Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mazda CX-5

191012141525

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    My wife does not like leather so the GT was out. My in-laws wanted a GT in Zeal Red with tech, but now they prefer white.

    I find it really strange too that Mazda has not found a way to get the wheels. That's why it is my personal opinion they goofed on the estimated demand. They did say GT production will be ramped up, but we won't see that inventory until July/August.
  • papabluepapablue Posts: 2
    I live in SoCal and have a friend who works for Mazda, who gave me a PIN for an S-Plan purchase of a specific Touring trim model with the Moonroof/Bose and Tech packages that was right at Dealer Invoice. Big deal. Dealers don't have to honor the S-Plan price. I did manage to talk him down to $200 below MSRP, but was kind of bummed about the whole experience.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Dealers don't have to honor the S-Plan price.

    I didn't know that. I don't have access to S-Plan but I always thought they honored it. I guess when they have a really hot seller they have the choice if what you say is correct.

    I don't have a problem with them demanding MSRP for a hot seller. My problem is when they do that while at the same time low ball you on your trade-in. Of course we, on the other hand, expect thousands off MSRP and high dollar for our trade-ins. Both sides are trying to get all they can. Just have to play the game as awful as the experience is sometimes.
  • gearjammer62gearjammer62 Posts: 108
    Dealers in the DFW area are honoring the S-Plan. It's about $1,400 off MSRP for the Touring FWD with Tech and Bose packages.
  • papabluepapablue Posts: 2
    SoCal might be a different ball game than Dallas/Fort Worth as far as demand goes for this vehicle. I got the $26,066 Dealer Invoice for the Touring with the M/B and Tech packages, but was also told when I got the corresponding PIN that dealers don't have to honor it. Sounds like it all depends on the locale.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Dealers do not have to participate in the S-Plan program, but are encouraged to do so. We would take S-Plan is a CX-5 customer wanted to use it.
  • Test drove multiple times but found it as fun to drive as a Nissan Versa. Quarter mile times are the slowest in its class. Back up camera is nice but not as nice as the CRV's. CRV offer 3 different camera angles when backing up(wide view,normal, and straight down which is extremely useful when hooking up a trailer). CRV ended up being roomier and more comfortable, on top of that it's a Honda so I'm expecting to keep it until they come out with hover cars in the near future lol.
  • slj333slj333 Posts: 4
    I don't think you can get the CRV in a manual transmission though. That plus the high compression/high mpg engine set the CX-5 apart in my opinion.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,596
    CRV is AT only ( a 5 speed)

    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!)

  • CX-5 with the auto tranny bumps the high mpg numbers down from 35 mpg highway to 32 mpg highway which I am achieving now with my CRV(29mpg combined mixed driving on my 2nd tank of gas). Higher compression engines usually require the use of high octane fuel to harness full potential of engine. Also, Who would want to drive a manual transmission vehicle with a 155 hp 4 cylinder with a base weight of 3300 lbs? That sounds exciting(not).
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    I realize that the only reason that you are commenting in this thread is to tout your CR-V and put down the CX-5. That's fine but if you wish to discuss with an open mind please use verifiable numbers. The city mpg of the CX-5 is substantially better than the CR-V which is a direct result of smaller engine, less hp and less torque. Nobody said there isn't a small trade off. BTW, the FWD, manual version weighs closer to 3100 lbs not the 3300lbs you mention.

    If you are looking for "exciting" I would not be looking at a small CUV like the CX-5 or the CR-V. If you call your CR-V exciting you really need to get out more.

    The CX-5 does not need premium fuel as, even though it is high compression, it is designed to do it on regular fuel. Things change and engineering finds ways to overcome some old ways of doing things.

    I've read on some CX-5 specific forums that many people are averaging over 32mpg with AWD versions. Again, not verifiable as it is just people commenting like yourself stating you average 29mpg. I don't doubt what you're saying, I'm just saying it's not verifiable. People that drive conservatively tend to get better mpg so I assume that is the case when people exceed the EPA numbers. I do it regularly as well.

    I don't own a CX-5 so I can comment somewhat unbiased except for the fact that one of my three vehilces is a Mazda6. I have driven the CX-5 and the CR-V and can say there is absolutely no comparison in the way the two vehicles handle with the CX-5 handling a whole lot better in cornering and even in straight ahead travel comfort and road noise.

    The CX-5 has nearly the same hp/lb and tq/lb ratio as my Mazda6 2.3L. I don't find the Mazda6 to be lacking power so I fail to see how the CX-5 would be that bad in that regard. Is it as fast as most others? No, it's about a half second slower 0-60 than most other small comparable CUVs. But it gets much better mpg than the others. In life there are compromises. You compromised some mpg and fun handling for a little faster vehicle. That's fine....enjoy it.
  • Well, not necessarily. I'm posting in this forum specifically because a month of so ago when I myself was trying to research for the best possible CUV option I wanted to hear real world advantages and disadvantages of all models regardless of what 'forum' I was in. I'm simply providing input in case another fellow comes along and is trying to gain input from someone else who has driven both vehicles and why he came to the conclusion he owns one instead of the other. I did like the CX5 and i'm not bashing it. However I do feel there is a lot of 'hype' over a vehicle that's average at best esp for it's price range($27k for a touring w sunroof). A lot of EPA estimates on fuel efficiency are also hyped. Take into account the Equinox/Terrain dilemma. Google terrain bad fuel or equinox bad fuel efficiency and you will in fact find hoards of forums and posts regarding the poor fuel efficiency of both vehicles.

    Anyways I'm simply here to provide another end of the spectrum which is why this is called 'townhall' talk. As for the base weight, my apologies as you are correct about the closer to 3100 lbs.....

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review

    It's just weird a company touting 'zoom-zoom' producing a CUV vehicle that has a 0-60 time of 9.2 seconds. Do your research, buy what you like. I did.
  • midocmidoc Posts: 5
    Thanks for the different point of view.

    But I thought 'zoom-zoom' was more of a driving experience than speed.

    By the way, how much did you pay for your CR-V on what trim?

    I am almost sold to CX-5 but I am still open minded for CR-V.

    The outer design of the CR-V is the only thing thats keeping me from buying it.

    I love the CX-5 design.
  • goguinnessgoguinness Posts: 4
    I test drove a CX-5 a couple of days ago, and was very impressed. As far as power goes, from 1982 to 1985 I drove a 52 hp Jetta, from 1985 to 1990 I drove a 68 hp Jetta. With both cars I was able to beat most people to the top of an entrance ramp, simply because most people are scared of that right pedal. I believe that hp is over rated. When I got in my 2009 Accord LX-P to drive home after the test drive I drove the test route, and was amazed at how noisy my Accord was. The CX-5 was very quiet. I believe when my current lease expires in a few months a CX-r will be my next car.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Depending on who evaluated the car, you will get different results. I believe there is a couple reviews out there that had the CX-5 faster than the CR-V. Not that anyone buys a car in this class for 0-60 or 1/4 mile times.

    The CR-V and CX-5 are built to do similar tasks in a different way. Mazda has chosen the sport and fun way, while the CR-V is more about practicality. They are similar sizes, are as quick as each other and are similar in price. It really depends on what you value, but to make a point to say it is slow and that was a deciding factor is foolish if you buy a CR-V instead because it is not any faster. Basing that decision on utility or space or being a Honda loyalist are more valid reasons.
  • gearjammer62gearjammer62 Posts: 108
    edited May 2012
    I drove the CX-5 and CR-V back to back, and while they both have their positive attributes, the CX-5 was a much more enjoyable driving experience for me. The CR-V felt heavier and wallowed/leaned much more than the CX-5 in turns. As for power, there wasn't really any discernible difference in my experience, but I'm a moderate driver, And the CX-5 felt much lighter on it's feet with better steering feel. I think that's what "zoom-zoom" is all about, not simply horsepower.

    I also wanted satellite radio, which you can only get in the CRV if you order leather seats. Huh?

    My teenage son went with me on the drives and his comment seemed apt: "They're both nice, but the CR-V is probably what mom would buy". And mom isn't into "fun to drive". To each his own.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Hey people I came across this article about fuel economy on the Skyactiv Mazda's. Looks promising!

    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1076193_2013-mazda-cx-5-2012-mazda3-real-wor- ld-gas-mileage-boost-from-skyactiv-engine
  • godeacsgodeacs Posts: 481
    A CR-V is basically known as a "chick/mom" car anyway. Based on my driving experiences most CR-Vs I pass are driven by women. Like you say, to each "her" own.....

    BTW, I driven both and agree, the CX-5 is def more fun to drive than a CR-V.... ;)
  • goguinnessgoguinness Posts: 4
    I also drove both recently. One thing I really disliked about the CR-V was the necessity of spending $4,000 more for a power driver's seat, and the fact that it had one of those parking brake pedals rather than an emergency brake handle in the console.
  • tfm_ivtfm_iv Posts: 5
    Real world mileage varied between 29.2 and 31.3 mpg per tankful in Maryland, including driving in Baltimore and DC (highway, country roads and traffic jam) and trips to NC and PA. Handling with GT and AWD is very good on winding country roads, wet or dry. Only negatives, neither the seats nor the sound system can compare with my 2003 Mazda 6. Oh, and one other. Some drive through car washes do not like the rear hatch wiper blade, so beware.

    Acceleration from standing stop or slow on ramp is not a problem. Manual shift mode works well, and gives you the feeling of standard for spirited driving on curvy roads. Blind spot warning light on side mirrors (and audible warning if blinker goes on with traffic there) is a plus, although I have gotten false positives on winding roads.

    In response to those considering the Honda, my also-rans included Subaru Outback, Hyundai Santa Fe, and Toyota Venza. The Mazda was more nimble than any of those, with sufficient utility and cargo capacity for most trips.

    Would be happy to answer any questions based on my ownership experience.
Sign In or Register to comment.