who want a sportier package, but not the Touring price.
|
I have NO ISSUE with a sportier CR-V. IMO, a CR-V Touring would be the sportier CR-V. However, I don't like the idea of the CR-V having some dealer installed "sport pkg" which would likely be over inflated in price after all installation fees. They ALREADY charge an arm and a leg to install simple things like a spoiler and splash guards, imagine them adding body kits, bigger rims and thecost. Why add the middle man (the dealership) when Honda could just offer a sport CR-V on its own? Toyota's Rav4 has a "sport" model does it not? The Sportage comes in sporty "SX" trim. Isn't the Forester offered in a Sport trim? Ditto the Escape Titanium. There is a market, but perhaps its still not big enough for Honda to justify it.
|
Hondu
|
|
Rgist85 wrote:
Hondu wrote:
Rgist85 wrote:
ipribadi wrote:
Fully agree.
If I were Honda, I'd just come up with an optional dealer installed sport package: 18" wheels, high performance tires, stiffer suspension and voila ... no more complaints from mag comparos
To crush the CX-5, simply offer a MT6 trim in bold colors and sport package standard.
|
The dealer-installed pkg would be too expensive and likely guady-looking. Just offer a CR-V Touring...18 inch wheels, blacked out headlamps with projector beams/HIDs, pano roof, LED taillights, Touring suspension, power passenger's seat, etc. etc. The CR-V is behind in content in the same way the current Accord is IMO.
|
If they are going to start offering an Accord Sport option, why not the same for the CR-V? Could help with people who want a sportier package, but not the Touring price.
|
I have NO ISSUE with a sportier CR-V. IMO, a CR-V Touring would be the sportier CR-V. However, I don't like the idea of the CR-V having some dealer installed "sport pkg" which would likely be over inflated in price after all installation fees. They ALREADY charge an arm and a leg to install simple things like a spoiler and splash guards, imagine them adding body kits, bigger rims and thecost. Why add the middle man (the dealership) when Honda could just offer a sport CR-V on its own? Toyota's Rav4 has a "sport" model does it not? The Sportage comes in sporty "SX" trim. Isn't the Forester offered in a Sport trim? Ditto the Escape Titanium. There is a market, but perhaps its still not big enough for Honda to justify it.
|
Yes, I agree. We are on the same page. I was not advocating a dealer installed sport pkg. I was suggesting a factory Sport trim, just like others are offering. Equipped like an EX/EX-L, but with bigger rims and stiffer suspension (maybe different seats as well), but in the EX/EX-L price realm.
|
JDMImport
|
|
notyper wrote:
While I'm sure that 5-6% better fuel economy will sell some cars, I'm betting that more people get turned off by the serious power anemia that the CX-5 displays. You'd expect a little better economy when you're smaller, lighter and with less hp, but when you're that much slower than your competition, I think people will notice - far more than they'd notice at the limit handling improvements.
It would be nice to have it all, and Honda should work to improve the weak areas of the CR-V, but I think the CX-5 is soundly trounced by the CR-V where it counts in this class.
SC
|
The power difference is not as drastic as MT is making you think. I have driven both and there is very little real-world difference.
Again, the fact that Mazda cannot keep up with demand means this is a car that many want.
The article by MT has so many journalism flaws its not even funny. They praise the 1.6L Escape for having plenty of power while its trap speed is identical the the CX-5 yet the complain that the CX-5 has no passing power. On what planet does that make sense?
There are a few other articles that have the speed times a lot closer than MT had them.
In any event, I really don't consider MT's writings all that important. After all, they did name the 2001 PT Crusier "Car of the Year" only to call it one of the worst cars of the decade 10 years later. There goes any credibility they ever had.
Last edited by JeffX on 06-27-2012 10:35
|
notyper
|
|
MT doesn't have to "make" me think anything. The CX-5 has the worst power-to-weight ratio in the class. It has a slight weight advantage over the CRV and a huge power deficit. From 60 to 80 mph the CX-5 takes 7.8 seconds vs. 5.5 seconds in the CRV. Even the somewhat slow Escape 1.6 takes 6.6 seconds to cover the same interval (and has a surge of turbo torque which likely gives an even more favorable impression of passing power). Shorter gearing may help the CX-5 disguise its deficit at lower speeds, but on the freeway it is dog meat.
As for the demand argument, it really means nothing. Just because a company doesn't have sufficient production capacity to meet demand doesn't mean a product is popular. It simply means that it doesn't have production capacity to meet demand. The CX-5 sold less than 4000 units last month, putting it in 8th place in the segment. Even the Subaru Forester nearly doubled it in sales.
SC
|
KMG1219
|
|
I am surprised about the performance data of the CRV given it's lack of torque, 5sp auto, and tall gears. Some sportier looks plus the new DI engine and CVT would have the escape beat by a mile.
However, I would much rather have seen a comparison of AWD models and then put passengers in them and maybe some cargo too. Now that would be a better test since my main concern is acceleration with a loaded vehicle. Which is why I will probably opt for a 2.0 ecoboost escape.
|
JDMImport
|
|
notyper wrote:
MT doesn't have to "make" me think anything. The CX-5 has the worst power-to-weight ratio in the class. It has a slight weight advantage over the CRV and a huge power deficit. From 60 to 80 mph the CX-5 takes 7.8 seconds vs. 5.5 seconds in the CRV. Even the somewhat slow Escape 1.6 takes 6.6 seconds to cover the same interval (and has a surge of turbo torque which likely gives an even more favorable impression of passing power). Shorter gearing may help the CX-5 disguise its deficit at lower speeds, but on the freeway it is dog meat.
As for the demand argument, it really means nothing. Just because a company doesn't have sufficient production capacity to meet demand doesn't mean a product is popular. It simply means that it doesn't have production capacity to meet demand. The CX-5 sold less than 4000 units last month, putting it in 8th place in the segment. Even the Subaru Forester nearly doubled it in sales.
SC
|
Just because a company only sold 4000 units does not mean it was not in demand. Viewing many message boards, there were many many people who chose other cars simply because there were no CX-5's to choose from.
Mazda is not an auto giant so looking at simple sales numbers cannot dictate demand. The Mazda3, Mazda's #1 seller is in high demand and it is probably in the lower part of the top 10 in it's class as well. The Corolla is the #2 seller, does that mean it is in the highest demand? Absolutely not. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who actually wants a Corolla, well one that is Internet savvy anyway. The Hyundai Elantra was #5, and Hyundai cannot keep up with demand either.
Bottom line is the CX-5 is in demand, regardless of what you may think. It constantly gets great reviews from every source. Could it use more power? Yes. But, since I have driven one,I can tell you its not that bad. It's not all about power to weight ratio's but rather parasitic drive train loss, which is why manufacturers are concentrating on reducing friction, something Mazda did with awesome results with Skyactiv and Honda is looking to achieve with Earth Dreams.
This is the compact crossover segment. 99% of buyers could care less about 0-60 times, something the #1 selling Civic knows all about, which is a slug in its own right.....
|
JP
|
|
JDMImport wrote:
notyper wrote:
MT doesn't have to "make" me think anything. The CX-5 has the worst power-to-weight ratio in the class. It has a slight weight advantage over the CRV and a huge power deficit. From 60 to 80 mph the CX-5 takes 7.8 seconds vs. 5.5 seconds in the CRV. Even the somewhat slow Escape 1.6 takes 6.6 seconds to cover the same interval (and has a surge of turbo torque which likely gives an even more favorable impression of passing power). Shorter gearing may help the CX-5 disguise its deficit at lower speeds, but on the freeway it is dog meat.
As for the demand argument, it really means nothing. Just because a company doesn't have sufficient production capacity to meet demand doesn't mean a product is popular. It simply means that it doesn't have production capacity to meet demand. The CX-5 sold less than 4000 units last month, putting it in 8th place in the segment. Even the Subaru Forester nearly doubled it in sales.
SC
|
Just because a company only sold 4000 units does not mean it was not in demand. Viewing many message boards, there were many many people who chose other cars simply because there were no CX-5's to choose from.
Mazda is not an auto giant so looking at simple sales numbers cannot dictate demand. The Mazda3, Mazda's #1 seller is in high demand and it is probably in the lower part of the top 10 in it's class as well. The Corolla is the #2 seller, does that mean it is in the highest demand? Absolutely not. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who actually wants a Corolla, well one that is Internet savvy anyway. The Hyundai Elantra was #5, and Hyundai cannot keep up with demand either.
Bottom line is the CX-5 is in demand, regardless of what you may think. It constantly gets great reviews from every source. Could it use more power? Yes. But, since I have driven one,I can tell you its not that bad. It's not all about power to weight ratio's but rather parasitic drive train loss, which is why manufacturers are concentrating on reducing friction, something Mazda did with awesome results with Skyactiv and Honda is looking to achieve with Earth Dreams.
This is the compact crossover segment. 99% of buyers could care less about 0-60 times, something the #1 selling Civic knows all about, which is a slug in its own right.....
|
If I am right, Civic 9th gen 5AT "slug" is faster than the segment except by the Jetta 2.5 AT, Jetta TDI and Ford Focus Top Trim 6 Dual clutch tranny...
|
JDMImport
|
|
|
Focus, Jetta and Mazda3 are all quicker. It is equal to the Cruze and Elantra
|
cforez
|
|
|
11 day turnaround and 4000 units sold basically says that supply and demand are in balance. Unfortunately for Mazda, that is towards the bottom of the sales chart.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
