I spent the majority of this past weekend car shopping for my wife. She's been driving the same busted '04 Monte Carlo SS (which she had recently redubbed "Montgomery Burns") since we got married, and the time had come for her to move into something more reliable. As we are planning to start a family soon, and we have large dogs, we decided to look into a small cross-over sized vehicle for her; enter the CX-5.

I've always been a Mazda guy, so I instictively lead her into a Mazda dealership to check out the newest vehicle in Mazda's line-up. As I approached one, I was impressed with its lines. I think it looks more striking in person than it does in reviews. Unfortunately, the reviews missed more than the CX-5's best angles...

I wanted to like the car. I REALLY REALLY wanted to like the car, but the "soul of a sports car" - the element, which makes it a Mazda, just wasn't there. I'm not usually one to talk about power (my RX-8 has exactly ZERO power mods) but the CX-5 couldn't manage to get out of it's own way. I understand that it was desgined to be fuel efficient; but where is that sports car soul? It, sure as hell, wasn't in the handling, either.

The best way I can communicate the feedback I got from the suspension is to say nothing at all, and rather, to stare blankly at you, while you shake your fist at me and demand adjectives. Body roll was minimal, and the vehicle felt as if it had a low center of gravity, but it was paralyzed from the steering wheel, down. The ride was very smooth - too smooth. I had no idea what the suspension was doing down there, but I suspect that it involved Novacaine.

The final negative reflection I have; the reflection that wouldn't even let me buy if for my wife - was the state of the interior. It looked sharp, and the seating surfaces felt as if they would hold up well. However, the foam in the seats didn't inspire much confidence, and the cloth on the non-seating surfaces felt like doubled-up pantyhose. I couldn't see that combination standing up to the rigors of daily driving. In fairness, I did NOT test drive one equipped with leather, and it did seem as if that would hold up much better. Unfortunately, I have very broad shoulders, and the shape of the seats didn't allow for me to sit comfortably in the vehicle, without folding like a hot-dog roll.

As I stated before, I really, truly, and honestly wanted to like the car. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I hope to God that Mazda sells a million of them to finance the next generation rotary, but they won't be selling one to me. For someone more interested in how the vehicle looks, MPG, and has a smaller frame than a lumber jack, it will probably make a great ride. If you do find yourself looking into it - I really recommend springing for leather.

If you have different impressions - feel free to throw them up here. I have no objections to reading them.

 

Mazda are selling millions of them...they can't keep up, doubled production and now can't find 19" tyres (there is a shortage of them for the GT spec's for both petrol and diesel), looks like they will go down to the 17 inch.

YES, 2.0 SA-G is for economy...

The SA-D Turbo Diesel is the one to go for...

As far as "sport's car handling", well almost all the reviews I have read around the world, say the CX-5 is the best handling SUV on the market for it's class....so..

 

My wife and I are avoiding a test drive until the diesel shows up. 20 more hp and more than twice the torque, and nearly twice the mileage to boot.

Not sure what you are feeling that led you contrary to the handling though. Sounds opposite from all journalists and at least most other test drive's I've read.

 

u need to try a fully loaded one, just like any other car, including rx8, if u go for the lowest trim, it will always look cheap cuz that's what lower trims are for

i agreed the sa 2.0 is lacking the punch, u need to wait for the diesel to have any serious torque ---- note i said torque, not HP.

as for handling its not bad as a compact crossover. u should try some other ones on the market, they handle like trucks.

 

I drove one for the second time over the weekend. I like how it feels compared to other entry crossover suv's like nissan's rogue. We like it but it does lack power. It is a real struggle when entering the freeways. We liked the interior, nicely put together (we drove leather). Even though the car was lacking power I still think it would be a good option for us. My girlfriend would be driving it and its not like she needs a car to be powerful.

 

I hate to ask, but what was you wife's opinion on the CX-5, or did you just veto it, and not care what her opinion on it might have been?

It sounds like you vetoed it without input.

BC.

 

Seriously? My experience and opinion of CX-5 is directly opposite this review. I'd even say that the steering feel is *better* than the RX-8, as it's just a little lighter which makes the CX-5 feel more nimble in suburban-type manuevers and situations. I like that, although I realize others prefer a heavier feel.

I love it's quick initial brake "bite" too.

It is definately down on power, but... it's a CUV. I took one for an hour-long drive through the hills and twisties in my area and had terrific fun with it, regardless of the power. I pretty much forgot I was driving a CUV. It's one of the few cars I've driven where I felt "right at home" as soon as I tried it.

But I realize everyone has different expectations and priorities.

 

I drove both a Touring (17" wheels) and a Grand Touring (19"). I would like to differ from your opinions of the CX-5 for the most part.

Handling-
Given that it is a CUV, it is obviously no sports car. The steering is no where near as dynamic and accurate as an RX-8. But of course we are comparing apples and oranges here. The CX-5 when compared to other SUV's and CUV's, it stands out without a doubt. The steering is sharp, properly weight for the ratio, and has above average feel for anything it compares to. Take the CRV, Rav4, and especially the Tucson for a spin and you will know exactly what I mean. I have thrown the CX-5 into hairpins expecting nothing but understeer, but it stays planted (flat) and grips through turns with ease. Hell, at times I could control the yaw and position the car where I want it to be mid corner using heavy trail braking, IN A CUV!!! The CX-5's steering and handling is better than some "sport compacts" and practically the whole Hyundai line up excluded the REVISED Genesis coupe. The ride is actually harder than other CUV's in its class, but it definitely helps in the handling department.

I have driven the $50,000+ Q5 3.2 and 2.0T. A CUV praised for its superior ride and handling. The CX-5 drives VERY similar to the Q5 in terms of steering feel. My friend that owns the Q5 agrees also. We are talking about a German CUV that goes for twice the MSRP of the CX-5.

Interior-
Nothing to rave about here, but at the same time nothing to rant about. Nicely placed soft touch points. Ergonomic and solid materials are used. At 5'11" 170lbs, the seats were fine in my opinion, though they could be better padded. The typical mediocre Mazda cloth and leather quality, nothing to write home about. I would like a slight improvement in noise isolation.

Power-
Lets face it. The Sky-A 2.0 is no power house. It is JUST enough for the CX-5 when it comes to daily duties. You won't have any trouble passing on the left lane, but one would need to plan ahead one or two seconds earlier. I am going to compliment the low end and mid range grunt though. No other <2.4L delivers the USABLE torque the 2.0 Sky-A does. It's nice to be fuel efficient and have enough get go for on ramps and stop light to stop light maneuvers without revving the **** out of the engine. In theory, it almost delivers power like a small diesel engine- giving enough grunt at normal daily operating RPM's, while being fuel efficient.

All in all, the CX-5 lives up to the said quality and quantity by Mazda and automotive journalists. A practical CUV that stands above the rest due to its near perfect balance of style, agility, practicality, and efficiency. The diesel variant should up the "zoom-zoom" factor up a bit with its massive torque for those who long for more power.



Edit: If you took the Sport package for a test drive. Then I agree the interior cloth quality is utter crap. It feels equivalent to sitting on a poorly shaven leg. The simple dial HVAC controls look like something off a Mazda 2. This is coming from someone that prefers manual HVAC over automated.

 

That's what surprised me, as some reviews made it sound so dismal. But on my way back to the dealership after playing around with it, I ended up in a lot of stop and go, 0-40-0 traffic. And I constantly kept pulling ahead of the traffic next to me, even though by then I wasn't even trying - it was just normal, casual driving.

I assume it probably does struggle a bit on a long, uphill, high-speed onramps. And it'd lose pretty much any drag race. But it's seems well-suited for usual suburban and parking lot battles.

I think it's a matter of context really. If you're constantly hauling your boat up mountain passes on high-speed highways, it's probably not a great choice. But if you need a nimble, roomy runabout to commute and shop through suburban traffic, it seems to work well.

 

Umm, there is NOTHING wrong with the SA-G 2.0l for Power, THE issue is it is in a 3400 lbs car....in other words put a 2.0l in an RX-8 and add a few hundred lbs (another passenger)...And see how fast this 'MX-8' goes.

The old 'Power to Weight' ratio thing again!

Again, I really shake my head at Mazda's scheduling plan of the CX-5 in the US.
For a car nation obsessed about POWER, why would they launch only the SA-G.

I dunno, Mazda are also so conservative and slow to react , always on the back foot.

 

Amoungst average consumers here, MPGs are what sells now. Which is why everyone was scrambling to get that important "40 MPG!" rating for their compact cars, even though cars like the Elantra rarely ever reach that in real life. But go by any dealer here, and all you see are 40 MPG! banners flying everywhere.

Diesel... well few people here opt for it. If Mazda had launched with that here, few people would have bought it. Plus it's apparently going to cost about $3,000 more, yes?

I'm a little surprised there isn't a bigger SKYACTIV-G option, but then it wouldn't get best mileage in class... and there goes the main marketing campaign.

 

You obviously have not been following what Mazda are doing in the US, the 2.2l turbo SAD (Diesel) will be used in motorsport and a major campaign launch soon.

What I am questioning is Mazda's launch and timing of this event for the SADiesel.

Mazda are certainly not hoping for only a few people to 'opt for it'.

It now will be their only 'large engine' in the all new Mazda 6 and CX-5.
My latest ''mail'' is Mazda will only consider making a larger (2.5l) SA-G if the SADiesel does not sell...they don't want to produce both.

How does 55-60 MPG sound?

 

Oh I know the diesel is coming here, though I don't think it's official that we get it in the CX-5 (here), is it? I know it's coming in the Mazda6...

55-60 mpg sounds great, but diesel costs more than gasoline here, so it isn't that much of a savings in the end. Factor in the $3,000 premium for the diesel engine, and how many gas stations don't carry diesel fuel, and it's not that appealing.

If diesel fuel was as common and inexpensive as gasoline to buy here, then I'd consider it much more.

 

One needs to drive a current Diesel (even old ones like the old Mazda 626 Diesel was great).

The new generation of clean diesels are fantastic...get the old image of 'oil burners' out of ones head..that is backwards and nothing like the new.

Yes you are getting the CX-5 in Diesel, the SAD is almost as quiet as SAG at idle.
The grunt (torque) is what wins people over.
Diesel is sold in every outlet here.

 

Yes, the diesel should be between $2-3k more. The cost of diesel is currently the cost of 89 Octane, and is more closely tied to the price of a barrel of oil, so if the barrel drops, the diesel will drop more than the gas, and if it climbs, the diesel will climb more than the gas. Not by much, but some. At ~$4 for 87 octane, the price of diesel is usually about the price of 93 octane.

I commute through the northern half of NJ, and used to make the I-95 corridor my regular driving route. I diesel at stations EVERYWHERE. You can't get away from it if you are anywhere near a highway or even rural, as it's the lifeblood of the trucks and heavy equipment. The closer you get to a main city it can drop some, but still always available.


So, no inconvenience problem, and it's cheaper than the premium you use now, only slightly more expensive than the 87 someone's commuter might use.

1,000 miles at 52mpg is 19.23 gallons, at $3.85 at the station I filled up at this morning is $74.03
1,000 miles at 34mpg (gas CX-5) is 29.41 gallons, at $3.76 for 87 octane is $110.58
Every 1,000 miles is a savings of $36.55
So payback for a $3,000 SA-D premium is 82,079 miles.

Hybrid payback, like the Camry Hybrid, is well over 100k.

And instead of being a gutted version of the same car hoping for a payback, you get +20hp and +160tq.....

People pay more than a $3k premium for that kind of gain with a mileage loss....

 

Well googling a fuel costs site, I see the prices in a nearby big town average around 3.80 for regular, and 4.20 for diesel. That's pretty significant. I guess diesel varies a lot by region.

The site is interesting, as it lists costs by gas station, and only about 1/2 here carry diesel fuel.

 

I guess there are more regional variances, though that big of a swing is a bit odd for still being in the same state. (NJ, right?).

And 50% of all gas stations means one every mile instead of every half mile?


I really don't see the lower availability as anywhere near crippling. I don't know how big the CX-5 diesel gas tank is yet, but 16g is pretty typical for Mazda, which would be 832 miles on a single tank. If the light comes on at the same point of 1.8g left, that is still 93 miles from the gas light on to find a diesel gas station. Or about half a tank in the 8....

I REALLY don't see this as a problem.

 

LOL, so true. I tried searching for Doylestown, PA for the comparison.

I take it back a little though, if I'm doing that math right, I STILL save about $500/year in fuel costs with the diesel, even with the .40 difference:

15,000 miles / 45 mpg (conservative) diesel x $4.2 = $1,400
15,000 miles / 30 mpg gasoline x $3.8 = $1,900

So if I keep it at least 6 years... darn it! Don't tempt me now lol!

 

No need to get conservative with the 45mpg. It isn't 52mpg EPA. It's 52mpg as reported by actual owners in Europe... Unless Mazda hamstrings it for the US

Don't forget the 310ftlbs of torque
Or the fact that Speedsource is using the STOCK BLOCK for 400hp in the Grand Am GX class next year. Sure, different turbos and piping, probably ignition, etc... But it's the stock block! What it means is pretty nice for what us road people can do to get to ~300hp. No idea what kind of torque it would have at that point though, since I imagine they are reving higher, and making their peak above our rev limiter.

Still.....

My wife and I were dead set on a CX-5 diesel and were waiting for them, until that new 6 got unveiled. If I were to pick between MT AWD SA-D 6 or CX-5, I'd take the 6 hands down. So it's going to depend on what drivetrain options Mazda lets us have.

 

MotorTrend are still reporting a 2.5l SA-G for the all new 6??

Not what I am hearing????

https://wot.motortrend.com/we-hear-m...-s-253109.html

And this one...

Although the RX-8 sports car and Renesis 1.3-liter rotary have been discontinued, work on the next-generation rotary engine continues.
No time frame has been set for the return of a rotary-powered sports car, as the automaker is prioritizing the rollout of Skyactiv technologies.

 

I think that is more of the rumor mill that people can't keep straight.

Even the link that is supposed to corroborate the 2.5L goes to an article that doesn't mention it at all.

 

As far as I know, the 2.5 gas engine is coming to the States for the new 6. What happens with the CX-5, I am not sure and have not heard.

Paul.

 

To be clear - we drove a Touring model. A Grand Touring model was not available to drive, but I could see how it could make a difference.

It was only the trim material (not the seating surfaces) and padding, which I didn't feel would hold up well. Again, I'm talking about hauling two large dogs and children. For two adults, it would probably be fine. Also, I am 5'11" and about 230ish lbs, with very broad shoulders. The seats were uncomfortable for me because they pushed my shoulders into a forward position and cause my back to arch forward. The ergonomics just didn't work out. The ability to be able to use her car on long trips was important to my wife, so we had to look in another direction.

She ended up choosing an Impreza 5-door Premium, which is pretty well equipped. It's not quite as visually striking, and it doesn't have the ground clearance, of a CX-5, but it meets our needs quite well.

 

Manual or CVT? Do you enjoy driving it?

I like what Suburu did with the new Impreza, and I was sorta kinda considering one too (as I want AWD for my next car) though I prefer the CX-5 (I liked sitting up high).

 

We bought her the CVT, because she has a bit of trouble with a manual transmission. She absolutely loves it. It's fun enough to drive, comfortable inside, and I was surprised how it wasn't too much more expensive to buy well eqiupped, vice bare-bones utilitarian. It's a nice little car.