Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mazda CX-5

1246717

Comments

  • exit123exit123 Posts: 136
    V4? I guessed I missed that in the specs.
  • ethan_in_waethan_in_wa Posts: 13
    edited March 2012
    I just bought a silver AWD Touring with the moon roof and tech packages on Saturday. I had been eying this car since I first learned of its upcoming release nearly a year ago, so when our '07 CX-7 with 110k miles on it suffered an untimely death I took the opportunity to buy one. My wife was so upset about what had happened to our previous Mazda that we were frighteningly close to having a CR-V sitting in our garage for the next five years minimum, but when she realized that we would be paying nearly $3k more for a EX-L with navigation she baulked and finally relented to my pleas.

    In comparison to our CX-7, the CX-5 is quieter, smoother, more agile, more stylish, and appointed throughout with higher quality materials. Then there's the gas mileage, for which I have just one word: phenomenal. In two days of driving around our local roads with stops and hills the car has averaged nearly 28 mpg. By comparison, our CX-7 averaged about 19 mpg with a tail wind in mixed driving. Granted it had more power, but for every day driving the CX-5's power is plenty adequate and the savings at the pump makes the trade-off well worth it.

    Unlike the CR-V we test drove, the CX-5 is actually engaging. The CR-V is perfectly suitable for anyone who receives little enjoyment from driving and merely wishes to travel from point A to point B, and the 2012 CR-V is actually handsome in comparison to the outgoing model. However, Honda's ongoing cost-cutting efforts have become apparent in their dated drivetrain technology, cheap cabin materials, and overall bland driving impression. The CX-5 on the other hand, despite its diminutive figures on paper, holds its own on the road. Its unfortunate too that the car can't compete in a spec war because the numbers don't do it justice. Mazda clearly put forth a great deal of effort in developing this drivetain, to which I give them much credit. And before anyone suggests that perhaps I'm a grandpa driver stepping up from a Yugo, I also own a Lexus IS350. While clearly not as fast in a straight line, the CX-5 is still quite enjoyable to drive. Furthermore, the fit & finish, design, and material quality used in the cabin are the closest I've seen to my Lexus in this segment, excluding perhaps the Tiguan.

    I poked around under the hood a bit too. The engine is nicely laid out, with easy access to most components and serviceable items. There were some aspects of the MZR 2.3 L DISI turbo engine used in the CX-7 which made me weary, and for good reason as I later learned when it decided to gobble nearly all 5 qts of its oil within about 7k miles (yeah, we went over a bit) resulting in its imminent demise. The CX-5 runs full synthetic from the factory and the absence of forced induction, which by the way was a bad idea on a 3900 lb CUV with only a 2.3 L engine, speaks more favorably about the 2.0 L Skyactiv-G's long-term reliability. Admittedly, the 13:1 compression ratio makes me wince, but it seems that Mazda's done a fair amount of work on this one and with everything the company has resting upon its success they can't afford anything less than a win.

    Here's hoping I'm right! (and if I'm wrong I'm sure to hear no end of how we should have bought that CR-V instead....)
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,013
    Nice report! Please keep us informed on your ongoing MPG and driving experiences. Am looking seriously at this vehicle but will probably not buy until this fall. Clearly everyone is enthralled upon first getting a new vehicle(at least I am) and it will be interesting to here of anything that pops up over time that could be improved on. I noticed the quality of the interior bits as well when I sat in one recently.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,915
    Ethan, how does the cargo area compare to the 7 for overall space, and usability?

    In particular, how tall is the cargo area? that's one thing that bothers me on many of these, that the floor height is so high you have very little vertical space, and I hate to pack where I block the view to the rear window (and above the level of the rear seat back).

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • debbadoo2debbadoo2 Posts: 24
    Since the Mazda USA website us not yet showing option pkg pricing, does anyone know the price for adding the Bose/Moonroof to the Touring model?
  • The "Build your Mazda" module for the CX-5 will be released on or about March 15th on the website, according to Mazda USA.
  • There's more headroom than in the CX-7, or the CR-V for that matter (the 2012 CR-V lost an inch in height). However, the sloped rear window tapers steeply above the height of the rear seats, effectively negating the usefulness of this added height with respect to cargo space. Of course if you're not piling cargo above the height of the rear seats this is a moot point.

    Keep in mind that all CUV/SUV's with liftgates mount the spare tire beneath the cargo floor. Only the RAV4 offers a significantly lower cargo floor but at the expense of the liftgate. I personally find the utility of a liftgate to be advantageous over a swing-gate design like that used by the RAV4 or earlier versions of the CR-V. Loading cargo into the CX-5 is easy because the cargo floor sits just below the step and the width of the opening is nearly as wide as the cargo area itself. If you really want a low cargo floor, you may want to consider a station wagon or minivan instead. The CX-5 also sits pretty high off the ground relative to some of the competition.
  • ethan_in_waethan_in_wa Posts: 13
    edited March 2012
    The price of the option packages is listed in the pricing section of this site. Invoice for the Bose/Moonroof package is $1006 and MSRP is $1130. Note too that if you want the tech package it can only be had with the Bose/moonroof option installed (that's not indicated anywhere in the literature).
  • m6user,

    I believe the fiber lining in the wheel wells is to suppress road and tire noise. Also, the overall diameter of the 17" and 19" wheels are the same; the aspect ratio of the tires changes with respect to rim diameter to preserve the overall diameter of the wheel. Otherwise acceleration, top speed, and measurements such as speed and odometer reading would all be affected. The wheel gap is the same in both instances, only the 19" wheels look bigger since the rim diameter is proportionately larger with respect to the overall diameter of the wheel while the tire sidewalls are thinner.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,915
    For me, the 19" wheels makes the GT a no-go. Thankfully there isn't anything else on that which I would require (that can't be added as an option on a T).

    Now, if they had just deemed to offer the manual trans on the T model instead of just the sport, it could be a really interesting option.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,013
    edited March 2012
    I believe the fiber lining in the wheel wells is to suppress road and tire noise.

    You could be partially right but I firmly believe it was a weight saving method as well. It seems that the pictures I've seen of the GT it appeared the wheels filled the wheelwells up more but it could just be an optical illusion as you said. I know on different vehicles they can go from 17 to 20 inch wheels and I'm sure the outside diameter of the overall tire/wheel package is greater with the larger wheels. I realize the sidewalls are narrower on the low aspect tires but on most cars when you get the larger wheels it certainly appears to fill the wheelwells up more. I'm certainly no expert on wheels though.

    I prefer the GT as I really like leather interiors but I could do with the 17" wheels just as well if the look is similar but to my knowledge the 19" comes standard on the GT. I usually only buy new tires for a vehicle once so a couple of hundred extra bucks for the 19" tires over 90k plus miles is not a problem.
  • ethan_in_waethan_in_wa Posts: 13
    edited March 2012
    I fail to see how adding more material is a weight savings measure. The fiber lining, which is only used in the back, is fastened to the inside of the wheel wells. The substrate behind this fiber lining is sheet metal. The sheet metal is also lined with a sound damping elastomer which is used in both the front and back. The idea is to attenuate road and tire noise so that its not transmitted to the cabin via the frame. This is a solid approach to noise abatement that demonstrates Mazda's commitment to quality in design.

    Regarding the wheel size, the overall diameter of the wheels on the Touring and Grand Touring models is nearly identical. The Touring has P225/65R17 wheels while the GT has P225/55R19 wheels. The first number is the tire width in millimeters. The second number is the aspect ratio, which is the height of the tire as a percentage of the width. The final number is the rim diameter in inches.

    To prove my earlier assertion, lets run the numbers. The overall diameter of the wheels on the Touring model is 17+2*.65*225/25.4 = 28.5 inches, whereas for the GT the overall wheel diameter is 19+2*.55*225/25.4 = 28.7 inches (note that mm are converted to inches using 1 inch = 25.4 mm and tire width is multiplied by two to get diameter). As you can see, the wheels on the GT are only 0.2 inches larger in diameter, which is almost indiscernible. So yes, the larger rims created the ILLUSION of a larger wheel, without actually increasing wheel size. :)
  • debbadoo2debbadoo2 Posts: 24
    Thoughts on the premium cloth seats in the Touring model? Do they appear to be good quality material? How about comfort level?
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,013
    Thanks for the explanation. I poked around in the wheelwells for a couple of seconds and pushed on the fiber lining and felt a lot of give so I assumed they used the fiber matting in lieu of something more substantial. I did find this strange and the salesperson found it kind of strange too. Not that most salespeople know that much about new products when they have only been in the dealer for a couple of weeks. But if, as you say, the matting is simply an addon for sound dampening that is great. I'm not questioning Mazda's engineering expertise.

    I wonder if, on some vehicles when they use a larger tire often for sport models, they actually lower the vehicle on the suspension so the wheelwells are lower thus making the larger rims/tires seem much bigger?
  • I was concerned about the same thing. The fabric is actually quite nice, so far as cloth seats go. The side bolsters and seat back are solid in color while the seat and back sections are patterned. In terms of comfort, the seats are firm; the side bolsters more so.
  • I understand the reason for your confusion. The fiber panels in the rear wheel wells are offset from the sheet metal substrate so they appear to be unsupported from behind. By offsetting these panel there is less contact with the sheet metal behind them, thereby reducing the transmission of noise to the frame.

    The CX-5 does ride higher than most of the competition so the gap in the wheel wells is more obvious. Dropping the suspension would make the wheels look proportionately bigger.
  • mcperrmcperr Posts: 74
    Has anyone heard yet if the CX-5 can be flat towed? Debating between AWD versions of the CX-5 and the CR-V for towing behind a motorhome. The CR-V can be towed with all four wheels on the ground.
  • exit123exit123 Posts: 136
    I took a look at the CX-5 the other day. The 2.0L engine is probably a deal-killer for me. Give me the MZR 2.5L and I'd be interested.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    13 horsepower? Really? and the 2.5L has one less gear (if you get the automatic..and it's a worse automatic) and about 100 more pounds near as I can tell. That makes it nearly a zero-sum game there, unless you're looking for the torque.

    You can have the MZR 2.5L. I think what most people are looking for is a SKYACTIV 2.5L. ;)
  • venkatgovenkatgo Posts: 1
    Hi new CX5 owners, Congrats!

    This seems to be a nice CUV and I am planning to buy. Could you please list the overall mpg you are getting with your calcs and not computer with city/hwy driving split approx?

    Is the fuel efficiency as advertised? I believe the Mazda 3 has the skyactiv engine as well and delivers good mpg and so I hope the CX5 does too.

    I see a lot of folks are interested in the MPG and so it would be useful to post here.

    thanks!
  • nelson1nelson1 Posts: 40
    Good report, Ethan. You answered lots of questions that I had. I am contemplating trading off my 2011 Hyundai Sonata Ltd., because of the loud road noise at highway speeds. Can't tolerate that any longer. Dealer and Hyundai tell me to buy new Michelin tires. Ha. Sure, buy new tires for a new car, right. Thinking about the CX5. Even though I have never owned a Mazda, I am thinking on it. I like the looks, wish it had a few more horses.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,517
    I also suggest new tires.

    Its a heck of a lot cheaper than a new car.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • gusman3gusman3 Posts: 1
    I am in the process of finalizing my purchase of a CX5 Touring model. But I have question regarding the headlights. The brochure and sticker states it is halogen, but it looks like Xenon. Even on vehicles the optional Tech package which includes the Xenon light and on basic Touring/Sports models without them, the head light looks same as Xenon. Can the owners of the CX5 confirm if the head light is Xenon or not. Also, please list the mileage obtained after fill ups. Thanks.
  • Only the Touring and Grand Touring models with the tech package offer the xenon headlights. However, even the standard halogen projectors are pretty good on the CX-5. I test drove a touring without the tech package but bought one with it; the difference at night is noticeable but not significantly so. The big advantage in my opinion is the adaptive lights. I have these on my IS350 and they do improve visibility while cornering.

    I will be sure to post my mileage on my next fill up. So far I've barely burned through a quarter of a tank!
  • stan6201stan6201 Posts: 25
    I bought a CX-5 Touring and for me the cloth seats are great. The material is nice and with the adjustable lumbar support (which is hard to find with cloth) I am a happy camper. I could not see the value in upgrading to the Grand Touring model.
  • stan6201stan6201 Posts: 25
    I just purchased a Touring model with the Bose/moonroof package. I love the vehicle but am very disappointed with the Bose sound. Unless you are listening to a CD it sounds like everything is coming out of the center speaker. Does anyone know of a way of replicating the CD sound while listening to other sources (Ipod, mp3 player, radio, HD radio, etc.)?
  • Agreed. Overall the CX-5 offers great value with an impressive set of features for a very competitive price, but sadly the Bose system is sub par in my opinion. I've noticed this same thing; the center channel seems to be dominant, which is a bad thing when listening to stereo audio. The Mark Levinson system in my other car blows this one away with a much richer, cleaner sound - then again I'm not a big fan of Bose. I expect a little more from a thousand dollar optional audio upgrade.
  • The Bose isn’t a $1k audio upgrade by itself – it’s part of an option package includes a moonroof, which is typically a~ $800-1k stand-alone option on most any car. The Bose is obviously worth far less than that. Too bad Mazda made these two unrelated options part of the same package. I’d rather have the moonroof as a single option, and add aftermarket stereo of my own choice.
  • 62vette62vette Posts: 17
    I am looking at replacing a Chevy Silverado with a CX-5. I have not used my truck bed in forever and can use some inside cargo room for work. I am thinking of a lease on this car, anybody have any experience with a lease so far? Any ideas on payments, residuals, etc would be appreciated.
  • glossgloss Posts: 146
    You can disable Centerpoint in the audio options. Worth a shot.
Sign In or Register to comment.