Mazda CX-5

m6user · February 2012

Yeah, please include the color combos on the ones you've got.

aviboy97 · February 2012

I have a Stormy Blue with Sand leather Grand Touring AWD model and a Touring AWD model in Liquid Silver with the tech package and moon/Bose package. Both colors are currently available on other Mazda's.

gearjammer62 · February 2012

Dealer in Oklahoma City got two in today - Sky Blue and Black Mica. Thes two are already sold along with three other pre-orders just today. They look very nice in person - better than the pictures.

aviboy97 · February 2012

Hey everyone,

I had the opportunity to drive the Cx-5 for a good amount of time today. I drove a CX-5 Grand Touring AWD.

I am going to start with my observation to the question I think everyone has...."does this car have enough power?". The answer is yes. It is not a rocket by any means, but it is not sluggish either. I would say it feels quicker than the 2012 CR-V LX AWD I drove last week.

One design characteristic I noticed is the overly firm accelerator pedal. I believe this is the reason why many reviewers have stated the car feels sluggish, unless you floor the pedal. The accelerator needs a good amount of pressure just to depress it, similar to a BMW. Actually, it's even tougher. Since a good amount of pressure is needed just to depress the pedal, it gives the driver the feeling that you are exerting a lot of energy just to get the car to move. Once you get used to the fact that you need to press hard, you adjust and realize the CX-5 actually scoots along fairly quickly and feels pretty agile without the engine screaming. I think it feels this way because the pedal is not conventional. It is actually mounted on the floor rather than hanging from under the dash. In any event, more power is always welcome.

I set the cruise at 70 mph and did about 5 miles on the highway and it was virtually flat. The MPG readout was showing 32mpg. Again, this was an AWD model.

The engine is very smooth, non raspy and very, very quite. The transmission does feel different than in the Mazda3. It is obvious there are some differences in the gearing. It really feels like a dual-clutch tranny but with low end power and smoothness. If there was someone who came from one of VW's DSG's, they would think this was a DSG, but more responsive.

Wind noise and road noise were minimal. The seats are comfortable and supportive. What I found really interesting was the massive amount of head and leg room in both the front and rear with a moon roof! It's the weirdest thing. The overall height is virtually the same as the CR-V, but the seating position is lower. I could wear a hat and it would not hit the roof, even when equipped with a moon roof. You really don't feel like you are in a SUV or CUV. Leg room is outstanding for this class. I positioned the front seat as if I were driving, and I still had about 3 inches between my knees and the back of the front seat when sitting in the rear and I am 6'3".

The handling, steering and braking all were very "Mazda like". Even though the car has electric steering power assist, you wouldn't know it. I don't know why no other manufacturer can figure this out.

Overall, I find the car impressive. Out of the several people today to drive it, they were all impressed. They all mentioned it was bigger inside than it looked from the outside. The styling is captivating in person. The front end is so nice to look at, especially given the hideous front end designs Mazda has blessed us with over the last 3 years.

It is obvious this is the new way Mazda will be building their cars. Build quality is top notch. Materials rival what VW uses, and in some cases better. The car just feels very high quality.

I don't see how this car is not a success for Mazda. Exactly how many they can sell in a given year is to be determined, but Mazda would be very successful if they can push 80,000 - 100,000 a year. That may not sound like a lot considering top rivals sell upwards of 150,000 - 200,000, but Mazda is a small company. It does not take a lot to be profitable.

I'm looking forward to other reviews here. I know I can be a little bias at times because I work for the company, but I tried to be as objective as possible.

stickguy · February 2012

How does the usable cargo room compare to say the CR-V? not just floor space, but height below the window line?

That is often a big drawback in an SUV or CUV (especially an AWD). the load floor is very high, and I have obsession about not packing higher than the sight line to the rear window (or the height of the rear seats). In a minivan, that is not usually a problem!

The CRV actually has a reasonably low load floor now.

m6user · February 2012

First of all, thanks for the thorough write up. Little confused, you said the tranny feels different than in the 3. Isn't it the same transmission but possibly a little different gearing? Why do you suppose the gas pedal is that hard to push? Are they trying to make you sip gas? Why didn't they just use the same gas pedal setup as in other Mazdas?

I just received an email from my local Mazda dealer that they have several in. I need to take our Mazda6 in for oil change and 75k service in a few weeks. Think I'll take advantage of my wait at the dealer with a test drive!

With gas prices shooting up it looks like Mazda's timing with the best MPG of any CUV/SUV will help get this baby moving. I wish them good luck especially with all the financial stuff that's in the news.

aviboy97 · February 2012

Little confused, you said the tranny feels different than in the 3

It felt like it shifted quicker than in the 3. Also, the gearing different, not obvious, but still noticeable. I have lots of driving experience in the 3 with the SKYACTIV-Drive, and it does not feel the same. This is not a bad thing, though.

Why do you suppose the gas pedal is that hard to push? Are they trying to make you sip gas?

I don't think is has anything to do with sipping gas, it is just a hard pedal to push. Let me try to be more clear....it seems as if the fuel/pedal position ratio is normal meaning the pedal position is in good relation to the amount and response you witness, but is it is just hard to press. As of right now, I have no idea why this is. I will have to do some investigating. You get used to it rather quickly, though.

I just received an email from my local Mazda dealer that they have several in.

They most likely have 2 Mazda protocol was for every dealer, no matter how big or small, received 2 at the same time. I doubt they have several.

Definitely go check it out. Its pretty nice. I like it.

aviboy97 · February 2012

I know what you mean in regards to the CR-V. Honda did a great job in managing their cargo space. The CX-5's is as deep (tail gate to rear seat), but I think the CR-V's goes deeper into the floor.

The cargo space in the CX-5 is pretty good though. The rear seats are rather high so visibility should be adequate if you pile stuff up. Still, probably a bit better in the CR-V.

aviboy97 · February 2012

After roughly 80 miles of test drives, the CX-5 Touring AWD we have is averaging 27.5 miles per gallon. Considereing test drives usually include a little "let's see what this car can do" type of driving and the EPA average is 28, I think the mileage to date is very good. I would not be surprised to see an average of 30 at some point.

When driving at 70, the fuel computer was reading 32mpg. When driving at 60, the fuel computer was reading 37.5. Now, I have no idea how accurate this computer is, but if it is even remotely close, this car gets amazing fuel economy.

bpizzuti · February 2012

This is the slushbox version? That's nearing Impreza territory, only with more power than an Impreza. What percentage city and highway? Interesting how drastic the drop is between 60 and 70...

aviboy97 · February 2012

Yes, the automatic. Considering how much smaller the Impreza is, and the height of the CX-5 creates more drag, I would say that's outstanding.

My family came in today and parked their 09 Forester next to it, and the exterior dimentions are virtually identical.

I would say probably 50/50 highway and city at this point.

m6user · February 2012

Good to hear about the mpg. I would say that's excellent as test drives usually have little to no freeway drives. How would you compare the pep and handling to the Mazda3? I know the CX-5 is heavier and higher but the gearing is obviously different on it as well so I was wondering how the grunt felt from a stop. I like the conservative style of the interior versus the spaceship look of the Focus/Escape. How would you say the interior feels quality wise and also sizewise as compared to the 3 or the 6. Is it in between the two or does it feel closer to the 6 in shoulder/hiproom? Not so much worried about leg or headroom or the back seat for that matter.

I'm becoming more interested in this all the time. I know it's sacriledge living in an area of the country where we get snow but I'd probably be leaning towards FWD. I have 3 vehicles a RWD V8 truck, a 4WD SUV and a FWD sedan. I usually drive the 4WD vehicle and to be honest only have turned on the 4wd a couple of times a winter for the past few years. Even in those cases it wasn't a matter of absolutely needing it but more that it was just a little bit easier to get moving from stops etc. Just don't see the need for AWD/4WD that much and think avoiding the extra cost, weight, higher maint and MPG hit might be prudent. Terrain is pretty flat around here so hills aren't much of a factor. I think a lot of people around here buy it just to say they have it or because they think they need it.

bpizzuti · February 2012

This is interesting me more as well, even though a visceral part of me is telling me to wait to see the 2013 WRX. But I think I'll have to go test drive one of these in the next couple of weeks.

aviboy97 · February 2012

The Mazda3 is a better handler and more "tossable". However, the CX-5 is very sharp and the steering is nearly perfect, IMO. Changing lanes at highway speeds is so precise as well.

I know the CX-5 is heavier and higher but the gearing is obviously different on it as well so I was wondering how the grunt felt from a stop

From a stop, it's pretty good. Not blazing speed, but when it revs up, it goes along just fine and does not feel like it is struggling.

How would you say the interior feels quality wise and also sizewise as compared to the 3 or the 6.

Quality is much better than a Mazda3 and even better than the Mazda6. While the 6's interior is very good, the hard plastics Mazda did use are not as good as the hard plastics you find in the CX-5. Ther CX-5 has minimal hard plastics as well. What Mazda did well with the CX-5's interior was the precise fit and finish. Virtually no misalignments or gaps and the car is very, very solid. When grabbing interior trim pieces, they are firmly in place and don't wiggle when trying to move them.

Is it in between the two or does it feel closer to the 6 in shoulder/hiproom?

In between the two as far as shoulder room goes. Closer to the 6 than the 3, though.

m6user · February 2012

Thanks for the info. From your interior description it sounds like Mazda may be making a concentrated effort to raise it's bar a little and the CX-5 is the first salvo in that fight. Do you think that is the case and the new 6, when it does come out, will have a lot nicer interior than the present one?

Toyota was crucified the last few years for the quality of the Camry's interior and they finally addressed that with the 2012 model. I see GM, Ford and Chrysler stepping up their game in that area too. I guess it makes sense that Mazda has to follow suite which is a good thing.

m6user · February 2012

Yeah, I've had V-8s and V-6s for so long that I really wonder how satisfied I would be with this. That said, I am ready to stop feeling like a hostage to the oil companies than I do now. We have a Mazda6 i and my wife drives it the majoirty of the time. However, I take it in for service and I drive it when we go on longer trip and I really don't miss the power that much and enjoy the 500+ miles between fill ups.

Isn't the WRX quite a bit smaller than this?

bpizzuti · February 2012

Yeah, but it's got a LOT more HP for about 3 MPG highway FE loss (rumored 270+ and 30 MPG highway). And if I really don't need AWD (though it'd be nice) so I could still go Mazda3 once they put auto climate control into one of the SkyActiv trims, and then I"m looking at 39 MPG per the EPA.

I DO have a 100 mile commute, and they're talking $4+ a gallon gas this summer. I have to keep that in mine. Which means I really should NOT be considering a WRX, but having an actual sportscar would just be really nice. Of course, I could also consider a Speed3... :shades:

aviboy97 · February 2012

I DO have a 100 mile commute, and they're talking $4+ a gallon gas this summer

It's already $4/gal. I have been hearing $5/gal. Remember, WRX's use premium!

bpizzuti · February 2012

Hmm, I did forget that, but I still can't get a Mazda3 SkyActiv with auto climate control.

packaging pro · February 2012

I have been researching this CX-5 and following the forums for the last few months. I was able to test drive a GT with Technology Package today and was impressed. The fit n finish and quality was excellent. Everything was well laid out and nicely designed. Very quiet on the road and loved the Bose Sound System. The stitching on the seats look fabulous.

I had two knocks on the vehicle which I thought was a deal breaker:
1) very underpowered. I currently have a 2008 Accord V6 with 270 HP. The Mazda was peppy under 30mph, over was very sluggish and unresponsive, downshifts seemed very slow!
2) I thought the Navigation was mediocre at best. Small screen and it looked aftermarket, not OEM

With that being said, I was overall impressed. The 2 wheel drive loaded was $29XXX. Very good value.

I was told Mazda is offering .9 Financing for 36 months and 2.9 for 48 and 60 months.

They have a $500 loyalty incentive.

Overall, I may go with a 2012 Passat Diesel SEL...Any thoughts?

aviboy97 · February 2012

Hey everyone,

I found this review today from someone who owns a 2008 Nissan Rouge and test drove the Mazda CX-5. He goes into great detail, almost mirroring what I mentioned earlier.

http://forums.nicoclub.com/rogue-vs-2013-mazda-cx-5-t552508.html

BTW, he loves the drive train....

aviboy97 · February 2012

very underpowered. I currently have a 2008 Accord V6 with 270 HP. The Mazda was peppy under 30mph, over was very sluggish and unresponsive, downshifts seemed very slow!

Coming from a 270hp Accord, I can see why you would think it was underpowered. Believe it or not, the CX-5 is quicker than a CR-V, which as 30 more ponies. Keeping it in context with the segment, it is actually pretty good, sans V6 equipped competitors. But, those cars pay the price at the pump...

I'm also shocked at your assessment of the downshifts. That is one of the SKYACTIV-Drive's strong suits.

packaging pro · February 2012

I was surprised to! I do have a 2009 CX-9 and love the vehicle. I also want to see the new Ford Escape. I like the engine offerings better than the CX-5

bpizzuti · February 2012

The Escape has the same overstyling problem the Focus has. I mean, it's tolerable but just screams a bit too much for me.

Interesting that the Focus has only one engine. While the Mazda3 has 3. And the CX-5 has one while the Escape has 3.

vuexpress · February 2012

Hi,

I went to OakTree Mazda in San Jose, CA this past Saturday. They had two CX-5's. One was a black Grand Touring model. The other was a Sky Blue touring model. I test drove the latter.

My biggest worry was the power issue so I'll get right to that point. From a standstill, I though acceleration was fine. I thought it was no weaker than the CR-V, Forester (with the small engine), or the RAV4 (again with the small engine). In fact, I thought it was probably better than all of those. It might even be better than the Tiguan in that respect. So I was quite happy with the torque from a standstill.

Early in the test drive, we went into a highway. As I was about to merge into traffic, I saw a truck in my side mirror. It was roughly in my blind spot area. We've all been in this situation. You kinda watch what that car wants to do, they they do the same. I noticed the truck was hesitating so I pushed on the gas pedal a little more to try and merge in in front of the truck. The problem is when I pressed the gas pedal, it was like nothing happened. I pressed it a little more, and still no response. In the end, I took too much time so the truck must have thought I didn't want to pass. I ended up letting the truck pass me.

So regarding the power issue, I would say acceleration from standstill is surprisingly good. However, acceleration from say 50 mph isn't great. The salesman sat next to me and we talked about this for a little bit. He said switching to (automated) manual and downshifting might help. He might have a point. If I could do this again, I would try flooring the gas pedal; that might make a diffference. In other words, maybe I was too light on the pedal. Getting the manual transmission might be a good idea.

Everything else about the car was great. I like mazda's in general. I currently have a miata and my wife had a mazda3 before. I love the look of the car. In fact, I want to like this car so much. However, I still worry about the lack of power. I would gladly trade in a few miles per gallon for some more horsepower. Frankly, I've never worried about the price of gas that much. I think mazda would do nicely if they offered a 2nd engine option for the CX-5 with perhaps 180 hp and a combined 26 miles per gallon.

I'm not giving up on this car yet although I want to see the Ford Escape. I'll probably take another test drive sometime in the next few weeks. I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy either the CX-5 or the Escape. The CX-5 looks better, is japanese (aka more reliable) and has a lower pricetag, but the Escape has the better engine options.

Thanks.

dougnuts · February 2012

I also test drove a CX-5 last weekend. AWD GT model, with leather but without Nav.

I agree with the other people who say that the car has adequate power (as I expected it would) but the transmission does it's best job to keep RPMs low, which gives the impression of a lack of power. Give it enough go pedal, or shift it over to manual, and it does just fine.

The ride, handling, braking, interior, etc. were all very impressive. We are going to wait until the diesel comes out next year before taking the plunge, but the chances of us buying a CX-5 within 18 months is pretty high.

gloss · March 2012

I get the impression from some reviews that the engine has more pep than people think, but you have to give it some wood before the transmission knows you're serious. Maybe y'all are being too gentle.

bpizzuti · March 2012

I'm worried a little about the top end. Low end grunt is nice and all, but I do 100 highway miles a day. I need to be able to punch the gas and get from 65 to 75 or 80 QUICKLY at times. Seems like the CX-5 is tweaked more for around-town. makes sense given the demographic that usually buys CUVs.

m6user · March 2012

I think you hit it on the head. In life there are compromises and to get the mpg that this gets they had to make some compromises. HP/Torque versus weight.....you just can't get around it.

If I had a 100 mile commute each day and it looked like that wouldn't change I would be looking at diesels or at least a compact sedan getting 30/40mpg. Certainly not a CUV unless I absolutely had to haul big stuff all the time and if so, there's the compromise again. For the average commute especially in more urban areas the CX-5 seems like a realistic tradeoff in regards to pep versus mpg.

I'll test drive this within a couple of weeks and see just how much you have to floor it and how much screaming the engine does to move quickly from 50-75. Since I do that infrequently it may not be a big issue anyway and I would be grateful everytime I filled up.

bpizzuti · March 2012

If I had a 100 mile commute each day and it looked like that wouldn't change I would be looking at diesels or at least a compact sedan getting 30/40mpg.

Love to, but they haven't announced a Mazda3s Grand Touring with the SkyActiv yet. :shades: At the very least I need some auto climate control for those hour morning commutes.

vuexpress · March 2012

Hi, Everyone,

I took another test drive yesterday. This time it was in a GT although it didn't matter much to me which trim I was in. My focus was to see how much force I had to put on the gas pedal to make the car really go.

As we entered the highway, at 40 mph, I floored the gas pedal. The car roared, downshifted, and there was a good amount of acceleration. I did the same thing at 60 mph. The result was the same. The car has some pep. You just have to be heavy footed to tap the power.

I assume putting the car into manual mode and downshifting works, too. I didn't test this though because I think my wife wouldn't do this.

I'm still unsure about whether to chose this car or a new (2013) Ford Escape. Ford is falling fast in the brand and reliability ratings. In Consumer Reports new auto guide, Ford fell from 5th place last year to 10th this year in brand ratings. In Consumer Reports last reliabilty ratings (october, 2011), Ford fell from something like 10th to 20th. My family hasn't bought an American car brand in about 30 years. I'm weary about buying a Ford and regretting it. There are other choices, but I'm not too keen on them:

crv - boring but I might take a look at the new model. New honda models have been
getting poor ratings/reviews.
rav4 - spartan interior and basically unchanged since 2006 but very reliable.
sportage/tucson - small and not as reliable as the japanese models. Good price though.
tiguan - small and expensive.
forrester - narrow, spartan interior, weak engine with a 4 speed transmission (old). The
turbo is stonger, but horrible mileage and requires premium

Thanks.

amagar · March 2012

We zeroed in on the CX-5 after making similar observations about CRV, etc. that you had .. but our purchase is also motivated by easy in-and-out (H-point) for my 80-year-old parents who now live with us.

We're a VW family. All we've ever purchased. But VW doesn't have what we need (although the Jetta SportWagen would be perfect if AWD).

Thi is the first time we've shopped for a vehicle when considering oldsters. But I think we (early 40s) are riding the beginning of a wave that's about to crash ashore...and automakers aren't considering this market segment.

All these baby boomers have failing joints, etc...and they need some way to get around that's not a wheelchair bus.

We went to the Cleveland auto show last week with a tape measure to see what options we had. My parents have a LeSabre and the H-point (the distance from ground to seat) is only 21 inches. It's way too low for someone with mobility issues to get in and out of.

But, let me tell you, finding something in the 25 - 27-inch H-point isn't easy. I was like goldilocks looking for something not too high and not too low.

I went to the show prepared to suck it up and get the Outback, an affordable station wagon with AWD. It's ugly. I'm turned off by the cheapo interior, etc. But it turns out, the Outback had one of the highest H-points of about a dozen vehicles we measured. If memory serves, it's about 31 inches. Sweet relief.

Next, we went to what I thought we really should get all along -- the Audi Q5 small SUV. Hip point too high...and really, after giving it the once over, I didn't think it was worth the pricetag. Audi allroad was deliciously decadent, but had a hip point too low to consider (and was really out of our price range).

Stopped by VW -- as I said earlier, SportWagen awesome. I think its cabin compares with the Audi Q 5 for a lot less cash. And you can get diesel for under 30k. Why isn't this thing flying off lots?? HUGE trunk area. Bummer for us there's no AWD model.

The other crossovers we looked at were just meh...although I have to say the seats of the Toyata Venza were designed for napping on a long drive. Still, it would have felt more like the 80-year-old's car than ours.

The Mazda CX-5 isn't perfect. Cabin still can't compare to a VW in our view. And I don't like to be a guinea pig with new technology. But the car has almost everythingn we're looking for. Hip point -- 26.5, AWD and a little more road swagger than its competitors. We're in negotiations now for purchase. First dealer's first offer is $1,000 over invoice. Up to two months before delivery.

tlong · March 2012

Amagar - you could look at the Mazda 5. The interior might be a bit too cheap for you, but the height is really excellent - higher than a sedan and lower than an SUV. You pretty much just slide right across onto the seat - neither up nor down. We also really like the sliding doors which don't ding adjacent vehicles in tight spots.

amagar · March 2012

Thanks for that suggestion. We looked at the minivan and I can't remember what didn't work for us. Maybe AWD wasn't available (we have a steep driveway and live in the snow belt). We also need the ability to tow a 1,400-lb boat. Maybe there wasn't towing capacity. There was something that made us cross it off the list. I should mention that there was a line of white-haired people crawling in and out the Mazda5 at the auto show...so it clearly is a hit with oldsters.

dudleyr · March 2012

If the Jetta wagon is perfect, then just put snow tires on it - will be much better off than awd without them (like most people do).

wngnt · March 2012

Someone has mentioned the magic word (for me anyway) - diesel. Never owned one and never driven one but have been reading forums/discussions for years now. Have owned a P5(now in younger daughter's hands), M3 (now with older daughter) and still have a 2005 M6 wagon and love it but need to replace an old rundown Corolla (inherited from younger daughter). The CX5 in its currently available iteration just won't do. I am going to need a little more grunt for possibly towing a small trailer and am willing to wait for the diesel.

I am wondering if any of the techs/mechanics at Aviboy97's dealership have been sent or are scheduled for additional training for the new motor. That might in itself give us diesel hopefuls something to chew on for a while.

Heading down to our local dealership (Van. Island) right now to see if there is a CX5 in. They haven't advertised as such but they seem to be other places so should be here too.

bschupbach1127 · March 2012

Today I went and was able to test drive the GT, (although I will be getting the Touring), and I was SO impressed. As you would expect with a V4 it takes a little more to get it up there in speed, but for the MPG and the sheer value, its great! I ordered the Touring in Sky Blue. The downside for me is that ALL of the Tourings that are coming into the US with this next week's shipment are equipped with the MoonRoof and Bose Sound System which adds bout 1,380 to the total price and raises the tax and fees. I am the targeted buyer though a 20-something couple with a one year-old. So it works for us. I love how easy it is to get in and out. The baby seat fit wonderfully and the stroller (the massive Eddie Bauer kind) and had PLENTY of room for pretty much anything else I would use it for. We originally started by looking at the Honda Civic, which turned to looking at the Honda CR-V. The 2012 CR-V was a lot more expensive for just the base model, so we decided to wait. When we saw the Lorax/Mazda Commercial we started to do some research on that. I tested and put 50% down today. So worth the buy and so worth the cash. The base model is FINE, but I really wanted the HD radio and the MoonRoof.

Very pleased overall. The road noise is really quiet (Especially to the CR-V and RAV4). The colors are really vibrant and have an extra layer of clear to protect the paint and it has all the room you would need for a small family (2 Car Seats and 2 dogs would fit just fine!)

I will get the Car On St Patrick's Day so I will let you know how that goes! (And It thought this was pretty cool, but I will be the first owner of the Sky Blue CX-5 in Nevada... This is the only dealership with the first weeks order:D)

aviboy97 · March 2012

I am wondering if any of the techs/mechanics at Aviboy97's dealership have been sent or are scheduled for additional training for the new motor. That might in itself give us diesel hopefuls something to chew on for a while.

I wish I had something for you to chew on, but our tech have not been educated in the diesel yet. They went to Skyactiv training months ago, but mainly for the transmission and Skyactiv-G engine. They brielf ytalked about the diesel, but not indepth.

wngnt · March 2012

Thanks aviboy, I appreciate the response. I did give the CX5 the once over at our local dealership but had no time for a test drive. First impressions are very positive. Enough room with the rear seats folded and the front seats are more comfortable than our M6 (no real surprise there). With my screwed-up back I like the step in height too.

m6user · March 2012

I did the same thing. This was the first time I've actually sit in one and I really liked the quality and conservative layout of the interior materials. Not a ton of buttons are whizbang stuff but enough tech to satisfy. I would want the GT but all they had was two Touring and one Sport model. Seating was comfortable and ample room in back. The backs seats do flop forward with just the pull of a release which is great but you still have to have the front seats up some to allow clearance.

Three things I noticed that I would have to revisit thoroughly during a test drive which I'll do in a couple of weeks.

1. The seat bottoms seemed a little short even for me and I typically have no problem with about any car because my legs are just not that long.

2. The center console which doesn't adjust to my knowledge was too low and too far back for my liking. I like to drive sometimes with my right hand with the elbow on the console and gripping the wheel with my fingers. It seems difficult to do this comfortably but it may just be a matter of more seat adjustment. I had the steering wheel telescoped all the way back and adjusted vertically. Test drive will determine if I can adjust to it. I did like the wide door panel at the top of the door to rest your arm on if you drive that way. Some doors are paper thin in that area and don't lend themselves to resting your arm on them especially with the window closed. This one is nice in that regard.

3. The 17" wheels really don't fill up the wheel wells. There are fiber panels lining the wheelwell (kind of strange to me) which I assume are weight saving tricks. They are a medium grey and other solid panels in the wheelwell are black. Very noticeable differences especially with all the space above the tires. Maybe these grey fiber panels will darken with dirt and exposure and not be so noticeable but I have to believe the 19" tires would cover them up and fill up the wheelwells a lot better. I'm not a huge fan of the bigger tires/rims but in this case it appeared to me they would look a lot better.

exit123 · March 2012

V4? I guessed I missed that in the specs.

ethan_in_wa · 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....)

m6user · March 2012

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.

stickguy · March 2012

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).

debbadoo2 · March 2012

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?

gearjammer62 · March 2012

The "Build your Mazda" module for the CX-5 will be released on or about March 15th on the website, according to Mazda USA.

ethan_in_wa · March 2012

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_wa · 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).

ethan_in_wa · March 2012

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.

stickguy · March 2012

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.

Mazda CX-5

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles