Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mazda5

1293032343540

Comments

  • Well I park indoors at work, but outside parking lots often have plug-ins too. There's usually only a few days each winter where you would need to plug in during the day, but yes, it does often get much colder overnight.
  • Here it does get to -40 sometimes, so definitely needed! I called the dealer the next day to confirm it had been installed. The service dept said "Yes, but we can't tell you where to find it, you'll have to come in and we'll take a look". So I called the sales dept, and the receptionist explained how to find it!
  • Parking lots with plug ins??? Never sen that in my life, How far NORTH are you??
  • riproyriproy Posts: 57
    You need to visit other places in Canada. They are all over northern Ontario. Common sight in Edmonton.
  • Can anyone give me some advice on which remote car starter to install in my mazda 5? The dealer talked me out of it when I bought the car last year, and now mazda says it will only give a 1 year warranty on the part. I called another place that puts in non-mazda (audiovox) car starters. They offer a lifetime warranty and the price is better (between $50 -$100 less). However, they were not sure how complicated it will be to get around the mazda wiring/alarm system. They said my original keyless remote may not work while the car starter is running. I am also worried about any possible damage to my car which will affect my car warranty in any way. (I already have trouble with my keyless entry remote and door locks not always working and I don't want Mazda to say it has to do with an aftermarket car starter).
    If you have a Mazda car starter, how good is the range? Does it have an off button?
    Thanks.
  • Many web sites (Yahoo cars etc.) say
    the automatic version comes with a four
    speed transmission and over-drive.

    Am I missing something?

    To me, overdrive means some sort of
    torque converter so as to eliminate
    slipping at cruising speed, but
    my Mazda5 with auto just keeping on increase
    the RPMs as the speed goes higher.

    With cars with overdrives, once you hit
    cruising speed and the overdrive kicks in
    you notice it with a sudden drop in RPM.
  • Anyone tell me about the reliability of the 5? My wife really likes it as a replacement for her 03 CR-V. It seems like an excellent value. Is the leather worth it? Is there anyway to hook up an MP3 player to the stereo?
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    I think you are confusing some terms.

    Overdrive simply means that the trans output is turning faster than the engine. In the Mazda5's case, the 4th gear is an overdrive gear.

    It sounds like what you may be referring to is a lock-up torque converter which nearly every car sold today has. Once the vehicle reaches a certain speed, 40-50 mph, the torque converter locks to improve efficiency.
  • I guess I'm showing how cheap I am.
    When I bought my last car (also new)
    in 1998, the torque converters were refered
    to as "over-drive". For example, some of the older
    rental cars I have driven have an "over-drive" switch
    where the torque converter is disabled/enable.

    When I accelerated my Mazda5 Auto it quickly gets to 4th
    gear (as displayed), then revs up beyond 3000 but
    then drops down (presumably when the torque converter
    kicks in).
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    Again, your nomenclature isn't correct. The O/D off switch was just a way of preventing the transmission from shifting to its final (overdrive) gear, having nothing to do with the torque converter.

    The torque converter has always been a means to allow variable slippage of the transmission's input shaft for getting underway, between shifts and when limited slippage will aid engine power to move the vehicle.

    Yes, your TQ will slip it's way into 4th gear and then lock when the power demand is palatable for the engine. It has no relation to overdrive and never has.
  • In case you haven't already seen this video of the Premacy 23S (Mazda5):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thbjmDGCtOI
  • That was SO cool! I wish I could understand Japanese, though, to know what they were saying. And, it REALLY seemed as though those Hondas were REALLY struggling to catch up, but never did. Ha! :P

    Thanks for sharing!

    (P.S. They really should bring that MPV over here to the states - looks NICE!)
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 7,742
    It's Tuesday, so that means it's time for our weekly gathering in the chat room!

    The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

    Edmunds Moderator

    Need some roadside assistance? pf_flyer@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Need help picking out a make/model, finding inventory, or advice on pricing? Talk to an Edmunds Car Shopping Advisor

    Share your vehicle reviews

    PF_Flyer's 2014 Versa Note Long Term Blog
    How To Start Your Own Long Term Blog

  • zbxzbx Posts: 30
    Funny that the Mazda5 GT owner's manual doesn't state that it has a timing chain, versus timing belt. Do others agree (well, that's what I found out on the web) that it has a timing chain, and that a chain is better than a belt (even though noisier) since it lasts longer?

    Thanks
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    Yes, it has a chain and that will outlast (almost always) a belt.

    As far as noise goes, it's not that big of a deal compared to everything else that moves under the hood. a belt drive system is cheaper to make but car manufacturers likely sold the noise thing to public to get their buy-in.
  • microrepairmicrorepair Eastern MassachusettsPosts: 508
    In my Toyota Matrix, turning on the O/D switch does nothing more than allow the transmission to shift into 5th gear; the Overdrive gear..! Turn the O/D OFF and the RPM's immediately jump up a few hundred revs and you get some limited engine braking. It is almost exactly what happens on my other car with an Auto/Stick shift when I manually drop from 5th to 4th.
    :D
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 7,742
    Wow... like spring today! Hopefully real life won't intrude and we'll see you at the chat!

    The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

    Edmunds Moderator

    Need some roadside assistance? pf_flyer@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Need help picking out a make/model, finding inventory, or advice on pricing? Talk to an Edmunds Car Shopping Advisor

    Share your vehicle reviews

    PF_Flyer's 2014 Versa Note Long Term Blog
    How To Start Your Own Long Term Blog

  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,030
    My wife and I saw a 5 the other day in a parking lot for the first time. We were taken in by the beauty of this vehicle, and it's smaller size is appealing to us now that our kids are older and will be moving on soon. Because of this, we won't have a need for a vehicle as large as our current '03 MPV.

    My main concern with the 5 is its small powerplant and whether or not its underpowered. Every editorial I've read says it is underpowered, while many people who own them say the manually equipped version is actually fairly peppy, while the auto is just okay. We would have to have an auto as my wife would be the primary driver and she absolutely refuses to drive a manual. We haven't test driven one yet, but I doubt I'd be impressed with such a small engine. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Mazda decided to go with such a small powerplant in a vehicle that weighs roughly as much as the MPV. A better choice would've been to go with the tried and true 3.0 V-6. Add VVTI and you've basically got a rocketship minivan that would get incredibly good fuel economy.

    The other thing we must consider is the fact the our MPV will be paid off in 2 years and will still have relatively low miles (about 50K by then). Do we keep our PeeVee and have NO car payments, or start all over again with a new set of payments and a vehicle we possibly may not be happy with? Now if Mazda were to get smart and upgrade the engine to the 3.0 VVTI then it might be worth taking the plunge....
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    Strictly from a $$$$ perspective, keep the MPV.

    However, if the new set of payments doesn't hurt your budget and you're willing to have the less space in the Mazda5 to have the better handling and looks, go for the Mazda5.

    What sort of MPG is the MPV getting now?
  • Well, as far as what you do with your money, I am no one to put my two cents in. But, as far as answering your question regarding the supposed underpower of the 5, then I'm your man.

    With the exception of the crunching noise I, and others, get from the suspension on below freezing temperatures when first using the car, I am completely happy and satisfied with my 5. I LOVE my car. I am also happy with the power it has, as well, and can't understand why so many reviewers say it's underpowered.

    I mean, what the heck do they want this family vehicle to do? I have an '06, Touring automatic and I find it very peppy around town, and just fine on the highway. For the first time, the other day, I managed to peel out of a corner when merging onto a highway - it was so much fun and I was pleasantly surprised with my 5 (tires squealed and chirped in acceleration and the it went FAST and I immediately thought of all those naysayers who say it's underpowered and laughed them off :shades: ).

    The ONLY time I have had an issue with my 5's power was when I was in a very HILLY North Carolina Mountain neighborhood with 5 other adults packed in, 4 of which were overweight (each of the 4 weighing well over 200 lbs.). Yes, the 5 struggled up those steep hills and I wondered if it was going to make it. But, it was fun! heehee That's the ONLY time it felt underpowered to me.

    When I drive on the highways on long trips, I routinely drive anywhere between 80 to 85 MPH, if I'm not caring about fuel economy, and, at times, go 90 to 95, and once reached passed 100mph. It was completely effortless in my 5 and the car did not feel strained - and this was with two adults, two children and luggage packed in.

    In conclusion, I think the 5's power is more than adequate and think that American car journalist have become jaded with all of the 240+hp machines that are made nowadays. There is no need for such power in most of those vehicles. Fun, yes, but not needed. The 5 has ample power and it's perfectly suited for the vehicle - and I like to drive fast.

    It all depends, though, on your opinion. So, you should definitely take a test drive and find out for yourself. I like the MPV, but I like the 5 much better. Edmunds themselves said it was a better overall package than the MPV. Plus, though the MPV does look nice, I think the 5 is better looking. To this day, after having the car for 1 year and 8 months, I still stare at it and am impressed with its looks - especially when I have it washed. :blush:

    (FYI, highest mileage I ever got on my 5 was on a trip to DC from NY and I made 250 miles to HALF a tank, which would mean a full tank would have been around 500 miles. It fills up anywhere between 13 and 14 gallons, so that would make the highway MPG rating at least: 35.71. I doubt the MPV gets that.)
  • microrepairmicrorepair Eastern MassachusettsPosts: 508
    From previous message:

    "and can't understand why so many reviewers say it's underpowered. "

    It isn't just the reviewers, many drivers today are on a power trip worse than what happened just before the 1974 oil crisis. Seems like today no one is satisfied unless they have at least 300 HP under the hood. I had a 1988 MX-6 with the 3-valve 4 cylinder engine and it put out approx. 122 HP and I and everyone who rode in it felt it had more than enough power. And we now have a Toyota Matrix with 130 HP that is just fine as a utility type vehicle. Won't win any drag races although when it is empty it can leave a few cars behind from a light.

    I also drive a 5 year old E-class MB with the 3.2 liter 220 HP engine and if I had any more power on a a daily basis than that, I would be in serious danger of causing harm to myself or others. And that is a pretty heavy car..! I drove a MB SL500 with 305 HP a year ago and it has way too much power for people who don't know how to handle a car.

    This power race is insane and the extra oil needed to produce the gas for these ravenous engines is not helping with the goal of reducing how much oil we import.

    Bottgers and others: Take an extended test drive and try some hilly roads and on-ramps and then judge for yourself whether the engine in the "5" is good enough for what you NEED. More folks ought to think about how much power they NEED..

    Off the soapbox.. :D
  • idavidsonidavidson Posts: 41
    Well said on your soapbox.

    I also wonder whether the people saying there is not much
    power in passing are down-shifting.

    They are right, going up a steep hill in 4th the 5 starts to
    decelerate quickly. But then I find that if I manually down
    shift to 3 the car can easily accelerate up that steep hill.
  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,030
    Thanks for the input, but I think you'd better check your mileage again. I'm sure it gets better mileage than the MPV, but there's no way the 5 gets anywhere close to 35 MPG. My PeeVee gets around 20 city, and 24 highway.
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    It looks like the mileage was based on an assumption that the fuel guage is an accurate way to calculate milage. So yeah, I doubt the 35.71mpg was even close to the actual.
  • Yes, that is based on the assumption that the fuel gauge was correct. As I said, I was exactly on half a tank when mileage read 250 miles, so I am assuming a full tank would have produced 500 miles, thereby achieving the approximate 35 MPG. This can, of course, be flawed.

    Nevertheless, I do know how to compute more accurate fuel economy, and the BEST MPG I calculated from my 5 was definitely 32.30. I had 420 miles on my 5, from a long highway trip, and the gas tank was empty (light on and everything, but still could have gone further if I wanted to risk it). I filled up with 13 gallons and this would give me 32.30 MPG. STILL pretty darned good and better than any MPV - and not THAT far from 35MPG.

    Thanks.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    Put fuel. Zero trip odometer. Enjoy your ride in M5. Come back to refuel. Divide trip miles by gallons you put in tank. Zero trip odometer...and so on.
  • twaintwain Posts: 185
    I was excited about the 5 when it first came out and still am but not as much. :) The big advantage of a small minivan would be handling and mpg. For the 5 to really impress, it needs 30mpg. The EPA ratings are barely better than the Odyssey and Sienna bohemeths. And they have powerful V6s. A 5sp auto would help. A diesel would help a lot.

    I think the Kia Rondo gets 29hwy with its 4cyl. That's more like it. Mazda... good job, room for improvement.
  • idavidsonidavidson Posts: 41
    That's a good point.

    I bought a 5 despite the relatively poor "official"
    fuel economy.

    I bought the 5 because people who owned Odyssey's
    and Seinna were posting attrocious actual mpg
    results of city (under 15) highway (high teens)
    (see various forums).

    For the 5 I found people were getting close to
    the offical numbers and often better (see sub-forum
    at edmunds)

    I've driven 2500 miles and check my fuel consumption
    carefully. In that times, I've never gotten below 20 mpg
    and on pure highway driving (at high speeds 70mph)
    I do get around 26-28 mpg.

    People have reported higher than than when driving at
    55 mph.

    So the take home message is, do not rely on official
    consumption numbers. Check what people are actually
    getting. Maybe the Rondo in practise gets 35 mpg ...
  • twaintwain Posts: 185
    So the take home message is, do not rely on official
    consumption numbers. Check what people are actually
    getting.
    --------------------------------

    I understand what you're saying and you're probably right. But it's very difficult to go by the mpg reported by individuals. It could be anywhere from 15 to 40. We need a reliable mpg system that is accurate. Maybe the new one will be.

    When the EPA rates a 4300lb vehicle with 250hp and a 3300lb vehicle with 157hp only a mile or two apart, something is askew. The lighter vehicle should get at least 5mpg better. To make the sacrifice in size and power worthwhile.

    As you say, maybe the fault isn't with the vehicle or its designers but with the EPA system. Because if the Mazda5 really is getting 28hwy while the Odyssey and Sienna are getting 20, that's acceptable. But it's too bad the EPA figures don't reflect that difference.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    Some folks on the Rondo forum are getting about 20mpg average, but I know what you mean about what's reported for different size vehicles. I own a Freestyle and a Fit and in general for the same driving conditions, the Fit will get about 40-50%% better mpg than the Freestyle.

    So on the highway, I'll get about 25mpg driving in the low 70s MPH with the Freestyle, and about 36mpg. If I keep the speed between 65-70 MPH, I'll get about 26mpg with the Freestyle and about 38mpg with the Fit. And around town I'll get in the low 20s mpg with the Freestyle and in the low 30s mpg with the Fit.

    So based on the vehicle sizes, the 45% difference makes sense to me. Now something like a Mazda5 or Rondo are in between the Freestyle and Fit in size, so I would think that something of these sizes should be able to get at least what my Freestyle is getting, but I'd hope for something higher.

    But that assumes that vehicle weight is the prime factor with mpg, but it isn't. Look at the tiny Chevy Aevo, which gets really poor MPG, so I think poor engine/transmission design will create poor MPG regardless of vehicle size. Mazda's in general have poorer MPG versus their rivals. Look at the Mazda3 mpg versus a Civic or Corolla. But then Mazda tunes their engine/tranny for performance vs MPG. And the Rondo poor MPG may just be because of a old engine/transmission design.
Sign In or Register to comment.