2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,237
edited September 2014 in Mazda

image2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD Long-Term Road Test

A review of the cargo space in our long-term 2014 Mazda CX-5.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    It's impressive that they fit, but folding the seats down would have retained decent visibility out the rear window.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    Both my SVT Focus and my 2011 GTI can fit all 4 of their own wheels and tires in the cargo area, standing upright side by side - and those are 215 and 225 section tires on 17 and 18 inch wheels, so this capacity by a compact SUV is not that impressive to me.
  • huisjhuisj Member Posts: 1
    Welcome to Edmunds comments section, where even simple cargo loading practices are not safe from snarky criticism.
  • glossgloss Member Posts: 150
    @fordson1 I suppose that's your prerogative, but the CX-5 has 50+% more cargo space than your SVT Focus and 120% more than your GTI, so let's not get carried away.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    Hey, that's not snarky - it's the truth. Yes, the CX-5 has quite a bit more cargo volume than my cars, but it looks to me as though it's pretty narrow between the rear wheel wells..that is, IF he really had to load them the way he did. Maybe they would have fit the way I can fit them, but he didn't load them that way - I dunno.
  • legacygtlegacygt Member Posts: 599
    In Edmunds' comparison test you had the CX-5 "a distant third" behind the CR-V and RAV4 in cargo capacity. It seemed like this may have been the factor keeping the CX-5 from winning the test. This is an example of paying too much attention to the numbers. Yes the other two have 2-3 more cubic feet of volume. But the reality is that the CX-5 is as useful as the other two 95% of the time. Most cars in this class are pretty close in cargo space. There will be very few cases where you're loading up the CX-5, max out the cargo space and say, "I wish I had the CR-V." Most loads that don't fit in a CX-5, aren't going to fit in a CR-V either. If you're regularly maxing out the cargo space in a compact CUV, you may just need a larger vehicle.
  • yeachyeach Member Posts: 9
    I have a CX-5 and I had 8 tires in the back when I was doing the winter tire swap.
    All 4 summer 19" rim/wheels in the cargo area.
    4 discard RX-8 winter tires in the rear passenger compartment. RX-8 Rims were kept for the ws70 winters.
    Seats were not folded down.
  • bc1960bc1960 Pittsburgh, PAMember Posts: 171
    @fordson1, the width between the wheel wells is ~44". As an aside, SAE J1100 cargo volume for liftback/wagon-style vehicles only considers volume below the level of the seatbacks (with one or more folding rows there are figures for each seat): averag
  • yeachyeach Member Posts: 9
    I realize I joined this comment section late.
    But here is a link to my CX-5 on another forum.

    http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php/topic,83736.0.html
  • craigistcraigist Member Posts: 29
    I suspect the extra few cubes in the CRV and RAV are by the back window where they are more squared off. That's also what makes them look boring or plain ugly in the CRV's case. I try not to store things by the window, so I don't consider this a great loss for the CX5.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    bc1960, that does not look like 44". Car & Driver says the widest piece of plywood that will lie flat in there is 41". My GTI is 38.5"; my Focus is 41.5" Any of those would take 4 tires up to 235-section side-by-side.
  • duck87duck87 Member Posts: 649
    I like how this thread became a [non-permissible content removed]-fest about the CR-V winning the comparison test.
  • yeachyeach Member Posts: 9
    @fordson1, bc1960
    FYI width between wheel wells is 41.5" ish.
    Yeah I measured it out just for you guys.
Sign In or Register to comment.