Let us check the facts and see what the 184 HP is capable of in the Mazda.
I will show data for Mazda 6 that has nearly equal weight as the OS AWC (within 20 lb) and that is 360 lb smaller than the curb weight of the CX-5 AWD with the 2.5 L engine. This means that the 2.5 L Skyactiv engine should be slower in the CX-5 than in the 6.
Everyman Driver tested the 0-60 mph acceleration of the Mazda 6 (at ~1900 ft above see level) in five different runs with different settings. In full automatic mode he measured (with his GPS based device) 9.2 s.
The corresponding values for our OS (2.0L engine) by two independent testers were 9.2 s (Edmunds.com) and 9.5 s (Motor Week):
http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/ou...est-specs.html
http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/roa...utlander_sport.
I do not see any advantage of the +36 HP in the Mazda vs the OS. This 2.5 Skyactiv engine in the heavier CX-5 must even be slower. The OS was not tested in different modes to my knowledge except MPGomatic in "paddle shifter mode" (but he did not time it). It did not appear faster (10-11 s in my count based on the clock of the video).

Everyman Driver in different modes got values from 8.41 s for the Mazda 6 (automatic mode TC off, over a second improvement). Interestingly, using the paddle shifters he got the longest time of 9.46 s. Every tester I can recall claimed that the OS became more dynamic by using the paddle shifters. I should add a correction in line of the above numerical tests: it might have felt more dynamic.

Now coming back to Mitsubishi. The factual improvement in dynamics by the 2.4 L engine is going to be even more subtle than in the case of the Mazda. However, if people are going to be happier, then the mission will be accomplished. A saying from the Roman Empire tells it all:" panem et circenses". "Bread and circuses", referring to the ability of the Emperor to control the masses by giving them food and entertainment. People will be served here too but with very little factual improvement. Considering the extra cost not only the advantage evaporates but rather puts the customer to a worse overall situation. Paying more for nothing. Oh, sorry.. the blacked out center part of the grill will save $10 for those who wanted to paint it black with Plastidip and the mirrors will get LED turn signal indicators.

I admire Mazda not particularly for bringing the 2.5 L engine within one year to the CX-5 but rather for addressing the "marginal" rating in the IIHS small overlap crash test. They made modifications promptly and by the second model year improved the rating to "good". That is a real and significant gain.
In this category Mitsubishi did not need improvement (luckily). They reprogrammed the CVT transmission instead nearly every year to achieve better acceleration. Facts do not seem to support this as the difference between the acceleration of the 2011 (tested by Motorweek see the link above) and the 2015 (tested by Edmunds) is only 0.3 s, easily within the margin of error. Not to mention that during this time the tires were also replaced from Goodyear to Nexen. It may very well be that the improvement should be attributed to the NEXEN tires. Again, owners and testers seem to "feel" the car more responsive than before. Should I repeat the Roman phrase again?

 

I didn't want to drag the old Roman Empire into this. But, since you brought it up...
Wasn't it Emporer Caligula who said something to the effect - "any chimp can give you bread & circus...", "I want to give them something even more! Something they never seen before."

Turbo 2.0L would do the trick.

*****************************

All joking aside.
Here's my issue with your argument.
Even though you're quoting third-party testing data, they are still "performed" in controlled/Lab-like settings. That's great to get an average.**

So, my point is obviously Mitsu engineers are no dummies, they designed a very sound & solid structure using basically the same sheetmetal as all the other Japanese car manufacturers, ie: Mazda (cx-5 ; cx-7) , Nissan (juke ; rogue), Toyota (rav4, highlander) and was able to come up with a better design way before the small off-set crash test was implimented industry wide. And, BEFORE any consumer demanded it (starting as far back as 2010.) ... Pardon me it was the government regulators that suggested it, right?

So, why are they dragging their knuckles like some apes to just now giving us something we been asking for?... After 5 years when Mazda can do it under a year, please that's pitiful.

All I'm saying is have the better technology (4B12 or old dog 4B11T) , why wait so damn long to give it to us? And, then give us only bread crumbs at that.

I want the Spartacus level entertainment!

Yeah, you can re-quote that panem et circenses, but when people start to leave and won't be coming back, we all know what happened to the mighty Rome Republic >
They got really old & stale.. and dead.


** Also, if you haven't test driven a Mazda CX-5 2.0L vs their 2.5L, I HIGHLY recommend you do so.
(We bought our O.sports when Mazda only had the 2.0L option at the time) But, after their 2.5L came out, we went and test drove it and it was a Night & Day difference.

I didn't bother to lookup the 0-60MPH data from Road&Track, CarNDriver, etc etc.
I just used a real-world precision instrument >
my right foot, mashing down on the gas and getting onto the tollway onramp in a jiffy.

 

The problem for people who leave (Mitsubishi) is that they do not get any better for their money elsewhere. In that sense your comparison with the fall of the Roman Republic is absolutely correct: It goes from bad to worse.

 

Hmm I'd love to get 23mpg city driving, real world in our I4 is more like 17-19mpg, 15mpg if you're Wes doing donuts in the snow

 

Famous last words!
Similar to the phrase "The company is Too Big to fail..."

I won't even have to go back that far to the Roman era to list a few good examples >

1. Compaq Computers
2. Circuit City
3. Blackberry
4. Microsoft

but, since we are talking about automobiles then >

1. Suzki
2. Oldsmobile
3. Pontiac
4. Saturn Cars

They all had capable technologies/products, but decided to delay the release til they can milk every last bit of profit out of their old tech/gizmo.

Well, if you wait too long customers will just move on. That's a fact.

So, if Mitsubishi is following in their foot steps... It WILL go from bad to worse for Mitsu, NOT us.

Don't say I didn't tell you.

 

I will not lose any sleep if they walk away from the US market. Many people predicted it was due five years ago. They are still here. I have no feelings either towards Mitsubishi or the facts of driving dynamics.
As far as standardized, controlled tests are concerned: they minimize human factors (partiality for example) so, we can really compare apples to apples.

 

I'm not quite sure I agree with the Mazda 6 and OS comparison. Unless you can verify that the transmission between the Mazda 6 and CX-5 are exactly the same then I don't see how it's an apples to apples comparison. Mazda may have different programming in the CX-5 transmission to compensate for the extra weight, making it have a 0-60 that's equivalent to or better than the OS.
I say this simply because the OS and Lancer have the same 2.0 I believe however Lancer owners have had extensive CVT issues and I haven't heard of hardly any OS owners having CVT issues, so there is something different between the two and likely Mazda did the same.

 

The transmission in the Mazda's are of traditional transmission, not CVT.
And it's noticeable different when driven hard, especially when they paired it with a decent 2.5L motor.

 

You are right, my message perhaps was ambiguous, thanks for highlighting it. I should clarify what I meant: The acceleration values of two different vehicles can only be compared if the tests were conducted in standardized conditions (this is why I like MotorWeek). Then and only then can one (journalist, owner, manufacturer) say that car X has a better or worse acceleration than car Y, has a better or worse breaking ability, or smaller or bigger body roll etc. Without these measurements comments are just unsupported empty statements. Feelings are not objective parameters. These trusted values can be compared even among different classes of vehicles (OS or Mazda 6 for example) since acceleration is acceleration no matter what kind of a vehicle you are sitting in (whatever transmission programming the vehicles have).
Miracles in performance cannot be achieved by programming (see for example the result of the annual reprogramming of the OS's CVT under #31). Acceleration is inversely proportional to the inertial mass and the CX-5 is 360 lb heavier than the 6. If programming would be the silver bullet then why not program the transmissions of both the Mazda 6 and the CX-5 to make their 0-60 mph acceleration within 7 s. That would be worthy for a "zoom-zoom" label.

Not having CVT problems is a reliability issue and not necessarily related to (although it might) performance related upgrade/downgrade. I have not investigated this thoroughly so, I am not brave enough to make a bold statement.

The comparison with the Mazda 6 and CX-5 were brought up because they carry the agile label. Mazda is praised for upgrading its engine within a year of introduction. Facts do not support significant improvement in performance. Mitsubishi's upgrade to the 2.4 L engine will also likely result subtle factual changes (if any).
It is up to the individual whether he/she goes by facts or by perception. "Noticeable difference" in mRVRsport latest comment refers to a perceived subjective feeling. Just because one feels that way facts may not support that. Everyone knows that the same speed at night or in a tunnel when our peripheral vision is blocked feels to be higher than in an open road during the day. Similarly the same speed in an open car (or motorcycle feels higher than inside behind close windows. These are feelings. Perception is generated by the human brain by collecting information from all possible senses. Our perception of acceleration in a car contains audible feedback. If we do not hear this confirmation we may misjudge our motion. In science and technology there is no room for perception. If we want to go to space, for example, we have to reach escape velocity, which equals 11.2 km/s if we want to leave Earth, period.

 

I'm not sure why you're making this so complicated... We're not comparing rocket engines or trying to reach the lower boundaries of space.


We're talking about CUVs on the public roads (not racetrack)
> One only needs to be able to count to 10 AND go by the same amount of distance traveled (ex: a known on-ramp or from stop-sign to stop-sign).


>> So, all I'm stating is that the vehicles mentioned DID move from point A to point B in noticeable shorter frame of time.







- Noises from the engine or exhaust, driving thru a tunnel, or having the windows rolled down had NO bearing on that fact.




.

 

Just for a kick I looked up the same 3rd party's results for both the 2015 2.4 O.S. GT AWC (168 hp) and the 2015 2.5 CX-5 AWD (184hp).

O.S.
0-60: 8.6 seconds
60-0: 114 feet

CX-5
0-60: 7.8 seconds
60-0: 124 feet

Source.

People also seem to overlook the obvious safety issues that would arise with given our CUV too much power. If Mitsu wants to keep the OS as one of the safest rated CUVs, packing a turbocharged engine into it (with its current structure) probably wouldn't be the best idea.

Regardless, even with an 'outdated' engine to give us this 'upgrade,' I'm glad they did it. May not be everyone's cup of tea, but hey, maybe it'll help boost Mitsu's profits so they can finish up their redesign on the entire lineup and bring more cars to the US market.

 

Actually, having some more power is a safety feature - As I've specifically stated in the situations of on-ramp merging of tollways and other similar conditions.

I recommended/suggested the Turbo ONLY because it's a motor that's already/currently available. (Mitsu wouldn't need to spend any more money on R&D to develop another 'new' engine.)


Now, do I want 200 or more horsepower on tap ALL the time? NO!
In fact, I can live with the 148hp just fine when our vehicle is already moving.


>> It's when you're forced to slow down so much (or stop completely) because other drivers refuses to let you merge onto the highway that's when you need/want more power to speed up again on the remaining, even shorter available on-ramp to get going again.




If I may... direct your attention to >
The Nissan's Juke, which gives their customers a 1.6L turbo engine with switchable ECO-Mode.
It gives you economy most of the time, but if you de-activate the Eco > it'll give you the full 188hp/177ftlb.
(And, they offered that option right at model launch! Customers weren't forced to wait 5 years to get a motor "upgrade".)
.


That's all that I've been wishing Mitsubishi would offer.

 

Turbocharged engines generally have more problems ( I admit partly due to how their owners drive them). EVO and Ralliart have only 5 year powertrain warranty for this very reason.
You do not even need to have a turbocharger to have engine/transmission troubles. We may wish for more power but certainly do not want to pay high price for this in other fronts. Here are some issues affecting owners of the OS's competition:

Mazda CX-5 transmission problems:

Mazda CX-5 forum (12 +3 pages):
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showt...ith-their-CX-5

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showt...ission-Problem

Video representation:

Violent and rough engine start (10 pages):
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showt...-engine-starts


Subaru class action lawsuit over excessive oil consumption:

http://www.torquenews.com/1084/2nd-n...against-subaru

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/22/s...xcess-oil-use/

Nissan Juke

Timing chain complaints from Juke forum (66 +38 pages, sticky):
http://www.jukeforums.com/forum/niss...ts-thread.html

http://www.jukeforums.com/forum/niss...tensioner.html

Turbo oil leak:
http://www.jukeforums.com/forum/niss...-oil-leak.html

Turbo bad at 33K:
http://www.jukeforums.com/forum/niss...o-bad-33k.html

Complete Engine failure (6 pages):
http://www.jukeforums.com/forum/niss...e-records.html

I am not aware of any generic problem concerning the OS/RVR except people wish for more power. If getting more power is coupled with the syndromes above we may think twice before looking to any other direction.

 

^
(thanks, now I'm going to have even LESS time over my limited weekend! Just to read All those extra threads. )

Pardon me...
Is there any thread(s) on EVO's turbo engine failures - Before manufacturer's warranty expires? ( And, Not from owner's modifying, tracking, or generally abusing the vehicle to begin with.)


In other brands -
- I know MINI's supercharged motors had issues. That's why they went to turbos.
- Volkswagon Tiguan has their 2.0Tsi.. but, I'm not familiar with their reliability record.


Yes, turbocharging can have its own shortcomings, however the extra wear & tear can be mediated by electronically limiting their maximum output or boost.
Like I mentioned - just add an ECO-mode to the Turbos, so we have a choice for more MPGs or a bit more pep when we need.

 

Mini, Volkswagen (and Audi) have even bigger fires to extinguish than problems of turbochargers: carbon deposition in direct injection.

Mini (Missfire from carbon build up):
http://www.mini2.com/forum/second-ge...-pictures.html
Volkswagen, Audi:
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...-engines-.html
http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...-up-Megathread

Saab used to make long lasting turbocharged engines (if I am not mistaken they put the first turbochargers to production cars first).