Topic: First Drive: 2017 Mazda CX-5

[Trainman]

Yeah I agree. It's not underpowered, but we can all agree that a little bit more power would be nice, especially when Mazda has a great 2.5L Turbo in stock (CX-9).

Why not put it in the CX-5 ? Not sure why. Would it fit ? Is it a cost/price issue ? Don't know.

Anyhow, I think that Mazda has done a good job tuning the engine to give enough pick-up to zoom zoom around town.

Probably don't want to cannibalize CX9 sales.  You want the big motor (in terms of output) you need to get the bigger car.

I might be driving a Mazda 6 right now if that turbo engine were available in it.  Loved everything about that car except the power.

So they don't want to cannibalize CX-9 sales, but in the process they put the sales of the CX-5 and 6 at risk, because like you, some people will turn to other brands for more power.

Like me.  I much preferred the CX-5 for its interior and driving dynamics (except the weird AT shifting) over the Forester but having that engine option on the XT was the selling point.  And I have no regrets at all.  My wife does regret not getting the RAV V6 when she got hers due to power (and how Toyota delivers it).

[johngenx]

As much as we gear heads loved the RAV4 V-6, it sold poorly.  Really poorly.  As noted, the take rates on the larger engines are abysmal in segments of things like CUVs, family sedans, and so on.  People drive the base engine, it feels good, and they see no reason to pay more for more power and probably lower fuel economy.

Subaru still offers two engines with the Forester and thanks to a decent gear-head following the XT sells well enough, but the reality even there is that the aspro engine still sells in much greater numbers.

Once you step up to SUVs and lux cars is where people become a lot more conscious of power levels and how the engine feels - it should feel strong.  That's why the 4-cylinder Highlander was a dismal failure.  The turbo fours might succeed because they make good power and if they can solve NVH issues, they will work.

Toyota tried.  They sold a Corolla with the 2.4L engine.  Sold very few.  They tried a screamer engine with a 6M in the Matrix.  Nope.  They tried a V-6 RAV.  Nope, no one wanted it.

These large car companies can't survive making cars for us.  They need my wife and all her friends and everyone else like her to be buying them, and in compact cars and CUVs and even Camry-class cars, they plain want a nice four banger that gives good fuel economy and does the job.  Toyota can still offer the V-6 Camry because of engineering overlap and platform sharing, but they don't count on selling them in big numbers.

[Solstice2006]

^ Exactly,

A big reason the other companies offer an optional engine in their lineup on their midsize sedans, is because they use that engine in many other segments.  First & Second gen Mazda6 had a V6, because it was a Ford engine, that Ford used in many vehicles.  Mazda is too small a company to make a V6 for only 1-2 vehicles, with such a low take rate.  Making the turbo available in the 6, is the only way.  I suspect they will offer this on the 4th gen Mazda6, possibly down the road with the CX-5. 

If the offer a 3rd row CX-5, should that be called CX-7?

[OliverD]

So they don't want to cannibalize CX-9 sales, but in the process they put the sales of the CX-5 and 6 at risk, because like you, some people will turn to other brands for more power.

People keep saying this but the reality is that the larger engines in these segments have very low take rates. I agree that offering the 2.5T in the CX-5 and 6 (and 3!) would be great but I can also understand why Mazda doesn't bother.

True.  Yet in the case of midsize sedans, most manufacturers see a business case for offering uplevel power.  Perhaps in addition to those seeking to purchase the model with more punch, there is something of a halo effect in the mere existence of the option?  Whatever the case, the likes of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia etc all over uplevel power in their midsize sedans and all massively outsell the Mazda.

Also true. But all of those except for maybe the Legacy outsold the Mazda when it did offer a V6 so it's hard to say how much of a difference it would really make.

Hopefully the next gen model gets the option of turbo power though.

[EV-Light]

So they don't want to cannibalize CX-9 sales, but in the process they put the sales of the CX-5 and 6 at risk, because like you, some people will turn to other brands for more power.

People keep saying this but the reality is that the larger engines in these segments have very low take rates. I agree that offering the 2.5T in the CX-5 and 6 (and 3!) would be great but I can also understand why Mazda doesn't bother.

Cough cough tell that to Escape buyers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solstice2006]

So they don't want to cannibalize CX-9 sales, but in the process they put the sales of the CX-5 and 6 at risk, because like you, some people will turn to other brands for more power.

People keep saying this but the reality is that the larger engines in these segments have very low take rates. I agree that offering the 2.5T in the CX-5 and 6 (and 3!) would be great but I can also understand why Mazda doesn't bother.

Cough cough tell that to Escape buyers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because the 1.6T in the Escape is awful.  The NA 2.5L in the CX-5 is much better.  So they have to upgrade to the 2.0L turbo, as the better alternative.

[rrocket]

That's because the 1.6T in the Escape is awful.  The NA 2.5L in the CX-5 is much better. 

That's splitting hairs IMO...(as far as performance goes)

And BTW...isn't the engine in the Escape a 1.5 now??

[Solstice2006]

That's because the 1.6T in the Escape is awful.  The NA 2.5L in the CX-5 is much better. 

That's splitting hairs IMO...(as far as performance goes)

And BTW...isn't the engine in the Escape a 1.5 now??

I am not talking performance numbers.  The feel of how it drives around town. I drive the 1.6T and the 2.0T quite often, it's night and day.   I haven't driven the 1.5 yet.  I find the 1.6T has to be revved to get from light to light...

[EV-Light]

That's because the 1.6T in the Escape is awful.  The NA 2.5L in the CX-5 is much better. 

That's splitting hairs IMO...(as far as performance goes)

And BTW...isn't the engine in the Escape a 1.5 now??

I am not talking performance numbers.  The feel of how it drives around town. I drive the 1.6T and the 2.0T quite often, it's night and day.   I haven't driven the 1.5 yet.  I find the 1.6T has to be revved to get from light to light...

hmmm I have a 1.5T in the driveway and can tell you it isn't bad at all. Not fast by any means, but it fulfills its city duties very nicely.

[Solstice2006]

That's because the 1.6T in the Escape is awful.  The NA 2.5L in the CX-5 is much better. 

That's splitting hairs IMO...(as far as performance goes)

And BTW...isn't the engine in the Escape a 1.5 now??

I am not talking performance numbers.  The feel of how it drives around town. I drive the 1.6T and the 2.0T quite often, it's night and day.   I haven't driven the 1.5 yet.  I find the 1.6T has to be revved to get from light to light...

hmmm I have a 1.5T in the driveway and can tell you it isn't bad at all. Not fast by any means, but it fulfills its city duties very nicely.

I am not a hp person by any means.  Would always hear comments on this forum that my Mazda5 needed more hp.  That is was slow, had to plan to pass.  I never had to accelerate with the pedal like I do with the Escape with the smaller turbo.  And the numbers don't lie.  Over 9 seconds to get to 60 mph in the Escape!  The 2.0L turbo is a closer match to the 2.5 NA in the CX-5.  That's more like splitting hairs. 

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ford-0-60-mph-times/

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/mazda-0-60-mph-times/

[Weels]

Today was Mazda's "Fuel Your Passion" test drive event in T.O.
So, hopped in the MX-5 this morning and sailed along the 401 at 120 km/h pretty much the whole way & got to Woodbine in 45 minutes.  If only driving into Toronto was always this nice....

My mission for the day was to check out the new CX-5.  But.. i got split into a group that first had to drive one of the four MX-5's they had lined up.
Oh mannnnn...



So, Mazda had 2 manuals and 2 automatics to choose from.  Cool as i figured they'd all be autos. 
I spotted that white RF with the black lip spoiler on the trunk which indicates "Sport Pack", recaros etc... 
Also properly equipped with 3 pedals.  I decided to wait until that one was available, but no surprise the whole time around their slalom track you're in 2nd gear anyway....but it was the right thing to do.   
Managed to leave behind a bit of rubber on Woodbine's parking lot, so think i did ok there. 

OK, so now to the CX-5.

Initially i wasn't all that impressed with GS i've seen on the local lot here.  Don't know if it's because of the bigger wheels on the GT or what, but it was looking good to me this morning:



They had a CR-V there to compare against.  The Mazda to me kicks its a$$ in every respect.  The interior on the '17 CX-5 is nicer than the 16 1/2 and nicer than the Honda.  And, in another dimension nicer than the Crosstrek.
It for sure feels upscale.

Sat in a CX-3 they had sitting there as well.  Felt a LOT like the MX-5.  Liked it, but pretty small.
And, no armest is simply a WTF Mazda.

Mazda had a short course set up including a low traction pad to get a good feel for the handling, but that's about it as the drive lasted about 90 seconds.



Also took the Honda out which left me filled with "meh".  And convinced me even further that CVT's suck.

Anyway, the short test left me pretty impressed.  Will be looking into the CX-5 more closely whenever the local dealer has a few in stock.

[Noto]

From your and my perspective​s, the CRV does suck... But it is better for those who think of vehicles as appliances - it's simply more family friendly.

And again, I loathed the CVT in the CRV, and Nissan's isn't any better... But I quite like Subaru's of late.

[84im]

Such a nice looking vehicle, but man, those wheels look ugly.

[Niklasky]

Today was Mazda's "Fuel Your Passion" test drive event in T.O.
So, hopped in the MX-5 this morning and sailed along the 401 at 120 km/h pretty much the whole way & got to Woodbine in 45 minutes.  If only driving into Toronto was always this nice....

My mission for the day was to check out the new CX-5.  But.. i got split into a group that first had to drive one of the four MX-5's they had lined up.
Oh mannnnn...



So, Mazda had 2 manuals and 2 automatics to choose from.  Cool as i figured they'd all be autos. 
I spotted that white RF with the black lip spoiler on the trunk which indicates "Sport Pack", recaros etc... 
Also properly equipped with 3 pedals.  I decided to wait until that one was available, but no surprise the whole time around their slalom track you're in 2nd gear anyway....but it was the right thing to do.   
Managed to leave behind a bit of rubber on Woodbine's parking lot, so think i did ok there. 

OK, so now to the CX-5.

Initially i wasn't all that impressed with GS i've seen on the local lot here.  Don't know if it's because of the bigger wheels on the GT or what, but it was looking good to me this morning:



They had a CR-V there to compare against.  The Mazda to me kicks its a$$ in every respect.  The interior on the '17 CX-5 is nicer than the 16 1/2 and nicer than the Honda.  And, in another dimension nicer than the Crosstrek.
It for sure feels upscale.

Sat in a CX-3 they had sitting there as well.  Felt a LOT like the MX-5.  Liked it, but pretty small.
And, no armest is simply a WTF Mazda.

Mazda had a short course set up including a low traction pad to get a good feel for the handling, but that's about it as the drive lasted about 90 seconds.



Also took the Honda out which left me filled with "meh".  And convinced me even further that CVT's suck.

Anyway, the short test left me pretty impressed.  Will be looking into the CX-5 more closely whenever the local dealer has a few in stock.

Yeah, I agree with your remarks. Although I wish I could test drive that new MX-5 ! 

The CR-V is a good car, but very much an "appliance". Honda has done a few things to make it nicer inside, like some soft touch materials here and there, but it still feels a bit rustic. Having said that, it is the more practical and fuel efficient of the bunch. For families looking for an "appliance", the CR-V fits the bill nicely.

The CX-5 is a little less practical and a little less fuel efficient, but does waaayyyy better in the design and quality departments. Head and shoulders above the rest of the vehicles in this segment. It will appeal more to families who can live with a little less space and practicality, but who like to sit in a more upscale environment, without forking out the price of a premium brand.

[Niklasky]

Such a nice looking vehicle, but man, those wheels look ugly.

I actually kinda like those rims.

[Solstice2006]

Such a nice looking vehicle, but man, those wheels look ugly.

I actually kinda like those rims.

Not a big deal, if you don't like the wheels, just change them.  I use the oem rims, and put winter tires on them.  And upgraded to aftermarket 18" rims for my summers.  The only thing I miss is the lack of colour choices, and the leather.  Other then that, base model is good enough for me. 

[Brig]

Today was Mazda's "Fuel Your Passion" test drive event in T.O.
So, hopped in the MX-5 this morning and sailed along the 401 at 120 km/h pretty much the whole way & got to Woodbine in 45 minutes.  If only driving into Toronto was always this nice....

My sales dude was at that event!  I was in the shop yesterday to get that shitty wax job looked at.  He was telling me about the Woodbine event while I was waiting. 

[Jaeger]

Weels - thanks for the feedback and pics of the event.  Solidifies my impression that the CX5 is tops in this category.