Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mazda 5 vs Kia Rondo

1242527293042

Comments

  • 5_more5_more Posts: 43
    Also it looks like Mazada/Rondo does not have really good MPG - but I think
    they can improve it.


    My 2008 Mazda 5 gets 29-31 MPG in mixed city/suburban driving on every tank. Including the first two tanks, the lifetime average (~6500 miles) is above 28 MPG -- with only one highway trip of 90 miles. Regardless of what you think, I see a relatively safe, six-seat, 3500 lb., automatic transmission, sub-$20k, 30 MPG vehicle as doing pretty well.

    I'm less optimistic about MPG improvement for big minivans
    as they had a lot of time to do it with no result.


    My 1996 Dodge Grand Caravan averaged around 20 MPG on my annual 3000 mile trip. It's highest ever mileage was 23 MPG -- (later model years did a bit better). My 2007 Toyota Sienna averaged 25.5 MPG on last year's trip and 25.8 MPG this year -- in all cases, the trips included several hundred miles of stop and go traffic in major cities. The high for the Sienna on this year's trip was 29.0 MPG -- topped-off and hand calculated over 400 miles.

    For comparison, the Sienna weighs 4200 lbs, vs. the Dodge's 3700 lbs, it (Sienna) has 13 cu ft more cargo volume, an additional seat, 109 HP more, 8 more air bags and does 0-60 in under 7 seconds.

    So, more power, more weight, better safety AND almost a 30% improvement in mileage. Not bad...

    Drive train efficiency gains cause corresponding percentage improvements in cars and minivans equally.

    Diesel will also big help as it takes about 30%
    less fuel.


    I filled-up this weekend for $3.739 (87 Octane). Diesel was $5.139 at the same station. Dollars/mile, matter to me, not MPG. At these prices, diesel offers no advantage. At a smaller percentage spread, it might, depending on the difference in purchase price between a diesel and gasoline engine, the mileage difference and the difference in repair costs.
  • uzvuzv Posts: 8
    About Mazda5 MPG:
    Spec Manual - 22/28
    Auto - 21/27

    Is your model manual ? You say you get 30 MPG per mile on average.
    It's rather unusual when people exceed spec.

    You also exceeded Sienna spec MPG of 17/23.

    By the way do you know if MPG is calculated with FULL load or other way ?

    I still do not see substantial change in spec MPG for big minivans - during many years they stay mostly the same for the same models.
  • 5_more5_more Posts: 43
    For the Mazda 5, the EPA estimates on the 2008 sticker carry the following foot note:

    Actual Mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and [the] vehicle's condition. Results reported to [the] EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 17 and 25 mpg in the city and between 22 and 32 mpg on the highway.

    For the Sienna, the estimates on my 2007 sticker were 19/26 with reported ranges of 16-22 city and 22-30 highway (on vehicles with similar ratings).

    2008 testing is different than 2007 and before, so a 2007 and 2008 Sienna will have different EPA ratings, even though they are essentially the same vehicle. See: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2000.htm I'm sure you can find more details on the testing there.

    My Mazda5 is an automatic.

    For my trip mileages on the Sienna, I had 5 people in the van, and enough cargo to require fully inflated air bag helpers in the rear suspension (~1000 lbs.) Last year I had 3 bikes and a bike trailer hanging from the back as well.

    My actual fuel economy has exceeded EPA estimates in all but two of my vehicles in the last 20+ years. I don't find it unusual.
  • radar1radar1 Posts: 25
    "Diesel will also big help as it takes about 30% less fuel.

    I filled-up this weekend for $3.739 (87 Octane). Diesel was $5.139 at the same station. Dollars/mile, matter to me, not MPG. At these prices, diesel offers no advantage. At a smaller percentage spread, it might, depending on the difference in purchase price between a diesel and gasoline engine, the mileage difference and the difference in repair costs. "

    Diesel would not show an advantage at those prices, but I think you found a station with extreme prices; extremely low for gas and extremely high for diesel. Today's National average is $4.04 for gas and $4.80 for diesel. Using those figures, diesel cost approx 19% more than gas so if you got 30% more miles from each gallon, your cost per mile for diesel would be cheaper than gas. Of course as you pointed out you would also have to factor in having the extra expense of the diesel engine option and the downside of finding and using diesel fuel.

    John
  • lavrishevolavrishevo Posts: 312
    JUst FYI, the Sienna does not do 0 - 60 under 7 seconds. No minivan comes close to that. 7.8 - 8.2 are the recorded times for stock Sienna. Still fast but not that fast... Compared to my 4.9 in a Mustang GT :)
  • 5_more5_more Posts: 43
    It all depends how it's driven (Sienna). The engine can easily break the tires free in 1 and 2.

    If shifted manually, and if the tires are kept from spinning, a sub-7 second time is possible.

    6.6 seconds
    http://www.autos.com/autos/vans/minivans/acceleration

    7.2 seconds
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/vans/2007_hyundai_entourage_- vs_2007_nissan_quest_2008_dodge_grand_caravan_2007_toyota_sienna_2007_honda_odys- sey_comparison_test+page-5.html

    video in the low 7's, with comments of 6.9
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gadUoJnEzfs

    Other examples are out there.

    Test drive one. You'll be surprised.
  • coolmazda5coolmazda5 Posts: 525
    LOL, I didn't know minivans were that fast. The problem is not how fast they accelerate but how tight they can turn :D.

    Anyhow, regardless, check the Mazda5 acceleration for a 5MT, not bad for a 4cyl people mover.

    Mazda5 Performance
    Engine 2.3 I-4
    Transmission 5-Spd Manual
    Drive System fwd
    Acceleration Summary
    Acceleration, 0-30 MPH 0-30 MPH: 2.85
    Acceleration, 0-40 MPH 0-40 MPH: 4.49
    Acceleration, 0-50 MPH 0-50 MPH: 6.33
    Acceleration, 0-60 MPH 0-60 MPH: 8.53

    Source:
    http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehicleReport/vehicle_nmb/17149/section/spe- cs/type/used/2006/Mazda/Mazda5

    Also, some very old Mazda5 video, makes me laugh a little, but great handling
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU4paH8qcQ8

    And a fast Rondo (Carens). 150mph, 230kmh :surprise:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6hgerWf0yc

    It is funny seeing people doing this to these type of cars, but hey :D
  • 5_more5_more Posts: 43
    Certainly, the 5 is a whole lot more fun around town, and on twisty roads. Cornering is vastly superior on the 5, and it does turn a circle in 2 fewer feet (34.8 vs. 36.8).

    However, for the most part, my 0-60 times, on both vehicles, are in the 10-15 second range. I'd rather get better mileage, have a transmission last an extra 50,000 miles, and have my tires last longer than best a car that I already know I can beat, or prove that I that can take the same curve at the vehicle's limits time after time -- we all get old eventually.

    I took my last Mazda to almost 250,000 miles on the original clutch. I sold the car shortly before that point, but the clutch was still working like new.
  • coolmazda5coolmazda5 Posts: 525
    2008 Mazda5 5-DR. Hatchback w/SAB

    * Frontal Driver Rating: 5 stars
    * Frontal Passenger Rating: 5 stars
    * Side Driver Rating: 5 stars
    * Side Rear Passenger Rating: 4 stars
    * Rollover 2 Wheel Drive Rating: 4 stars

    Chance of rollover 14%
    Static Stability Factor 1.30
    Dynamic Test Result No-tip*
    Drive FWD
    Tire Size P205/50R17

    2008 KIA Rondo 4-DR w/SAB

    * Frontal Driver Rating: 5 stars
    * Frontal Passenger Rating: 5 stars
    * Side Driver Rating: 5 stars
    * Side Rear Passenger Rating: 4 stars
    * Rollover 2 Wheel Drive Rating: 4 stars

    Chance of rollover 13%
    Static Stability Factor 1.32
    Dynamic Test Result No-tip*
    Drive FWD
    Tire Size P205/60R16

    Source:
    http://www.safercar.gov/portal/search?model=7828

    Some videos:
    Frontal crash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qPGDrLIsww
    Side impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWojbZkAJ0A
    __________________
  • garnermikegarnermike Posts: 72
    ....will get the same Theta I-4 engine as the '09 Optima, which is rated at 175 hp and achieves better mpg (32 mpg hwy). That's a 13hp increase over '07 and '08 Rondo.
    No news on the V-6 yet engine yet, but if it follows Optima form, the hp will go to 190, an 8 hp increase.
  • coolmazda5coolmazda5 Posts: 525
    Is there a manual transmission on that thing finally? With that HP and MT it could definitely attract a different buyer audience
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    As much as I love my 07 EX V6 Luxury, I sure wish it had a manual trans. Maybe a 6 speed?
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    I doubt they would put one in, the percentage of the market that buys manual transmission is extremely small, thats why for example when Honda redesigned the CR-V they dropped it as they said it was less that 5% and the sales did not justify it.

    Just use the steptronic feature and get the best of both worlds :) I've had a lot of manuals over my driving career, but would not go back - besides the wife would never drive one.................. :D
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    Mazda 5 - 1,336 units
    Rondo - 2,556 units
  • coolmazda5coolmazda5 Posts: 525
    Well, you may be surprised, especially in Canada. It is kind of interesting that even the Mazda5 GT top trim with all the toys (kind of the Grand Touring in the US) offers manual transmission. And from other forums you can see that there is more demand than supply for them...

    As per the CR-V, yes, the MT was dropped, but because it is an SUV I believe. I tested the 05, one of the last models with 5MT, but my wife thought it was too tall and jumpy (very SUV or small truck if you ask), and we only test drove it because of that, because it had manual transmission.

    Anyway, that is why I mentioned the new target market. I'm sure there are some people out there disappointed with models like the Rondo SX concept that only was shown as automatic.

    As per wives, manual transmission topped the list of mine when buying a Mazda5, she can drive automatic by need (i.e. rental), but cannot stand it, don't ask why :).

    Tiptronic is a nice thing but it cannot compared to a modern manual transmission like the Mazda one, very soft clutch and close ratio gearing, precise shifting and a lot of fun to drive...
  • palkopalko Posts: 16
    I rented a Kia Rondo (2007,v-6) for a weekend trip to the beach @ Presque Isle Park in Erie,pa. The combined city/highway mileage was 23 mpg. Most of the highway was @ 70-75 mph with 3 people and a load of beach gear. This rental had 28000 miles on it and i did notice it had warped brake rotors when hard braking. Other than that it handled well. Far better than my 2004 chevy tracker 4wd. The v-6 had plenty of power. I'm thinking of buying a 2008. Now I'm torn between the 2.4L 4 cyl and the 2.7L v-6. Does anyone have any preference over either one? Plus I'd like to hear any experiences you may have with this vehicle...thanks..palko :shades:
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    as you are trying to decide between a 2.4L or 2.7L Rondo, this question should not be in this thread as this thread is comparing Mazda 5 vs Rondo.
    I would suggest you start a new thread with a suggested title of "Rondo 2.4L vs 2.7L" for example or something similar as I am sure that this is a pretty common question amongst prior owners, I know it was for me. Also that way you question would get a more direct response.
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    Or, you could test drive a Mazda5 and make it a ménage à trois
  • uzvuzv Posts: 8
    Had a chance to try Rondo (odometer 12,000 miles) in real life with real load.
    My friend came in 6 cyl Rondo to Cape Code Nikkerson State Park (90miles from Boston) from Toronto.
    Park is located on relativley steep hills and it is very twisty 4 miles from Park entrance to our camp on the very top.
    With 4 adults (3 - 6ft 200 pouns, 1 - 5ft 6in 150pouns) + 3 kids 15 years old (you know they are not very small in US) Rondo (6cyl) did not have any problems going these 4 miles down and up with 7 people mentioned above.
    Handling was Ok (but nothing special), power was more then enough.
    Brakes - no complaints. No feeling that suspension was stressed or overloaded.
    Then trip from Park to Provincetown - 30 miles one way by local hwy with the same load of 7 people at 50 mph.
    Park to Provincetown trip:
    Position-Behind the wheel: No problems passing other cars, handling is predictable (but nothing special). Ride is steady and even. Brakes are fine. Driver seat it comfortable. Visibility - very good (much better then in sedan). No road noise complaints. 2 15 years kids in back (3d row) seats - no complaints
    Provincetown to Park trip:
    Position- Back in 3d row (I'm 6 ft tall, 200 pouns): Comfort- Ok. Amazingly good
    visibility side and forward. Road noise - no complaints. Ride is steady and even.
    2nd and 3d rows - Very comfortable headrests (also noticed by one Honda Accord owner). 40 min 3d row trip for me (6ft) was fine but longer trips will not be comfortable. So for in town (or short out of town) trips Rondo looks good for 7 adults.
    PS: When we arrived in Provicetown locals were a little bit surprised by how many
    people managed to get out of relaively small car.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    Mazda 5 - 1,162 (not much less than the US and we are 9.5 times smaller in population), YTD - 9,010
    Rondo - 1,066, YTD - 6,235
Sign In or Register to comment.