Topic: 2019 Mazda CX-5

[TheHire]

Nice acquisition man, Mazda makes the best looking CUVs on the market.

Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk

It really is a very pretty car/CUV.  The proportions are perfect, and the nose - man, Mazda is really at the top of their game when it comes to styling. 

The more time I spend with it, the more I love it.  The Mazda3 was a fine car, and I liked it just fine, but I didn't love it.  It also felt a bit like a tin can.  The CX-5 has a solidity to it that reminds me of the Tundra - it feels very vault-like.  Apparently when Mazda was refreshing the CX-5 for 2017, one of things they worked on was the suspension and the liquid-filled bushings to give it that solid feel. 

The one downside would be the infotainment - it's the same as what's in the Mazda3, and can be laggy at times.  Android Auto/ Apple Carplay would theoretically fix that, but you NEED to use the HMI controller with it - the touchscreen doesn't work with AA/ACP, even when stopped, and it just ends up feeling kinda clunky because of it.  Apparently the refreshed infotainment in the 2021 CX-5 is far superior. 

I've been getting anywhere from 9.5 - 11.5L/100kms so far on city drives with light traffic, but a lot of that was in snowstorm conditions, so who knows what kind of mileage I'll actually end up with.

What year was the Mazda 3? The reason I am asking is the "Tin Can" remark. I was just wondering if the 3 you referred to was the current generation or not.

It was a 2016, so the previous generation.  And I said 'a bit' of a tin can.  It was still fairly refined, but you could definitely tell that it was an economy car at its roots.

You know, as much as the '14-'18 Mazda3 was "good", refined and drove well, my biggest complaint was always the tin-can feel. The whole Skyactiv "lightness" setup meant they were noisy inside and also not all that good at retaining heat. Driving them in the winter was always a miserably cold experience for me.

[OliverD]

Nice acquisition man, Mazda makes the best looking CUVs on the market.

Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk

It really is a very pretty car/CUV.  The proportions are perfect, and the nose - man, Mazda is really at the top of their game when it comes to styling. 

The more time I spend with it, the more I love it.  The Mazda3 was a fine car, and I liked it just fine, but I didn't love it.  It also felt a bit like a tin can.  The CX-5 has a solidity to it that reminds me of the Tundra - it feels very vault-like.  Apparently when Mazda was refreshing the CX-5 for 2017, one of things they worked on was the suspension and the liquid-filled bushings to give it that solid feel. 

The one downside would be the infotainment - it's the same as what's in the Mazda3, and can be laggy at times.  Android Auto/ Apple Carplay would theoretically fix that, but you NEED to use the HMI controller with it - the touchscreen doesn't work with AA/ACP, even when stopped, and it just ends up feeling kinda clunky because of it.  Apparently the refreshed infotainment in the 2021 CX-5 is far superior. 

I've been getting anywhere from 9.5 - 11.5L/100kms so far on city drives with light traffic, but a lot of that was in snowstorm conditions, so who knows what kind of mileage I'll actually end up with.

What year was the Mazda 3? The reason I am asking is the "Tin Can" remark. I was just wondering if the 3 you referred to was the current generation or not.

It was a 2016, so the previous generation.  And I said 'a bit' of a tin can.  It was still fairly refined, but you could definitely tell that it was an economy car at its roots.

You know, as much as the '14-'18 Mazda3 was "good", refined and drove well, my biggest complaint was always the tin-can feel. The whole Skyactiv "lightness" setup meant they were noisy inside and also not all that good at retaining heat. Driving them in the winter was always a miserably cold experience for me.

Agreed. Back in 2017 we test drove a fully loaded 2018 3 hatch with a manual. It was fun to drive and was very nicely equipped and lease deals on them were great. At the time I had my 2015 GTI and it just felt so much more refined than the 3. We ended up getting a base Mini Cooper instead which felt much more like the GTI.

My brother has a new Mazda 3 and it's definitely a big improvement over the previous gen model.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

So we've had this vehicle for approximately 6 months and a little over 10 000kms (we've probably actually surpassed 11 000kms by now).  So far so good.  As expected (it's practically a new vehicle) it has given us zero problems.  I've took it in for an oil change a month ago - that was about $120.  It got oil sprayed at Rust Check last month - that was about $250.  Winter tires will be going on sometime this month. 

As well as fulfilling regular daily drive duties, at which it performs exceptionally well, it also transported myself, my wife and daughter out to BC for a 4500km road trip.  Android Auto was a welcome addition.  The vehicle was comfy and quiet, with all the amenities one could want on a road trip, save for cooled seats.  On that trip, we returned an average fuel economy of 7.8L/100km while maintaining speeds of 120km/h.  At no point did I feel like the 2.5NA was underpowered - it was 'sufficient' at all times. 

This past week my brother and mother were in town for a family wedding.  The CX-5 transported my brother and I with our bikes on the hitch rack out to the boonies to do some mountain biking.  We also had the dogs in the cargo compartment, separated from us by our trusty dog cage.  Most markedly, we had the opportunity to fill all five seats of the CUV for the first time - both for family outings in the city, as well as the hour drive out to the wedding venue (in Starbuck, MB) and back.  No complaints were heard about lack of space in the back, and my brother is 6'-2 with very long legs. 

The CX-5 is turning out to be a very competent vehicle for us, fulfilling 99% of our needs.  The other 1% of need can be achieved by hitching up a small utility trailer to haul bulky items as needed.  If we wanted to continue pulling a camper trailer, the CX-5 certainly wouldn't be the vehicle for us, as it has a paltry 1500lb tow rating, barely capable of pulling even a small 8' pop-up.  BUT, seeing as we have made the decision to forgo RV-ing for a few years, focusing instead on hotels and cabin rentals, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.  In the meantime, we are enjoying decent fuel economy from the 4-cylinder powered, relatively lightweight CUV. 

The CX-5 is an absolute pleasure to drive.  When driving rationally through town, or when on a long straight highway, it likely isn't markedly different from contemporaries like the Rav4 or CR-V, but take the car onto a twisty road (as I've had the pleasure to do numerous times on Hwy 307 and Hwy44 in Whiteshell Provincial Park) and its character changes completely.  Throwing the transmission into Sport mode increases throttle response, and downshifts the transmission so that the engine holds 3500 - 4000rpm, right in the middle of it's powerband.  The transmission is eager to downshift even further, and also maximized engine braking.  Twisties are dealt with absolute confidence, and when throwing the small CUV into corners, one can really feel the pedigree that it inherits from the manufacturer that builds the Miata.  The chassis is really just that buttoned down, and can easily carry speed through corners, somewhat negating the need for a more powerful engine to pull you out on the other side. 

If you LIKE driving, are relegated to a single vehicle, and need something a little more utilitarian for various reasons, like dogs, bikes, etc, you could do a lot worse than a CX-5.

[JohnnyMac]

Glad to see you are enjoying your CX-5.  It really is a fantastic CUV.  Kind of a budget Porsche Macan (when equipped with the turbo).  Sounds like the only things that you change is cooled seats and maybe more towing capacity. 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Glad to see you are enjoying your CX-5.  It really is a fantastic CUV.  Kind of a budget Porsche Macan (when equipped with the turbo).  Sounds like the only things that you change is cooled seats and maybe more towing capacity.

Both items are available on the signature - I just don't have Signature budget.  Nor would I want the increased fuel economy that comes with the turbo.  I can't stress enough that the 2.5NA is perfectly fine in this application.  It's no rocketship, but neither have I been left wishing for 'more'.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Oooh, just remembered - I discovered something about our CX-5 just a few days ago.  Since we bought it, I knew the driver's seat had six-way power adjustment.  I did not think it had lumbar adjusent, at all.  Then literally this weekend, I was loading my fam into the car, and through the back door, I spotted the manual lumbar adjustment lever on the side of the driver's seat.  Score!!!!

[tortoise]

Great review!  Thanks for writing it all out.

I'm glad to see that Mazda hasn't abandoned their DNA when it comes to handling, they were always a step ahead of their competitors in that regard.

My mom has a base CX-5 and they seem to really like it, the only negative is that there is a lot less cargo capacity than the 2010 Escape that it replaced.  I've only driven it on the cheap winter tires they have, so I don't have a fair impression of the driving characteristics or the refinement (they were unbearably loud).

For us the CX-5 doesn't have enough cargo space to really be considered, maybe the CX-50 would solve that.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

For us the CX-5 doesn't have enough cargo space to really be considered, maybe the CX-50 would solve that.

I found out today that the CX-50 gets more rear seat room/cargo room by trading the CX-5's multi-link rear suspension for a torsion beam rear suspension.  So you'd be gaining more interior space, but at the expense of some handling.  For the majority of people, that's probably a trade worth making, but it's just something to note in case handling is up there on your list of priorities.

[marcus_go]

My mom is approaching one year of ownership with her 2021.5 CX-5 Signature.

I agree that the 2.5NA is adequate, but the 2.5T is a gem with plenty of low down torque. Admittedly, the fuel consumption is not stellar, but the additional power is nice. She had a TDI before and the 2.5T has similar characteristics to a diesel in some ways. It does not like to rev high, but the power and torque down low is welcome. Reviewers have commented on the same feeling with the 2.5T.

She has had no issues with hers either. Just one oil change/inspection. She is average around 11.5-11.8L/100 km in mostly city driving. In the winter it creeps up to around 12.3L. I think the mileage would increase with a few more cogs in the gear box. I believe the CX-50 2.5T now comes with idle/stop-start system now. I could see Mazda adding that eventually on the CX-5 Turbo in addition to the cylinder deactivation, even though I am not a real fan of those systems. Hopefully there are some hybrid options in the near future.

The handling and steering feeling is nice and crisp. It definitely is one of the best driver's of the current CUV market.

[JohnnyMac]

If you want the best handling compact mainstream CUV nothing really comes close to the Hyundai Kona N.  Mind you, that skews very much so on performance and less on livability and practicality.  The Mazda CX-5 is a fantastic balance of all aspects.

[tortoise]

I found out today that the CX-50 gets more rear seat room/cargo room by trading the CX-5's multi-link rear suspension for a torsion beam rear suspension.  So you'd be gaining more interior space, but at the expense of some handling.  For the majority of people, that's probably a trade worth making, but it's just something to note in case handling is up there on your list of priorities.

My TDI has a torsion beam rear suspension and it seems more than up to the task.   I did drive pi314's 4-Motion wagon with the multilink rear and didn't really notice much of a difference.  I'm sure the suspension in the CX-50 would be more than adequate.

[OliverD]

If you want the best handling compact mainstream CUV nothing really comes close to the Hyundai Kona N.  Mind you, that skews very much so on performance and less on livability and practicality.  The Mazda CX-5 is a fantastic balance of all aspects.

And the Kona N is FWD only.

[JohnnyMac]

If you want the best handling compact mainstream CUV nothing really comes close to the Hyundai Kona N.  Mind you, that skews very much so on performance and less on livability and practicality.  The Mazda CX-5 is a fantastic balance of all aspects.

And the Kona N is FWD only.

Yup, and yet it completely out performs every single AWD turbo'd competition. 

[pi314]

I found out today that the CX-50 gets more rear seat room/cargo room by trading the CX-5's multi-link rear suspension for a torsion beam rear suspension.  So you'd be gaining more interior space, but at the expense of some handling.  For the majority of people, that's probably a trade worth making, but it's just something to note in case handling is up there on your list of priorities.

My TDI has a torsion beam rear suspension and it seems more than up to the task.   I did drive pi314's 4-Motion wagon with the multilink rear and didn't really notice much of a difference.  I'm sure the suspension in the CX-50 would be more than adequate.

I didn't notice that difference at all tbh, had no idea I had multilink rather than torsion beam. Though maybe the differences we attribute to AWD may be the suspension too? Though that seems unlikely.

[dkaz]

Weird that Toyota went multi link with this gen Corolla plus previous gen Corolla iM but Mazda and VW went torsion beam on the 3 and Jetta.

Pros and cons of each. Unless you drive on a mountainous or coastal road or go to a track, there's going to be minimal difference between the two types, and even then enthusiasts will demand more from their suspension. I usually associate multi link suspensions as being marginally more jarring and noisy, but hey they went with a type of multi link rear suspension in the Ram 1500 and I think new Sequoia to increase comfort compared to leaf springs. They also went multi link in the 3rd and 4th gen Odyssey (not sure about 5th gen). 2nd gen had a wishbone rear suspension.