Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mazda CX-5

m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
edited February 2012 in Mazda
Went to the Chicago Auto Show yesterday and looked at the OUTSIDE of the new CX-5. Pretty impressed as it looks better in person than the pictures which were pretty good themselves. I say outside because they were locked up! These vehicle are due on dealer lots next week so I couldn't believe they were locked. The new Escape was open for viewing and touching and isn't due for several months.

Wish I could report more on the CX-5 but I think Mazda could have really generated more interest by letting people touchy-feely. It seemed to be a popular vehicle to look at just the same from what I could see of the crowd interest in it.
«13456725

Comments

  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    It'd probably generate more interest if the FE was a little higher with the slushbox (face it, the target market for this usually shows little interest in those 3-pedal thingys).
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    edited February 2012
    You're right but the "35mpg" in a suv does get people attention. No different than Cruze advertising "42mpg" and then people find out they have to pay extra for it. I think the 26mpg in the city is the real enticer here not the hwy mpg. Really looking forward to mag reviews of this in final form.

    Don't really know why the big difference in the two trannies mpg. Now days it seems that manuals/autos are usually rated the same or just 1mpg difference.

    I was really disappointed I couldn't get in the vehilce. The rep at the auto show said it had a preproduction interior. Strange with thousands of these things due in dealers in a week or so that they couldn't pull one of the the car carriers to show. :confuse:
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Dunno, they didn't show up at NADA with one. Ford brought the new Escape AND the Focus ST, Subaru brought a friggin BRZ, but no Mazda.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    edited February 2012
    Dunno, they didn't show up at NADA with one. Ford brought the new Escape AND the Focus ST, Subaru brought a friggin BRZ, but no Mazda.

    Those cars are 6 months away at the earliest. Ford has a big problem with dealers right now because they are busy showcasing their upcoming products that are so far away and it is devaluing the current models. No one wants a 2012 Escape or 2012 Fusion knowing in the fall there are new designs on the way. Ford was stupid for disclosing new specs and designs so far in advance.

    In regards to Mazda, there is no reason to showcase the CX-5 at NADA. The car hits the US shore this week. Why bother at NADA when they have been touring the North American auto show's?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    It'd probably generate more interest if the FE was a little higher with the slushbox

    26/32/28 and 25/31/28 are not high enough? Look at the city and combined mileage. Higher than anyone else, and 3 more MPG's than the new CR-V.

    Considering that the new EPA estimate window stickers now show the combined mileage estimates is large bold print and the city and highway estimates in small print, I believe the CX-5 will stand out. People will be drawn to the combined number, not the highway number. That's a major plus for the CX-5.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    26/32/28 and 25/31/28 are not high enough?

    When the stick is so dramatically higher and yet the slushbox was touted as more efficient than any stick, CVT, or DSG out there, no, it's not enough. They made some sort of drastic change to push the stick's mileage up to 35 MPG territory, and no one seems to know what it is, and I want to if it was done in the tranny or the engine...and if the engine, why wasn't it done to the automatic? The way gas prices are inching up, this is very important to some.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    edited February 2012
    When the stick is so dramatically higher and yet the slushbox was touted as more efficient than any stick, CVT, or DSG out there, no, it's not enough.

    So, let me get this straight.....a 3 mpg difference between the 6-speed manual and 6-speed auto is considered "dramatically higher" for highway economy, but when comparing the 6-speed auto to any other automatic from the competition, a 3 mpg advantage in overall fuel economy average is "not enough"? How does that make sense? If anything, the average fuel economy is far more important than highway economy.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    And just who does the CX-5 beat out by 3 MPG with the automatic? Last I checked it's right in-line with the 2013 Ford Escape and 2012 Honda CR-V, who are the primary competitors. If you try and throw up 3 year old designs I'll laugh in your face.

    Highway FE is what gets advertised, for obvious reasons. That alone makes it important.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    edited February 2012
    If anything, the average fuel economy is far more important than highway economy.

    That depends. To the majority of people probably yes but to many the hwy mpg is more important as they use these vehicle as commuter vehicles. Many commutes are 95% hwy and sometimes fairly long so when people start figuring the cost of their commuting versus another vehicle the hwy mpg stands out as very important. You as a Mazda salesperson should understand that versus telling people that it isn't important. You'll notice that most advertising stresses the 40MPG HWY on these commuter cars so obviously the manufactures think it's important as well.

    You shouldn't pooh-pooh legitimate questions. On one hand you say a couple of mpgs doesn't matter and then try to make your point by saying the combined mpg is a couple of mpgs better. Can't have it both ways.

    When the Mazda3 Skyactiv slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and then the CX-5 comes and gets substantially less(yes 3mpg is substantial to the consumer, maybe not to the salesman) hwy mpg with the automatic people want to know why....not a "aren't you satisfied with what you're getting".

    I have the same question with the new Acura ILX 2.4L stick. It is a smaller car with the same engine as the TSX but is going to be rated according to Acura press at about 20/29. The TSX with the same engine and a slushbox is rated at 22/31. How does that makes sense? Same with Mazda's numbers....it doesn't make sense and we would like someone to explain the reasons. If you don't know just say so but don't belittle the question.

    I've also yet had anyone explain to me why the Mazda3s slushbox gets worse mpg than the Mazda6 with the same drivetrain but is a smaller, lighter car. I asume it is a gearing change in the tranny and maybe a little aerodynamics but darned if anyone I've talked to at Mazda dealer ships has a clue. I've even had a couple of salespeople say "Gee, I never noticed that. That's a good question". I don't how you can stand around on a salesfloor all day and not notice some of these things and not have some decent answers.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    And just who does the CX-5 beat out by 3 MPG with the automatic?

    The 2012 CR-V, that's who....

    CX-5: 25 city / 31 highway / 28 combined (AWD)
    26 city / 32 highway / 29 combined (FWD)
    CR-V: 22 city / 30 highway / 25 combined (AWD)
    23 ciry / 31 highway / 26 combined (FWD)

    As you see, CX-5 has the new CR-V beat by 3mpg in city and combined.

    Fuel economy for the 2013 Escape has not been released because the car is 6 months away.

    Highway FE is what gets advertised, for obvious reasons. That alone makes it important.

    The EPA is trying to eliminate the presumption that the highway economy is what they car will get, so they are trying to focus the buyer on the average. I think that is a good thing. I have never been a fan of advertising just the highway economy becuase it gives the buyer the assumption that is the expected overall economy, even though highway is stated.

    For the record, I do not agree with the advertising by Mazda stating "35mpg" as a headliner for the CX-5, nor any other company that does the same.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    That depends. To the majority of people probably yes but to many the hwy mpg is more important as they use these vehicle as commuter vehicles

    That is true, but simply using highway economy alone as a measure in compairson is only telling 1/3 of the story. The CX-5 is 3mpg better than the new CR-V in 2/3's if the rating estimates. That's all I'm trying to say.

    You as a Mazda salesperson should understand that versus telling people that it isn't important.

    I'm not a Mazda salesperson.....

    On one hand you say a couple of mpgs doesn't matter and then try to make your point by saying the combined mpg is a couple of mpgs better. Can't have it both ways.

    I never said it didn't matter. Reread my posts.

    When the Mazda3 Skyactiv slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and then the CX-5 comes and gets substantially less(yes 3mpg is substantial to the consumer, maybe not to the salesman) hwy mpg with the automatic people want to know why....not a "aren't you satisfied with what you're getting".

    That is a valid question. I could dig into the gearing ratios and find out. I'll post back tomorrow about that....
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    For the record, I do not agree with the advertising by Mazda stating "35mpg" as a headliner for the CX-5, nor any other company that does the same.

    I agree too but that is what the manufacturers mention in their ads so it goes to my point about the importance of hwy mpg to the consumer. Perception is reality.

    Any idea as to why the Mazda3 Skyactiv w/ slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and the CX-5 stick gets substantially better than the Skyactiv slushbox? When someone expects the CX-5 slushbox to do as good or better than the stick and it comes in substantially below it raises legitimate questions. I'm sure there is a good reason and I would think that a sharp Mazda salesperson could get that information. ;)
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Not to mention I've been asking ever since the number came out, and I can't get an answer. And I DO actually work in the automotive industry...
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Here are the final drive ratios for the CX-5 vs the Mazda3 (skyactiv)

    CX-5: FWD 6-speed: 4.705
    FWD automatic: 4.624

    Mazda3: 6-speed: 4.105
    automatic: 3.893

    I don't see a big different in drive ratios for the mtx and auto. There is also only a 72 lb difference between the mtx and auto as well. I will ask my rep if he knows...
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    Tks for that info. True, not great differences in the final drive ratios with the M3 just a little more. To me the Mazda6 vs Mazda3 2.5L EPA estimates are even stranger. The M6 gets better mpg than the M3 so I can only assume the gearing is substantially different in the lighter, smaller M3 to cause this.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,168
    when will this actually be in the showrooms to play with?

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Hopefully next week. My first 2 are already at the port in NJ.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Thought you weren't a salesman?
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    He's made it clear for years that he works at a Mazda dealership. Where have you been?
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,993
    I didn't remember that either.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

«13456725
Sign In or Register to comment.