I'd rather see the Rondo & Mazda5 get better MPG...at least high 20s to low 30s average. They're currently only getting not much better than a full-size minivan or CUVs.
Yup I agree with bgw, their gas mileage is actually good and comapare well with 4-Cyl compact and midsize cars, and thats just the V6 model, should the 4 should do even better than that. Also like I mention before about fuel ecomony its good and both them weight as much as Small SUV's, but more frugal in gas, also the more stricted fuel regulations, that lower there fuel ecomony mpg as with mostly every other single automobile.
This is a copy of "carstalk" post from another tread on this forum: " Consumer Report listed Mitsubishi Outlander as best small SUV choice for reliability. Honda tops Toyota, but no mention of Rav4, CR-V and Santa Fe... Read article on http://www.mercurynews.com/drive/ci_7200769 then click on related story "Toyota slips behind rivals..."
The Institute For Consumer Automotive Research (never heard of them before, but I'm not American) compared nine rather disparate vehicles under the category, Inexpensive 6-Passenger Vehicles. The website states, "These nine represent an odd grouping, but they share the merits of additional passenger capacity under $20,000, using CarsDirect target prices for vehicles with an automatic transmission." There will probably be great discussion over the sanity of grouping these vehicles together, but hey, I'm just the messenger. So which is the best budget-priced passenger hauler? Here are the results:
1. Dodge Caravan 2. Kia Rondo 3. Dodge Grand Caravan 4. Chevrolet Uplander 5. Mazda5 6. Chevrolet Silverado Classic 7. Nissan Titan 8. Chevrolet Impala 9. Chevrolet Colorado
(BTW, for the zero or one of you who might be wondering why I haven't been posting in these comparative threads like I used to, it's because I simply had run out of things to say. When I started telling increasingly irrelevant anecdotes--much like this one --I knew it was time to move on.)
OK, I have to say this article is completely out of line. I understand comparing all 6 passenger vehicles under $20K, but at least half of these vehicles start at over $20K and are a max of 5 passengers. Plus, there are a number of other inconsistancies with this article. :confuse: :confuse: :confuse: :confuse: :confuse:
Yes indeed, which is very good news as it has been highlighted often by auto-tranny potential buyers (I drive manual so no trouble here :P). A Wall Street Journal review is reporting 1-2 MPG improvements (22MPG City-28MPG Highway I believe) over the 2006-2007 4AT, yet to be honest I think some more realistic numbers will come until the 08s hit the road .
Would you mean the official Mazda USA and Mazda CA sites?
According to Kicking Tires, the cars will hit the dealerships Winter 2007 in the US. I'm assuming Canada is very close to that given how they are shipped from Japan. Now, they will be "officially" announced in the Mazda site Mid November (it seems).
conwelpic, I was told by a Mazda USA rep that the US website will be updated with 2008 info on November 14th. My local Mazda dealer said they expect to start receiving the 2008 in late Jan-early Feb.
Talking about weird comparisons, but this one makes more sense though. The Mazda5 has an excellent turning ratio to maneuver (i.e. to park) and is not as a gas guzzler as other cars. 19MPG seems a low number, but I'm assuming purely heavy city driving.
There aren't many minivans that scream "city-friendly," but the Mazda5 takes the family-hauler concept and shrinks it to a manageable size that still has room for six. The 2008 model has a fresh look but retains its distinct Japanese edginess. Even though it's 20 inches shorter than a Honda Odyssey, the Mazda5 is still substantial, coming in at almost exactly the same length as a Toyota RAV4. Steering is sharp for tight parking maneuvers, and the ride is relatively smooth. Length: 181.5 inches Turning circle: 34.8 feet Seats: 6 City MPG: 19
This is a comparison, you need at least 2 cars to do it
Agree, my bad . My wording was based on the fact that Cars.com had to compare all these diff. "purpose" cars to get to the final list, but I get it, did not look like an apples to apples type thing.
Those numbers look good in the Uplander BTW, I really like that car, problem I'm not into SUVs. Also, SUVs are not really hot for city driving IMO.
Uplander???? Thats one of the worst minivans on the market. You should test Mitsubishi Outlander yourself to find it's near perfect handling and performance. The numbers are much better than any minivan out there, and better than most SUVs.
Arrggh, even the name is confusing! I was referring to the Outlander. Not my day to reply in here, LOL.
By the way, if you trace back this thread some months, I put the Outlander 2nd on my wish list. I really like it, except, as I said, I'm not an SUV fan (nor wife, who drives the Mazda5 everyday).
Not sure if I follow. Are there any pics of adult people seating on a Rondo (7adults on all rows, including 2nd row middle bench) we can take a look at?
I agree, it is not a comfortable limo type space but I don't see them cramped in there.
I've seen 7 on a Chevy Suburban, and that seems OK, but for smaller cars, good luck.
Coolmazda5, setting the legroom issue aside, Montreal is currently under a severe winter storm warning and have received close to 25cm and counting. I had no problem plowing through the white stuff due to the Rondo's standard equiped ESC and Traction Control. I seriously doubt that the mazda5 could even match that performance.
Replying to myself here, but notice the driver's seat, how it's moved forward in relation to the steering wheel, which is probably too close in that position.
If you call 31.7cu.ft. with the 3rd row down not much room compared to 15cu.ft. with the Mazda5. You have to lay flat both the 2nd and 3rd row seats to accomplish 30cu.ft. of space within the Mazda5 vs 73.4cu.ft. in the Rondo with the same config. There is no comparison!
Very good observation, but off-topic. I would like to see some pics with people inside the Rondo to really evaluate the space (not the published specs). Again, it is not just about the Rondo, it is about any smaller vehicle with a 3rd row seat (i.e. a RAV4). As I mentioned here some time back, if I need to seat 6 average size adults in my car at least 90% of the time I would have gone for a Suburban, a Honda Odyssey or a Toyota Sienna. Since that is not the case, when I have a full house (including a large stroller in the back of the 3rd row) I don't mind the comfort too much.
With regards to snow, I also live in a cold area and I've seen a lot of powerful SUVs with all the nice toys stranded (ESC, AWD, Traction Control, etc.), so it is not the toys added in many instances, is knowing how to drive under those conditions.
It's all about personal choice. Both vehicles have similar characteristics in all categories. Some people associate the Kia brand with reliability issues and some are concerned with various features offered with the Kia and not with the Mazda5. All in all, both vehicles have very good reviews that cannot be ignored. You're alright in my book coolmazda5. BTW, nice PICS!!
The Traction Control ans Stability Control are very nice things to have. I do happen to have a Mazda5 and we have been been dealing with snow all last week. I will admit that we have a set of Dunlop Wintersport 3Ds on the 5 and it have performed very well in conditions ranging from compact snow/ice to deep snow. On ice, the traction can be a bit hard to come by, but the Auto allows for starting in second gear which helps significantly. That, along with careful throttle modulation gets it going easily.
I don't want to come across as saying that TC and ESP are useless, but I have never had either on a car and have managed to survive winter using careful driving techniques. I also believe that TC and ESP can lull some drivers into a false sense of security. Once the snow starts in my area, a large percentage of accidents are the result of drivers going too fast for conditions (mainly AWD SUVs). I also have driven with and without snow tires (studded and studless) and believe that a good set of snow tires is a good investment for those in snow climates. While TC and ESP may definitely help in those rare, unforseen circumstances, I would still want a good set of snow tires for their superior braking and cornering performance in the nasty stuff.
I believe the photo is a good thing and can see you observation. I Like how the driver appears to be relatively short. Only thing I can point out as a Mazda5 owner is that the legroom in a little different than we traditionally think about in the 5. It is the same what with my Toyota ECHO and also with a Mazda 3 that I had for a loaner. The apparent legroom is a bit tight, but the cars are engineered to sit more upright and provide toe space under the front seats. with a full load of adults on board, it is still a bit of a pinch, but that is the compromise of these vehicles.
I had researched the Rondo and Mazda5 before buying and the reviews cam across as the 3rd rows being very alike. The Rondo did have more measured legroom, but you sit lower, which is another tradeoff. Both the Rondo and MZ5 are fine cars that fit different needs for people.
Rondo:Legroom (front/middle/rear) 41.3 in./38.2 in./31.3 in. Mazda 5 Leg Room, front/2nd/3rd row (inches) 40.7/35.2/30.7
cargo room behind the 2nd row Rondo 31.7 Mazda5 44.4
So there is more legroom in the Rondo, but the opening in the 2nd row of the Mazda5 between the two seats might make is seem less cramped than with the Rondo's 2nd row bench. Plus I doubt if the Rondo's 3rd row passengers will feel any of the AC from the 2nd row vents, but they would in the Mazda5 again, because of the 2nd row captain chairs will allow air to flow between them to the 3rd row.
You do get more cargo space behind the 2nd row of the Mazda5, so if you're using it mostly as a 2 row vehicle, then I'd rather have the additional cargo space. It's like my Honda Fit. The Versa has more 2nd row legroom than the Fit, but the Fit has more cargo space behind the 2nd row. Since our family of 4 fit in the Fit just fine, I went with the Fit for the better cargo space.
So it depends on if you want the extra legroom inches of the Rondo or extra CuFt of the Mazda5.
I agree, some car designs create legroom for front and back occupants by virtually making the occupants to sit straight up. Imagine you are sitting on a stool at a bar, your legs are dangling towards the floor instead of resting your feet on the floor with your knees banded at 90 degree.
With legs elongated and extended downwards, less lateral room is required. The side effects are less comfortable sitting position and tall ceiling. I first noticed this trend of designing also with the Toyota Echo and Matrix. For a relatively small vehicle, there seemed to be a lot of legroom and headroom. However, the styling really suffered as it looked like a loaf of bread with the tall roof line. Subsequently, I noticed the Honda fit, Mazda 5 and Nissan Versa were designed with the same tricks to create legrooms.
cargo room behind the 2nd row Rondo 31.7 Mazda5 44.4
Mazda figures on 2007 for storage was very strange and same on the Canadian site, but now they seem more realistic with the 2008 information as they now state 70.9 cu.ft. with the 2nd and 3rd seats folded which makes more sense when I had actually measured both vehicles. The Rondo is 73.4 cu.ft. for the same area.
Passenger cargo room 97.7 cu.ft. for the Mazda 5 and 107.8 for the Rondo. The Rondo 5-seater has storage through to the dash on the passengers side as you can recline the back of the back seat but the 6/7-seater set up is basically the same on both vehicles.
There are definitely more and more cars taking up this design philosophy and I think it works well. as far as the differences between the Rondo and Mazda 5 goes, I just don't think they are that much different. I t somewhat reminds me of the late 80s with cars like the Ford Taurus competing with the Honda Accords at the time. The Ford was a little bigger here and there and offered V6 power, but still decent fuel economy. The Accord was known as a good handling car, but the truth is that the Tauruses weren't that bad. Rondo vs Mazda 5 is that same kind of thing. Each offers it's own take. My wife and I love our 5 and would highly recommend it. That doesn't mean I would discount the Rondo. For us the sliding doors sealed the deal. We worried about the Rondo's relatively large rear door in the tight parking lots often seen here. Also, Our garage is rather small (both in depth and width), so the sliders made more sense there.
I'm not sure about the behind the 1st row cargo space, but the 2008 Mazda5 webpage shows 44.4 CuFt vs 31.7 for the Rondo, so that's about 13 CuFt more, or about the size of a small car's trunk. To me that's a lot of extra space for our family of 4's stuff.
And while our Fit has upright seating, it's not any more upright than a minivan or SUV seat, so I'm fine with that.
I don't really trust the volume measurements given out by Mazda or Kia. The best thing to do is to get out the old tape measure and to measure both vehicles. Of course, who has done that? Not me.
I've read in another forum about someone selling a washer and dryer set. The seller recounted how the buyer came by in a Rondo and was surprised that the buyer could fit both in the cargo area behind the first row. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that would be even remotely possible in my own Rondo, so you learn something new every day.
When comparing cargo space, you have to remember the different seating arrangements in each vehicle. The Rondo is 2+3+2 (or 2+3 in the five seater) and the Mazda5 is 2+2+2.
Let's say there are 4 people in the vehicle and you want to store stuff behind the second row. In the Rondo, you have the option of folding down one seat in the second row to free up additional cargo space. That option, of course, isn't available in the Mazda5. You can probably make use of the space between the second-row bucket seats in the Mazda5, but that space obviously isn't as large or useful as the space created when folding down one of the second-row seats in the Rondo.
Now let's say there are 6 people in the vehicle. When I was checking out the Mazda5 earlier this year, it appeared to have more space behind the third row seats than the Rondo. You can probably store a bulky stroller behind the third row in the Mazda5, whereas I can just fit an umbrella stroller behind the third row in my Rondo. With the Rondo, however, you also have the option of folding down one of the third-row seats to free up additional cargo space. In the Mazda5, all seats would have to be deployed.
As for how well seven people actually fit in the Rondo, I've posted about this before in much detail (my motto is, why say something in ten words when you can say it in a hundred?). That was in another forum, though. Long story short, sitting in the middle of the second row is comparable in comfort to sitting in one of the third-row seats. That's based on my subjective reading of the whine factor of my passengers. I think we can all agree that, for either vehicle, four people can sit in relative luxury and the additional seating is really for occasional use only.
I've sat in the third row in both vehicles and my take is this: the Rondo seems to have more leg room and the Mazda5 seems to have more head room. This is after making adjustments in both vehicles so that the leg room is optimized in all rows.
08outtie makes the statement about the Rondo's interior design - "The side effects are less comfortable sitting position". I have to disagree. For me, this makes for a MORE comfortable seating position, and it is one of the reasons I bought my 07 EX V6 Rondo. Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either.
Originally posted by bgw: Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either
Hmmmm, not all of the Rondo owners buy them because they have comfortable sitting. I own 2 Mazda5s and I wish they had 1-2 inches of extra legroom for the driver, yet it pays off with the rest of its space design. All cars have their little or big griefs, it is not just about sitting.
I apologize for the confusion. In my previous post, I was referring to the interior-room design trend in general across all the newer vehicles. I didn't mean to say that the seats in Rondo were less comfortable than any others. I actually only sat in a Rondo for a couple of minutes in the showroom, so I could hardly attest to how comfortable it is.
I bought an 08 Mitsubishi Outlander earlier in December. The 7 seats were very handy as my family just came to town for Christmas and I was able to caravan all 7 of us. However, my sister gave the third row in the Outlander a level 9 in UN-comfortableness with the scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst back seat ever. The third row in the Outlander was low to the ground, so my sister basically had her knees touching her chin when she was back there. The cushioning in the third row was also not good, which made my sister went "ouch" everytime we went over a bump on the road. The upside was that the second row in the Outlander continued to have better than good legroom and headroom whether the third row was in use. This was the area where Mazda5 and Rondo cannot match.
The sixth and seventh seat in the vehicle are really just for occasional uses only, so the comfort in the second row seats are a bigger concern in my case. The second row in the Outlander is so much bigger than Mazda5 or Rondo. That is why I got the Outlander instead. In addition to that, the 4wd on the Outlander is also one of the deciding factors.
It is funny that I cross-shopped these three vehicles. The outlander is an CUV, the Mazda5 is "almost" a mini-van and Rondo is "almost" a station wagon. I thought I was having a weird shopping list. But after I saw this discussion thread, I guess I'm not alone cross-shopping these three cars.
In road test review made by Edmunds in four vehicles, i.e. Mitsubishi Outlander (V6), RAV4 (V6), Honda CR-V (4-cyl), and Nissan Rogue (4-cyl) reported that the RAV4 (V6) was the winner of this road test. The test, however, has shown an involuntary bias in the criteria for this evaluation.
Owners of the RAV4 have reported the poor payload capacity of the RAV4 that may demonstrate the lack of meat in the construction of the vehicle. The max payload capacity of any RAV4 is the equivalent of 7-persons weight (approximately 150 lbs each). So if you load your RAV4 with 7-persons the roof rail and the roof box are just decorations. Camping or picnic with 7-person is unpractical in a RAV4, i.e. no cargo for the usual stuff. Let’s us now see the Outlander (V6) where its payload capacity is enough to carry a total weight of 9-people (150 lbs each). This is to say 7-people as passengers and the weight equivalent of 2-people as cargo. The roof rail and roof box make sense here. This situation is much better with the Outlander ES 2.4L which its payload capacity is equivalent to 10-people weight. Making some allowances for the engine weight of both vehicles (RAV4 (V6) and Outlander (V6)) the Outlander has more than 80 lbs of meat. This weight difference in material of construction makes the Outlander stronger for carry more cargo than the RAV4.
Road test in the future should test the drivebility of the vehicle with maximum payload capacity no find out if the vehicles still responds as expected. In my research for a 7-seat SUV I was almost ready to order a RAV4 (V6) but after going into the details of both vehicles plus some comments of RAV4’s owners about the poor payload capacity of the Toyota I am now more inclined to order an Outlander ES 2.4L. I am not in the business of towing anything (boat, motor home, etc) so at a price of MSRP $23,100 I think the Outlander ES 2.4L suit my requirements (although the vehicle is 5-seats only).
The February Car and Driver has a comparison test of compact SUV's. They tested an ES with the 2.4 and the CVT. It finished behind the RAV4, CRV, and Nissan Rogue, and ahead of the Suzuki Vitara, Saturn VUE, Ford Escape, Hyundai Tuscon, and Jeep Liberty. They complained about the Interior quality, and engine noise and drivetrain. I would think the V6-Six speed auto would have done better.
It's kind of apples to oranges to compare 4 cyl. vs. V6, though. They said the Outlander has the most interior room. If you look at one, check out the V6-6 speed. It's a nice powertrain.
2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
It's in the membership agreement, link at the very bottom of page. Since always and because it floods the forums with duplicate information. We ask members to not cross post, more times that not it's spam. Not saying your posting is just try to remember to choose the most appropriate place and post there.
Comments
Also like I mention before about fuel ecomony its good and both them weight as much as Small SUV's, but more frugal in gas, also the more stricted fuel regulations, that lower there fuel ecomony mpg as with mostly every other single automobile.
eilros, "Mazda5" #1206, 16 Oct 2007 7:03 pm
- 2nd row seat A/C vents
- Updated Central Console
- Very distinctive exterior new color
" Consumer Report listed Mitsubishi Outlander as best small SUV choice for reliability. Honda tops Toyota, but no mention of Rav4, CR-V and Santa Fe...
Read article on http://www.mercurynews.com/drive/ci_7200769
then click on related story "Toyota slips behind rivals..."
Wagon/Minivan
Best: Pontiac Vibe, Scion xB
Worst: Chevrolet Uplander, Hyundai Entourage
Small SUV
Best: Honda Element, Mitsubishi Outlander
Worst: Dodge Nitro, Jeep Wrangler (four-door)
Mid-size SUV
Best: Toyota Highlander, Honda Pilot
Worst: Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Range Rover Sport
1. Dodge Caravan
2. Kia Rondo
3. Dodge Grand Caravan
4. Chevrolet Uplander
5. Mazda5
6. Chevrolet Silverado Classic
7. Nissan Titan
8. Chevrolet Impala
9. Chevrolet Colorado
(BTW, for the zero or one of you who might be wondering why I haven't been posting in these comparative threads like I used to, it's because I simply had run out of things to say. When I started telling increasingly irrelevant anecdotes--much like this one
According to Kicking Tires, the cars will hit the dealerships Winter 2007 in the US. I'm assuming Canada is very close to that given how they are shipped from Japan. Now, they will be "officially" announced in the Mazda site Mid November (it seems).
Winter is a long season though...
Here is the source:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/10/ch-ch-changes-2.html
There aren't many minivans that scream "city-friendly," but the Mazda5 takes the family-hauler concept and shrinks it to a manageable size that still has room for six. The 2008 model has a fresh look but retains its distinct Japanese edginess. Even though it's 20 inches shorter than a Honda Odyssey, the Mazda5 is still substantial, coming in at almost exactly the same length as a Toyota RAV4. Steering is sharp for tight parking maneuvers, and the ride is relatively smooth.
Length: 181.5 inches
Turning circle: 34.8 feet
Seats: 6
City MPG: 19
http://www.cars.com/go/about/us.jsp?section=P&content=rel&date=20071002
Length: 181.5 inches............182.7 inches
Turning circle: 34.8 feet.......34.8 feet
Seats: 6 ................................7
City MPG: 19......................19 MPG City AWD, V6 Auto
22 MPG City AWD, New 08 trim- 4 cyl CVT(estimate)
This is a comparison, you need at least 2 cars to do it.
Wonder if they'll improve the center console, too? Offer a 7 seat model?
Agree, my bad
Those numbers look good in the Uplander BTW, I really like that car, problem I'm not into SUVs. Also, SUVs are not really hot for city driving IMO.
You should test Mitsubishi Outlander yourself to find it's
near perfect handling and performance. The numbers are much better than any minivan out there, and better than most SUVs.
By the way, if you trace back this thread some months, I put the Outlander 2nd on my wish list. I really like it, except, as I said, I'm not an SUV fan (nor wife, who drives the Mazda5 everyday).
Close enough to get most of the 2008 model info (from Mazda USA, including pricing):
http://www.mazdausamedia.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=1638&press- - _subsection_id=421&make_id=227
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsGallery&v- ehicleCode=MZ5
I love it even more now
That armrest is a nice addition, too. You can barely see it.
I agree, it is not a comfortable limo type space but I don't see them cramped in there.
I've seen 7 on a Chevy Suburban, and that seems OK, but for smaller cars, good luck.
In person, you fold the 3rd row and the backrest basically contacts the 2nd row.
There's only enough leg room if you move the 2nd row forward (as is the case with the Mazda5).
Found some sample photos.
Kia makes it look HUGE here, probably by moving the other 2 rows forward:
Yet here's another photos that shows how tiny that rear area actually is when the 2nd row is all the way back:
You only have a lot of room if the 2nd row is slid forward, and that may even force the 1st row occupants to slide forward, too.
With regards to snow, I also live in a cold area and I've seen a lot of powerful SUVs with all the nice toys stranded (ESC, AWD, Traction Control, etc.), so it is not the toys added in many instances, is knowing how to drive under those conditions.
Any how, it is nice that Kia offers small (Rondo), medium (SWB Sedona), and large (LWB Sedona).
Then again, my reference point is a Sienna. There's nearly 100 cubic feet behind the 2nd row, which means 5 people plus tons of stuff.
The Traction Control ans Stability Control are very nice things to have. I do happen to have a Mazda5 and we have been been dealing with snow all last week. I will admit that we have a set of Dunlop Wintersport 3Ds on the 5 and it have performed very well in conditions ranging from compact snow/ice to deep snow. On ice, the traction can be a bit hard to come by, but the Auto allows for starting in second gear which helps significantly. That, along with careful throttle modulation gets it going easily.
I don't want to come across as saying that TC and ESP are useless, but I have never had either on a car and have managed to survive winter using careful driving techniques. I also believe that TC and ESP can lull some drivers into a false sense of security. Once the snow starts in my area, a large percentage of accidents are the result of drivers going too fast for conditions (mainly AWD SUVs). I also have driven with and without snow tires (studded and studless) and believe that a good set of snow tires is a good investment for those in snow climates. While TC and ESP may definitely help in those rare, unforseen circumstances, I would still want a good set of snow tires for their superior braking and cornering performance in the nasty stuff.
I believe the photo is a good thing and can see you observation. I Like how the driver appears to be relatively short. Only thing I can point out as a Mazda5 owner is that the legroom in a little different than we traditionally think about in the 5. It is the same what with my Toyota ECHO and also with a Mazda 3 that I had for a loaner. The apparent legroom is a bit tight, but the cars are engineered to sit more upright and provide toe space under the front seats. with a full load of adults on board, it is still a bit of a pinch, but that is the compromise of these vehicles.
I had researched the Rondo and Mazda5 before buying and the reviews cam across as the 3rd rows being very alike. The Rondo did have more measured legroom, but you sit lower, which is another tradeoff. Both the Rondo and MZ5 are fine cars that fit different needs for people.
Rondo:Legroom (front/middle/rear) 41.3 in./38.2 in./31.3 in.
Mazda 5 Leg Room, front/2nd/3rd row (inches) 40.7/35.2/30.7
cargo room behind the 2nd row
Rondo 31.7
Mazda5 44.4
So there is more legroom in the Rondo, but the opening in the 2nd row of the Mazda5 between the two seats might make is seem less cramped than with the Rondo's 2nd row bench. Plus I doubt if the Rondo's 3rd row passengers will feel any of the AC from the 2nd row vents, but they would in the Mazda5 again, because of the 2nd row captain chairs will allow air to flow between them to the 3rd row.
You do get more cargo space behind the 2nd row of the Mazda5, so if you're using it mostly as a 2 row vehicle, then I'd rather have the additional cargo space. It's like my Honda Fit. The Versa has more 2nd row legroom than the Fit, but the Fit has more cargo space behind the 2nd row. Since our family of 4 fit in the Fit just fine, I went with the Fit for the better cargo space.
So it depends on if you want the extra legroom inches of the Rondo or extra CuFt of the Mazda5.
With legs elongated and extended downwards, less lateral room is required. The side effects are less comfortable sitting position and tall ceiling. I first noticed this trend of designing also with the Toyota Echo and Matrix. For a relatively small vehicle, there seemed to be a lot of legroom and headroom. However, the styling really suffered as it looked like a loaf of bread with the tall roof line. Subsequently, I noticed the Honda fit, Mazda 5 and Nissan Versa were designed with the same tricks to create legrooms.
Rondo 31.7
Mazda5 44.4
Mazda figures on 2007 for storage was very strange and same on the Canadian site, but now they seem more realistic with the 2008 information as they now state 70.9 cu.ft. with the 2nd and 3rd seats folded which makes more sense when I had actually measured both vehicles. The Rondo is 73.4 cu.ft. for the same area.
Passenger cargo room 97.7 cu.ft. for the Mazda 5 and 107.8 for the Rondo. The Rondo 5-seater has storage through to the dash on the passengers side as you can recline the back of the back seat but the 6/7-seater set up is basically the same on both vehicles.
And while our Fit has upright seating, it's not any more upright than a minivan or SUV seat, so I'm fine with that.
I've read in another forum about someone selling a washer and dryer set. The seller recounted how the buyer came by in a Rondo and was surprised that the buyer could fit both in the cargo area behind the first row. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that would be even remotely possible in my own Rondo, so you learn something new every day.
When comparing cargo space, you have to remember the different seating arrangements in each vehicle. The Rondo is 2+3+2 (or 2+3 in the five seater) and the Mazda5 is 2+2+2.
Let's say there are 4 people in the vehicle and you want to store stuff behind the second row. In the Rondo, you have the option of folding down one seat in the second row to free up additional cargo space. That option, of course, isn't available in the Mazda5. You can probably make use of the space between the second-row bucket seats in the Mazda5, but that space obviously isn't as large or useful as the space created when folding down one of the second-row seats in the Rondo.
Now let's say there are 6 people in the vehicle. When I was checking out the Mazda5 earlier this year, it appeared to have more space behind the third row seats than the Rondo. You can probably store a bulky stroller behind the third row in the Mazda5, whereas I can just fit an umbrella stroller behind the third row in my Rondo. With the Rondo, however, you also have the option of folding down one of the third-row seats to free up additional cargo space. In the Mazda5, all seats would have to be deployed.
As for how well seven people actually fit in the Rondo, I've posted about this before in much detail (my motto is, why say something in ten words when you can say it in a hundred?). That was in another forum, though. Long story short, sitting in the middle of the second row is comparable in comfort to sitting in one of the third-row seats. That's based on my subjective reading of the whine factor of my passengers. I think we can all agree that, for either vehicle, four people can sit in relative luxury and the additional seating is really for occasional use only.
I've sat in the third row in both vehicles and my take is this: the Rondo seems to have more leg room and the Mazda5 seems to have more head room. This is after making adjustments in both vehicles so that the leg room is optimized in all rows.
Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either
Hmmmm, not all of the Rondo owners buy them because they have comfortable sitting. I own 2 Mazda5s and I wish they had 1-2 inches of extra legroom for the driver, yet it pays off with the rest of its space design. All cars have their little or big griefs, it is not just about sitting.
I bought an 08 Mitsubishi Outlander earlier in December. The 7 seats were very handy as my family just came to town for Christmas and I was able to caravan all 7 of us. However, my sister gave the third row in the Outlander a level 9 in UN-comfortableness with the scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst back seat ever. The third row in the Outlander was low to the ground, so my sister basically had her knees touching her chin when she was back there. The cushioning in the third row was also not good, which made my sister went "ouch" everytime we went over a bump on the road. The upside was that the second row in the Outlander continued to have better than good legroom and headroom whether the third row was in use. This was the area where Mazda5 and Rondo cannot match.
The sixth and seventh seat in the vehicle are really just for occasional uses only, so the comfort in the second row seats are a bigger concern in my case. The second row in the Outlander is so much bigger than Mazda5 or Rondo. That is why I got the Outlander instead. In addition to that, the 4wd on the Outlander is also one of the deciding factors.
It is funny that I cross-shopped these three vehicles. The outlander is an CUV, the Mazda5 is "almost" a mini-van and Rondo is "almost" a station wagon. I thought I was having a weird shopping list. But after I saw this discussion thread, I guess I'm not alone cross-shopping these three cars.
Cheers and happy new year.
Owners of the RAV4 have reported the poor payload capacity of the RAV4 that may demonstrate the lack of meat in the construction of the vehicle. The max payload capacity of any RAV4 is the equivalent of 7-persons weight (approximately 150 lbs each). So if you load your RAV4 with 7-persons the roof rail and the roof box are just decorations. Camping or picnic with 7-person is unpractical in a RAV4, i.e. no cargo for the usual stuff. Let’s us now see the Outlander (V6) where its payload capacity is enough to carry a total weight of 9-people (150 lbs each). This is to say 7-people as passengers and the weight equivalent of 2-people as cargo. The roof rail and roof box make sense here. This situation is much better with the Outlander ES 2.4L which its payload capacity is equivalent to 10-people weight. Making some allowances for the engine weight of both vehicles (RAV4 (V6) and Outlander (V6)) the Outlander has more than 80 lbs of meat. This weight difference in material of construction makes the Outlander stronger for carry more cargo than the RAV4.
Road test in the future should test the drivebility of the vehicle with maximum payload capacity no find out if the vehicles still responds as expected. In my research for a 7-seat SUV I was almost ready to order a RAV4 (V6) but after going into the details of both vehicles plus some comments of RAV4’s owners about the poor payload capacity of the Toyota I am now more inclined to order an Outlander ES 2.4L. I am not in the business of towing anything (boat, motor home, etc) so at a price of MSRP $23,100 I think the Outlander ES 2.4L suit my requirements (although the vehicle is 5-seats only).
It's kind of apples to oranges to compare 4 cyl. vs. V6, though. They said the Outlander has the most interior room. If you look at one, check out the V6-6 speed. It's a nice powertrain.
You can ask the same question in a different context, nothing wrong with that.