Howdy, Stranger!

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





Rondo vs Outlander/Rav4/Santa Fe/Mazda5

12345679»

Comments

  • I don't really trust the volume measurements given out by Mazda or Kia. The best thing to do is to get out the old tape measure and to measure both vehicles. Of course, who has done that? Not me.

    I've read in another forum about someone selling a washer and dryer set. The seller recounted how the buyer came by in a Rondo and was surprised that the buyer could fit both in the cargo area behind the first row. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that would be even remotely possible in my own Rondo, so you learn something new every day.

    When comparing cargo space, you have to remember the different seating arrangements in each vehicle. The Rondo is 2+3+2 (or 2+3 in the five seater) and the Mazda5 is 2+2+2.

    Let's say there are 4 people in the vehicle and you want to store stuff behind the second row. In the Rondo, you have the option of folding down one seat in the second row to free up additional cargo space. That option, of course, isn't available in the Mazda5. You can probably make use of the space between the second-row bucket seats in the Mazda5, but that space obviously isn't as large or useful as the space created when folding down one of the second-row seats in the Rondo.

    Now let's say there are 6 people in the vehicle. When I was checking out the Mazda5 earlier this year, it appeared to have more space behind the third row seats than the Rondo. You can probably store a bulky stroller behind the third row in the Mazda5, whereas I can just fit an umbrella stroller behind the third row in my Rondo. With the Rondo, however, you also have the option of folding down one of the third-row seats to free up additional cargo space. In the Mazda5, all seats would have to be deployed.

    As for how well seven people actually fit in the Rondo, I've posted about this before in much detail (my motto is, why say something in ten words when you can say it in a hundred?). That was in another forum, though. Long story short, sitting in the middle of the second row is comparable in comfort to sitting in one of the third-row seats. That's based on my subjective reading of the whine factor of my passengers. I think we can all agree that, for either vehicle, four people can sit in relative luxury and the additional seating is really for occasional use only.

    I've sat in the third row in both vehicles and my take is this: the Rondo seems to have more leg room and the Mazda5 seems to have more head room. This is after making adjustments in both vehicles so that the leg room is optimized in all rows.
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    08outtie makes the statement about the Rondo's interior design - "The side effects are less comfortable sitting position". I have to disagree. For me, this makes for a MORE comfortable seating position, and it is one of the reasons I bought my 07 EX V6 Rondo. Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either.
  • Originally posted by bgw:
    Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either


    Hmmmm, not all of the Rondo owners buy them because they have comfortable sitting. I own 2 Mazda5s and I wish they had 1-2 inches of extra legroom for the driver, yet it pays off with the rest of its space design. All cars have their little or big griefs, it is not just about sitting.
  • I apologize for the confusion. In my previous post, I was referring to the interior-room design trend in general across all the newer vehicles. I didn't mean to say that the seats in Rondo were less comfortable than any others. I actually only sat in a Rondo for a couple of minutes in the showroom, so I could hardly attest to how comfortable it is.

    I bought an 08 Mitsubishi Outlander earlier in December. The 7 seats were very handy as my family just came to town for Christmas and I was able to caravan all 7 of us. However, my sister gave the third row in the Outlander a level 9 in UN-comfortableness with the scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst back seat ever. The third row in the Outlander was low to the ground, so my sister basically had her knees touching her chin when she was back there. The cushioning in the third row was also not good, which made my sister went "ouch" everytime we went over a bump on the road. The upside was that the second row in the Outlander continued to have better than good legroom and headroom whether the third row was in use. This was the area where Mazda5 and Rondo cannot match.

    The sixth and seventh seat in the vehicle are really just for occasional uses only, so the comfort in the second row seats are a bigger concern in my case. The second row in the Outlander is so much bigger than Mazda5 or Rondo. That is why I got the Outlander instead. In addition to that, the 4wd on the Outlander is also one of the deciding factors.

    It is funny that I cross-shopped these three vehicles. The outlander is an CUV, the Mazda5 is "almost" a mini-van and Rondo is "almost" a station wagon. I thought I was having a weird shopping list. But after I saw this discussion thread, I guess I'm not alone cross-shopping these three cars.

    Cheers and happy new year.
  • batman47batman47 Posts: 606
    In road test review made by Edmunds in four vehicles, i.e. Mitsubishi Outlander (V6), RAV4 (V6), Honda CR-V (4-cyl), and Nissan Rogue (4-cyl) reported that the RAV4 (V6) was the winner of this road test. The test, however, has shown an involuntary bias in the criteria for this evaluation.

    Owners of the RAV4 have reported the poor payload capacity of the RAV4 that may demonstrate the lack of meat in the construction of the vehicle. The max payload capacity of any RAV4 is the equivalent of 7-persons weight (approximately 150 lbs each). So if you load your RAV4 with 7-persons the roof rail and the roof box are just decorations. Camping or picnic with 7-person is unpractical in a RAV4, i.e. no cargo for the usual stuff. Let’s us now see the Outlander (V6) where its payload capacity is enough to carry a total weight of 9-people (150 lbs each). This is to say 7-people as passengers and the weight equivalent of 2-people as cargo. The roof rail and roof box make sense here. This situation is much better with the Outlander ES 2.4L which its payload capacity is equivalent to 10-people weight. Making some allowances for the engine weight of both vehicles (RAV4 (V6) and Outlander (V6)) the Outlander has more than 80 lbs of meat. This weight difference in material of construction makes the Outlander stronger for carry more cargo than the RAV4.

    Road test in the future should test the drivebility of the vehicle with maximum payload capacity no find out if the vehicles still responds as expected. In my research for a 7-seat SUV I was almost ready to order a RAV4 (V6) but after going into the details of both vehicles plus some comments of RAV4’s owners about the poor payload capacity of the Toyota I am now more inclined to order an Outlander ES 2.4L. I am not in the business of towing anything (boat, motor home, etc) so at a price of MSRP $23,100 I think the Outlander ES 2.4L suit my requirements (although the vehicle is 5-seats only).
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes S.E. Wisconsin Posts: 898
    The February Car and Driver has a comparison test of compact SUV's. They tested an ES with the 2.4 and the CVT. It finished behind the RAV4, CRV, and Nissan Rogue, and ahead of the Suzuki Vitara, Saturn VUE, Ford Escape, Hyundai Tuscon, and Jeep Liberty. They complained about the Interior quality, and engine noise and drivetrain. I would think the V6-Six speed auto would have done better.

    It's kind of apples to oranges to compare 4 cyl. vs. V6, though. They said the Outlander has the most interior room. If you look at one, check out the V6-6 speed. It's a nice powertrain.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You posted the exact same thing in the 2009 Forester thread. FWIW cross-posting is not allowed on these forums.
  • mpuzachmpuzach Posts: 635
    You can't post the same info in different discussions? Since when? Why not?
  • It's in the membership agreement, link at the very bottom of page. Since always and because it floods the forums with duplicate information. We ask members to not cross post, more times that not it's spam. Not saying your posting is just try to remember to choose the most appropriate place and post there.

    :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It was just copied verbatim, that's all.

    You can ask the same question in a different context, nothing wrong with that.
  • mrs_tmrs_t Posts: 7
    Test drove both the Rondo and the Mazda5. We wanted at least 6 seats so that pretty much narrowed our options in the market. My hubby sat in the back of both and I turned on the air vents. He was sweating by the end of our ten minute test drive in the Kia and was far more comfortable in the 2008 Mazda5. We also liked the sliding doors and second row captain's chairs better than the bench seat in the Kia. Our double stroller fit better in the back of the Mazda5 than the Rondo too. We were almost enticed to buy the Rondo anyway because Kia offers a better warranty and the price starts a little lower. But when all was said and done the "deal" they were going to give us with the Rondo was only $1100 less than if we got the Mazda5 sport so we walked out of the Kia dealership and went directly to the Mazda lot. Two hours later we were finished signing papers and are now the owners of a Mazda5 sport automatic in Brilliant Black with the popular equipment package. We also chose the extended warranty- 7 years/75,000 miles. It should be here by Wednesday!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Congrats.

    The recent powertrain upgrades were significant - EPA mileage is up and it should be as quick if not quicker.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Thanks for answering one of the questions I had...how hot it would get in the 3rd row of the Rondo and Mazda5. It sounds like the 5 is much cooler back there. I'm guessing because the cool air can pass between the 2nd row captain chairs better than between the 2nd row bench of the Rondo.
  • mrs_tmrs_t Posts: 7
    Glad to answer your question! I was thinking the same thing which is why dh decided to sit in the back to test it out. He also wanted to compare leg room and comfort. It wasn't even all that hot out... just not as much air circulating all the way in the back. I think it would be even worse if there were people sitting in the middle seats.
  • riproyriproy Posts: 57
    Aside from the 5 speed auto, what are the other powertrain upgrades? I notice the manual trans models have improved ratings too. What is responsible?
  • coolmazda5coolmazda5 Posts: 525
    Owning an 06 and an 08 I don't see a critical difference (both Manual) but the 08 seems more efficient overall (feels a little bit smoother as well). I'm assuming the improvements are mostly 3 years of engine fine-tuning and PCM enhancements.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Well, it was the automatics that got the major upgrade.
  • coolmazda5coolmazda5 Posts: 525
    Agree, but I was focusing on the 2nd part of the question though:

    I notice the manual trans models have improved ratings too. What is responsible?
  • riproyriproy Posts: 57
    Coolmazda5,
    Are the gear ratios the same on both your 5s? One thing i find is that the RPMs are quite high when running at 100kph relative to other 4 cylinder cars i have driven. Leaves me wishing for a 6th gear.
  • coolmazda5coolmazda5 Posts: 525
    Yes indeed, they seem high but I don't drive at that speed for long distances. As a matter of fact I like the torque at that RPM range, no need to downshift when going uphill!

    Now, I remember seeing a post of a person in Denmark with a 6-speed 2.0L Gas (not diesel) Mazda5 and the RPMs were very similar to the 5-speed:

    6th speed (Manual, Europe, 2.0L): 120km/hr ~3400RPM
    5th speed (Manual, NA, 2.3L): 75MPH, ~120km/hr ~3500RPM
  • uzvuzv Posts: 8
    I'm 6 ft tall and currently own Dodge Caravan (short ver) with 7 seats and looking to replace with smaller but 6-7 seat.
    1.
    Visited Mazda dealer and played just with Mazda5 seats for 15 min:
    Adjusted seats to the BEST possible sitting for myself (6ft tall) in ALL rows (1,2,3)
    The result:
    1 row - good
    2 row- so-so : problem with feet (does not fit well under 1 row seat)
    3 row - bad : feet just does not feet under 2nd row seat
    There is solution but for only one foot - to stuck it between
    2nd row seats (other foot has to be cut of to be comfortable)
    So Mazda5 3d row - for kids ONLY.
    2.
    Visited KIA dealer and played just with Rondo seats for the same 15 min:
    Adjusted seats to the BEST possible sitting for myself (6ft tall) in ALL rows (1,2,3)
    The result:
    1 row - good
    2 row- good
    3 row - Ok : head is very close to ceiling
    So Rondo 3d row - Ok for 6ft adults
    IMPORTANT: the main thing is to readjust ALL rows to achieve good result in each row
  • wjtinatlwjtinatl Posts: 50
    Would love to see Mazda offer the 5 with the Ford Duratorq 2.2L diesel. This engine delivers 175 hp/295 lb ft torque and delivers 40 mpg in Euro trim. Couple that with the 6 speed autobox and there wouldn't be a better combination of efficient space utilization, economy and fun to drive out there. I'd gladly pay $1500 over the 2.3L currently offered. Otherwise, this is a fantastic vehicle!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Found this rather amusing, the Rondo is called the "Carens" in Brazil, where it also costs R$79,900, or about $51 grand at today's exchange rates.

    Crazy, huh? Here it's a price-leader, there it's kind of upscale.

    A Kia Sportage costs only slightly less, a Hyundai Tucson is about the same price.

    Rondo owners should count their blessings!

    The Santa Fe is sold as a loaded leather-lined AWD model only but costs a whopping R$149,000, over $94 grand!

    The RAV4 costs even more than that! Yikes!
This discussion has been closed.