Mazda CX-5
Went to the Chicago Auto Show yesterday and looked at the OUTSIDE of the new CX-5. Pretty impressed as it looks better in person than the pictures which were pretty good themselves. I say outside because they were locked up! These vehicle are due on dealer lots next week so I couldn't believe they were locked. The new Escape was open for viewing and touching and isn't due for several months.
Wish I could report more on the CX-5 but I think Mazda could have really generated more interest by letting people touchy-feely. It seemed to be a popular vehicle to look at just the same from what I could see of the crowd interest in it.
Wish I could report more on the CX-5 but I think Mazda could have really generated more interest by letting people touchy-feely. It seemed to be a popular vehicle to look at just the same from what I could see of the crowd interest in it.
Tagged:
0
Comments
Don't really know why the big difference in the two trannies mpg. Now days it seems that manuals/autos are usually rated the same or just 1mpg difference.
I was really disappointed I couldn't get in the vehilce. The rep at the auto show said it had a preproduction interior. Strange with thousands of these things due in dealers in a week or so that they couldn't pull one of the the car carriers to show. :confuse:
Those cars are 6 months away at the earliest. Ford has a big problem with dealers right now because they are busy showcasing their upcoming products that are so far away and it is devaluing the current models. No one wants a 2012 Escape or 2012 Fusion knowing in the fall there are new designs on the way. Ford was stupid for disclosing new specs and designs so far in advance.
In regards to Mazda, there is no reason to showcase the CX-5 at NADA. The car hits the US shore this week. Why bother at NADA when they have been touring the North American auto show's?
26/32/28 and 25/31/28 are not high enough? Look at the city and combined mileage. Higher than anyone else, and 3 more MPG's than the new CR-V.
Considering that the new EPA estimate window stickers now show the combined mileage estimates is large bold print and the city and highway estimates in small print, I believe the CX-5 will stand out. People will be drawn to the combined number, not the highway number. That's a major plus for the CX-5.
When the stick is so dramatically higher and yet the slushbox was touted as more efficient than any stick, CVT, or DSG out there, no, it's not enough. They made some sort of drastic change to push the stick's mileage up to 35 MPG territory, and no one seems to know what it is, and I want to if it was done in the tranny or the engine...and if the engine, why wasn't it done to the automatic? The way gas prices are inching up, this is very important to some.
So, let me get this straight.....a 3 mpg difference between the 6-speed manual and 6-speed auto is considered "dramatically higher" for highway economy, but when comparing the 6-speed auto to any other automatic from the competition, a 3 mpg advantage in overall fuel economy average is "not enough"? How does that make sense? If anything, the average fuel economy is far more important than highway economy.
Highway FE is what gets advertised, for obvious reasons. That alone makes it important.
That depends. To the majority of people probably yes but to many the hwy mpg is more important as they use these vehicle as commuter vehicles. Many commutes are 95% hwy and sometimes fairly long so when people start figuring the cost of their commuting versus another vehicle the hwy mpg stands out as very important. You as a Mazda salesperson should understand that versus telling people that it isn't important. You'll notice that most advertising stresses the 40MPG HWY on these commuter cars so obviously the manufactures think it's important as well.
You shouldn't pooh-pooh legitimate questions. On one hand you say a couple of mpgs doesn't matter and then try to make your point by saying the combined mpg is a couple of mpgs better. Can't have it both ways.
When the Mazda3 Skyactiv slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and then the CX-5 comes and gets substantially less(yes 3mpg is substantial to the consumer, maybe not to the salesman) hwy mpg with the automatic people want to know why....not a "aren't you satisfied with what you're getting".
I have the same question with the new Acura ILX 2.4L stick. It is a smaller car with the same engine as the TSX but is going to be rated according to Acura press at about 20/29. The TSX with the same engine and a slushbox is rated at 22/31. How does that makes sense? Same with Mazda's numbers....it doesn't make sense and we would like someone to explain the reasons. If you don't know just say so but don't belittle the question.
I've also yet had anyone explain to me why the Mazda3s slushbox gets worse mpg than the Mazda6 with the same drivetrain but is a smaller, lighter car. I asume it is a gearing change in the tranny and maybe a little aerodynamics but darned if anyone I've talked to at Mazda dealer ships has a clue. I've even had a couple of salespeople say "Gee, I never noticed that. That's a good question". I don't how you can stand around on a salesfloor all day and not notice some of these things and not have some decent answers.
The 2012 CR-V, that's who....
CX-5: 25 city / 31 highway / 28 combined (AWD)
26 city / 32 highway / 29 combined (FWD)
CR-V: 22 city / 30 highway / 25 combined (AWD)
23 ciry / 31 highway / 26 combined (FWD)
As you see, CX-5 has the new CR-V beat by 3mpg in city and combined.
Fuel economy for the 2013 Escape has not been released because the car is 6 months away.
Highway FE is what gets advertised, for obvious reasons. That alone makes it important.
The EPA is trying to eliminate the presumption that the highway economy is what they car will get, so they are trying to focus the buyer on the average. I think that is a good thing. I have never been a fan of advertising just the highway economy becuase it gives the buyer the assumption that is the expected overall economy, even though highway is stated.
For the record, I do not agree with the advertising by Mazda stating "35mpg" as a headliner for the CX-5, nor any other company that does the same.
That is true, but simply using highway economy alone as a measure in compairson is only telling 1/3 of the story. The CX-5 is 3mpg better than the new CR-V in 2/3's if the rating estimates. That's all I'm trying to say.
You as a Mazda salesperson should understand that versus telling people that it isn't important.
I'm not a Mazda salesperson.....
On one hand you say a couple of mpgs doesn't matter and then try to make your point by saying the combined mpg is a couple of mpgs better. Can't have it both ways.
I never said it didn't matter. Reread my posts.
When the Mazda3 Skyactiv slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and then the CX-5 comes and gets substantially less(yes 3mpg is substantial to the consumer, maybe not to the salesman) hwy mpg with the automatic people want to know why....not a "aren't you satisfied with what you're getting".
That is a valid question. I could dig into the gearing ratios and find out. I'll post back tomorrow about that....
I agree too but that is what the manufacturers mention in their ads so it goes to my point about the importance of hwy mpg to the consumer. Perception is reality.
Any idea as to why the Mazda3 Skyactiv w/ slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and the CX-5 stick gets substantially better than the Skyactiv slushbox? When someone expects the CX-5 slushbox to do as good or better than the stick and it comes in substantially below it raises legitimate questions. I'm sure there is a good reason and I would think that a sharp Mazda salesperson could get that information.
CX-5: FWD 6-speed: 4.705
FWD automatic: 4.624
Mazda3: 6-speed: 4.105
automatic: 3.893
I don't see a big different in drive ratios for the mtx and auto. There is also only a 72 lb difference between the mtx and auto as well. I will ask my rep if he knows...
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
My mom had an old Protege for over a decade and would still have it if she hadn't of hung up her car keys. Always ran great. But it seems like problem posts have gone up with Mazda since they mostly split up with Ford, expecially with CX-9s and CX-7s. I'd take a Miata in a NY minute but the CX line gives me a bit of pause.
Maybe I just skim too many problems posts?
That being said, my last Mazda3 grenaded at 74k miles (threw a rod) and while here and there Mazdas have been good, they're far from the bulletproof reputation of Honda and Subaru. Despite my problem I miss how that car drove.
Maybe true in regards to Honda's reputation, but definitely not Subaru. I have owned 2 and my family has owned a total of 12. All models from the early 1990's to the 2004 Forester and 2002 Impreza (most recently owned with issues) had head gaskets go and the fuel lines rotted out with around 50K on them. Very expensive to replace.
Subaru's are very good, but not "bullet-proof". In fact, no car is. The recent Honda's are not as good as the older ones, IMO. Somes Mazda's are better than others too. The MX-5 and Protege were excellent vehicles with very few, if any, problems while the 626 and MPV were far from perfect. Newer Mazda's rate out very well, and with CR, Mazda is the #2 non-luxury brand in reliability. Again, this does not mean they are "bullet-proof", but they are pretty damn good.
Yes, CT is where I live. If you must know, I'm in management at a dealership.
I take the "company line" as you put it because I believe in the product. I'm pretty passionate about the brand, which is pretty obvious. Mazda is not for everyone, and they are not a perfect company and I have openly disagreed with some of their methods, like advertising the CX-5 at "35mpg" when the majority of CX-5s can't get that. However, I respect their approach to building cars and who they build them for.
Despite THOSE issues, if I can get a Mazda3 Skyactiv with auto climate control, I'll jump at it. If they get the slushbox on the CX-5 to 35 MPG highway I'll jump at THAT (don't need AWD but I'd like the ground clearance). If not though, I have to look elsewhere.
Our 2007 Mazda6 is going on 70k and has been absolutely bulletproof. The only warranty adjustment was a tailpipe hanger that was fixed at the first oil change and since then there has been absolutely no repairs....not one! I'll be looking at the CX-5 to possibly replace our SUV soon.
The Yen hurts pretty bad right now. However, Mazda claims they saw this coming and revamped their production process, amongst other things to illeviate the drawbacks of the Yen. For example, all SKYACTIV engines, of all displacements and fuel types, are build on the same line. I believe they all use the same engine block, and a motor can be made a diesel or gas on the fly.
Mazda's CEO said candidly that the success of their compnay depends on this car and SKYACTIV technology.
I think the product is there, they just need to market it better.
I think it's safe to say there is general excitement in regards to the CX-5. I hope it does well. Mazda really needs a shot in the arm with a new product and this could be the start of something really special for them.
Lets just carry on with our discussion. Afterall, that is what we are here to do!
Oh oh, that's what they said about Isuzu, Mitsu and Suzuki. :confuse:
It also has class leading rear seat room, and among the nicest interiors in the segment, and it has a ton of standard equipment for a MSRP of about 20k.
The Mazdas we've owned have been bulletproof.
We have a 2009 Mazda 6 with 58,000 miles with nothing but oil/filter and coolant/brake fluid/transmission regular interval changes - not one problem.
I have a 2005 Mazda RX-8 (that is allegedly unreliable) that has 109,000 miles, and all I've done is regular maintenance (I have kept the oil topped off at all times). The car has consumed 3 sets of tires, 2 sets of brakes and drives like new. Even the clutch and stick are snickety snick and there are zero rattles in the interior. Even the original HID headlights are still going strong!
That said, with the CX-5, because of some pretty nifty and new motor tech that's part (just a part) of the skyactiv system, and because this motor is a high compression unit, for those worried about reliability, it may be wise to wait a couple of years, because this is not an evolved Mazda motor, but an entirely new one.
Seriously, I agree to some degree but I think automakers put drivetrains through a lot of testing before bringing something to market these days. There can be just too much instant negative PR that comes with the internet, news, etc. Since this new tech is so crucial to Mazda's future I assume they tested pretty thoroughly but because it is so crucial did they hurry it???
If I were to buy one these I might consider looking at getting an extended drivetrain warranty. I don't often recommend getting any kind of added warranty but this tech is pretty new and Mazda really has to have a winner with it. So I'd probably consider it in this case.
All SKYACTIV technology was developed and built in-house by Mazda. In fact, Mazda has been sitting on the technology for a while while it was refined and perfected. Ford has known about it, but did not want them using it while they were still partners. Development of SKYACTIV started in late 2007 and early 2008. The Ford-Mazda split did not come until October 2008.
The Ford-Mazda relationship had its good and its bad. The good for Mazda was cash flow, the bad was Ford stuck their nose in every part of their business, something Mazda did not like, which was part of the reason for the split, among other things, including Fords own interests. They were going in different directions, so it was best for both. I believe both are better now then they were back in 2008.
No Mazda engines are built in the US. There are a few, a small few, that are built in Mexico that are used in the Mazda6, but the majority of the Mazda6 engines come from Japan as does every other Mazda engine.
From what I have been told, it was not hurried to market. Development started almost 5 years ago. I'm pretty sure the technology has been put through the paces, but sometimes things pop up that were not visible during testing.
I've always been a fan of extended protection plans with everything I buy. I like protecting my investment.
Just read this over on cars.com. I thought it was a lot sooner. I suspect a mistake or a typo here. Can you shed some light????
Ford sure is. Not sure about Mazda, but it has a tough standard to live up to after my mom's near perfect Protege. Mazda doesn't seem to be handling the CX-7 and CX-9 complaints too well, just going by the unhappy camper posts in those boards.
I understand with the CX-7's, but I have not heard that much negative chatter about the CX-9.
Mazda has never had the best customer service when it comes to problems out of or in warranty. It is something they claim to be working on.
One thing my son noticed, who is 6'3":
"Mom will never go for this.... the sill is too wide and it's hard to step into.. "
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Now Mazda is about to launch the CX-5. Its driving dynamics are stellar, but this all-new crossover is not on any non-car guy's radar. Mazda needs to change that quickly. And the company is trying something new."
Mazda Recruits Dr. Seuss to Advertise 2013 CX-5 (Straightline)
If they make the wrong move they could end up with a lot of jilted owners, which is a really bad thing marketing-wise. And marketing a sporty compact SUV to people used to things like RAV4s and Equinoxes and CR-Vs might not see the advantage to razor sharp handling...though they might be annoyed at how much stiffer the suspension is.
I will post back tomorrow after I drive one. So far, I'm impressed with what I see.