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.
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.