Topic: Rented a Mazda 5 & loved it

[WpgMonty]

We seriously considered this mini-mini-van, and took several test drives in various versions. Sadly, what we couldn't find was the Sport version with a standard and a sunroof. With the 5 speed stick it was an almost ideal vehicle. We searched the dealer base (I can do that courtesy of my wife working in the industry), and were unable to find the configuration we preferred; actually, there was a very small inventory of them all across the country.

The only faults I could come up with: No armrest on the passenger front seat and no dead petal spot.

[tpl]

the mazda 5 was very high on mrs tpl's list in early 2007 but she could not find a comfortable seating position in the car.  I had no trouble but it was to be her car...

[rrocket]

That's awesome.  Any chance that'd fit on the new 2.5?  A second-gen Mazda6 with a turbo would be damn close to my dream family sedan...

Not sure how "new" the 2.5 actually is.  If it's just a stroked 2.3....I don't see why not.  I'd imagine once the 2.5 is around, Tri-Point will make a kit....

[Leviathan]

Ummm nope.  I'm Cdn and I converted to miles per imperial gallon.  Simple trick.  Divide the mileage rating in l / 100 km into the number 281 and you get the approx. miles per imperial gallon. 

Not to be a jerk about it, but I think you're missing my central point.  If you Google about Mazda5 mileage seen by real people, you'll find that real-world mileage is somewhat (maybe even a bunch) less than the published figures, much as they are with the Santa Fe.

The 18-25 & 35 numbers posted are people's reported real-world US MPG values for the Mazda5 from edmunds.com. Published economy in US MPG  for the Mazda5 on mazdausa.com are 22/28 for 5speed manual and 21/27 for 5speed auto with the standard YMMV disclaimer. Some folks are reporting upwards of 35MPusG on their trips and others doing 75-80mph are reporting ~30MPusG. Is that "poor" mileage? What do people think it should get such that the Mazda5 no longer rates "poor"?

*I* am saying that is interesting to try to compare the Santa Fe to the Mazda5 and with a bit of hocus pocus and spin worthy of a politician you can make them seem comparable.   A little tongue-in-cheek perhaps?

That's just it, the hocus pocus part is  comparing your 18 MPimpG vs the edmunds.com posters 18 MPusGs. 

But, ya, the 2.5L should really help the Mazda5.

[Angry Chicken]

Ummm nope.  I'm Cdn and I converted to miles per imperial gallon.  Simple trick.  Divide the mileage rating in l / 100 km into the number 281 and you get the approx. miles per imperial gallon. 

Not to be a jerk about it, but I think you're missing my central point.  If you Google about Mazda5 mileage seen by real people, you'll find that real-world mileage is somewhat (maybe even a bunch) less than the published figures, much as they are with the Santa Fe.

The 18-25 & 35 numbers posted are people's reported real-world US MPG values for the Mazda5 from edmonds.com. Published economy in US MPG  for the Mazda5 on mazdausa.com are 22/28 for 5speed manual and 21/27 for 5speed auto with the standard YMMV disclaimer. Some folks are reporting upwards of 35MPusG on their trips and others doing 75-80mph are reporting ~30MPusG. Is that "poor" mileage? What do people think it should get such that the Mazda5 no longer rates "poor"?

*I* am saying that is interesting to try to compare the Santa Fe to the Mazda5 and with a bit of hocus pocus and spin worthy of a politician you can make them seem comparable.   A little tongue-in-cheek perhaps?

That's just it, the hocus pocus part is  comparing your 18 MPimpG vs the edmonds.com posters 18 MPusGs. 

But, ya, the 2.5L should really help the Mazda5.

And Edmunds.com is an authority on cars?  You probably think Consumers Reports is too.

Here's a post on Canadian Driver.  It's a test report from Laurance Yap on the 2006 Mazda 5 GT:  http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/06mazda5.htm

According to that report,
Fuel consumption Mazda5
------------------------------------------
City: 10.6 L/100 km (27 mpg Imperial)   Hwy: 8.0 L/100 km (35 mpg Imperial)

Again, another post on Canadian Driver, here's a test report on the 2007 Santa Fe in the New Car Buyer's Guide:  http://www.canadiandriver.com/buyers-guide/2007/hyundai/santa_fe.php
Fuel consumption Santa Fe 3.3 litre engine
-----------------------------------------
City: 12.2 L/100 km (23 mpg Imp)   Hwy:   8.8 L/100 km (32 mpg Imp)
Fuel consumption Santa Fe 3.3 AWD
----------------------------------------
City: 12.6 L/100 km (22 mpg Imp)   Hwy:   9.0 L/100 km (31 mpg Imp)

Do you see any big differences?  I certainly don't.  Can't tell me we're comparing apples with oranges here.  Plus people are given to great hyperbole when they are talking about their own fuel mileage.  I alway take it with a grain of salt.  It's like fishing stories.  That's why we have manufacturers' ratings but even they have been open to some disrepute until recently.  The manufacturer's ratings in Canada are dictated by MOT guidelines which have always been slightly more stringent than the EPA.  Only recently has the EPA published new guidelines which have resulted in gas mileage figures being not as wildly optimistic as they were in the past.  In fact, they're much closer to our MOT ratings and on the conservative side too.  Thus, you can't fairly compare 2007 mileage ratings from Edmunds (ie:  EPA numbers) with 2008 numbers since the testing methodology is completely different.

In the end, there's no way anyone is going to get 35 mpg in a Mazda5 unless its rolling downhill, with a tailwind, and at 70km/h.

I got 37.47 miles / imp. gal (7.5 l / 100 km) recently on a roundtrip to Kingston ON in my Mazda 3 GT 5 spd.  I never exceeded 100 km/h and it certainly wasn't on the 401 where my normal speed is ~ 120 km/h.  The Mazda5 uses the same engine, weighs more (1,556 kg vs. 1,340kg  5 spd MT and AC) and has a higher drag coefficient.  I wonder how many of these people that are reporting astoundingly good fuel economy are taking careful records of their fuel mileage.  I know I do.

BTW, I just read through about 100 posted review on the Mazda5 at Edmunds.com  The ones who sounded like they were being honest about their real-world fuel economy reported numbers in the low 20's.  A significant percentage, as it turns out.

/Eric

[Leviathan]

And Edmunds.com is an authority on cars?  You probably think Consumers Reports is too.

Never said it was and it is the "real world mileage" thread I took the numbers from - certainly as good a source as any other user posts on the 'net. Don't have an opinion on CR.

<irrelevant information about Santa Fes deleted>

In the end, there's no way anyone is going to get 35 mpg in a Mazda5 unless its rolling downhill, with a tailwind, and at 70km/h.

You state that with "authority"   

<irrelevant information deleted>

BTW, I just read through about 100 posted review on the Mazda5 at Edmunds.com  The ones who sounded like they were being honest about their real-world fuel economy reported numbers in the low 20's.  A significant percentage, as it turns out.

/Eric

Like I said, I did a quick scan of the real world reported values and they were 18-25 city and one claimed as high as 35 highway. Ok, throw out the 35 as a blip on the graph but quite a few were posting 30+ highway.

But you haven't given your opinion of "What do people think it should get such that the Mazda5 no longer rates "poor"?.  It just seemed from the start of this thread that 3 or so people just arbitrarily started talking about "poor" or wanting "better" fuel economy and I was curious to how much better it has to get to shake the notion of "poor". Anyone?

[Angry Chicken]

And Edmunds.com is an authority on cars?  You probably think Consumers Reports is too.

Never said it was and it is the "real world mileage" thread I took the numbers from - certainly as good a source as any other user posts on the 'net. Don't have an opinion on CR.

<irrelevant information about Santa Fes deleted>

In the end, there's no way anyone is going to get 35 mpg in a Mazda5 unless its rolling downhill, with a tailwind, and at 70km/h.

You state that with "authority"   

<irrelevant information deleted>

BTW, I just read through about 100 posted review on the Mazda5 at Edmunds.com  The ones who sounded like they were being honest about their real-world fuel economy reported numbers in the low 20's.  A significant percentage, as it turns out.

/Eric

Like I said, I did a quick scan of the real world reported values and they were 18-25 city and one claimed as high as 35 highway. Ok, throw out the 35 as a blip on the graph but quite a few were posting 30+ highway.

But you haven't given your opinion of "What do people think it should get such that the Mazda5 no longer rates "poor"?.  It just seemed from the start of this thread that 3 or so people just arbitrarily started talking about "poor" or wanting "better" fuel economy and I was curious to how much better it has to get to shake the notion of "poor". Anyone?

"Irrelevant information" deleted?  More like '"information that doesn't support my own argument" deleted'!  ;-)
The Santa Fe #'s which you censored....urm....deleted supported my apples vs. apples point.  The *fact* is that a comparison of numbers using the same testing methodology on two greatly dissimilar vehicles yielded remarkably similar results.  Claims of 35+ mpg on a Mazda5 are laughable.  Going out on a limb for a moment I would suggest that mileage in the high 20's for this vehicle on the highway would be commendable.  I like the Mazda5 very much.  Almost bought one.   Needs another cog in the tranny and a bit more HP (not the sauce!) and it will attain those numbers. 

Zoom Zooom Zooooom.

/Eric

[Leviathan]

you can't fairly compare 2007 mileage ratings from Edmunds (ie:  EPA numbers) with 2008 numbers since the testing methodology is completely different.

Huh? I posted the Mazda5 EPA numbers as taken from mazdausa.com (which are the "new" 2008 numbers) - where do you get "2007" vs "2008 " and/or Edmunds as the source?

In the end, there's no way anyone is going to get 35 mpg in a Mazda5 unless its rolling downhill, with a tailwind, and at 70km/h.

I got 37.47 miles / imp. gal (7.5 l / 100 km) recently on a roundtrip to Kingston ON in my Mazda 3 GT 5 spd.  I never exceeded 100 km/h and it certainly wasn't on the 401 where my normal speed is ~ 120 km/h.  The Mazda5 uses the same engine, weighs more (1,556 kg vs. 1,340kg  5 spd MT and AC) and has a higher drag coefficient. 

Not quite the same engine as they are tuned a little differently but, ok. May as well compare my Tribute to a Mazda5 then. Similar weights 1524kg Tribute (5spd, ac, AWD) vs 1556kg Mazda5, and similar engine tuning 153hp/152tq Tribute vs 153hp/148tq Mazda5. Last trip Vancouver <--> Kelowna going posted speed limits 90, 100, 110 km/h with some a/c usage yielded 8.1 & 8.0 L/100km (29+ MPusG, ~35MPimpG). I dare say the Mazda5 is more aerodynamic than the Tribute so 30+ US is certainly doable. Hell, Slybry got 7.3L/100km (32 MPusG, 38 MPimpG) here.

I wonder how many of these people that are reporting astoundingly good fuel economy are taking careful records of their fuel mileage.  I know I do.

As do I and you may view a copy here

[Leviathan]

"Irrelevant information" deleted?  More like '"information that doesn't support my own argument" deleted'!  ;-)
The Santa Fe #'s which you censored....urm....deleted supported my apples vs. apples point.  The *fact* is that a comparison of numbers using the same testing methodology on two greatly dissimilar vehicles yielded remarkably similar results.

My argument? You introduced the Santa Fe - I was curious about the Mazda5.

Claims of 35+ mpg on a Mazda5 are laughable.  Going out on a limb for a moment I would suggest that mileage in the high 20's for this vehicle on the highway would be commendable.

35+ where did you see that claim? One poster claimed 35 and I agree, toss it out as a blip in the graph. Slybry got in to the 30s though (yes, yes, a sample of 1)

  I like the Mazda5 very much.  Almost bought one.   Needs another cog in the tranny and a bit more HP (not the sauce!) and it will attain those numbers. 

Zoom Zooom Zooooom.

/Eric

High 20s highway would improve the general economy rating from "poor" to "good"? Slybry posted 32us/38imp and real world postings on edmunds.com are stating 30s so is it "good"? (serious question)

[Ice]

About the fuel economy argument...not sure if everyone knows that it has a new 5 speed auto (replacing the old 4 speed) for the refreshed model.  Not sure how much feedback has been given about the new auto but that might have a decent enough impact on the fuel economy despite using the older 2.3L MZR.

I think they should pop the new 2.5L in there as soon as they can.

[hoodlum]

And Edmunds.com is an authority on cars?  You probably think Consumers Reports is too.

Here's a post on Canadian Driver.  It's a test report from Laurance Yap on the 2006 Mazda 5 GT:  http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/06mazda5.htm

According to that report,
Fuel consumption Mazda5
------------------------------------------
City: 10.6 L/100 km (27 mpg Imperial)   Hwy: 8.0 L/100 km (35 mpg Imperial)

This report does not take into account the better gas mileage for the 2008 model.  Both the Auto and manual improved by 1.0l/100km in both city and highway.  Comparing real world fuel consumption from an older (less fuel efficient) year with the current years EPA will obviously show a larger different.

[RunsinLight]

The 5 completely negates the need for any of those stupid behemoths that people buy on the premise that they have three children.

  this always make me laugh. I was watching TV a while ago and this guy said.. I need a full size SUV because I have 3 kids.

I couldn't help but wonder... weren't 3 kids were around long before the SUV?

[Angry Chicken]

And Edmunds.com is an authority on cars?  You probably think Consumers Reports is too.

Here's a post on Canadian Driver.  It's a test report from Laurance Yap on the 2006 Mazda 5 GT:  http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/06mazda5.htm

According to that report,
Fuel consumption Mazda5
------------------------------------------
City: 10.6 L/100 km (27 mpg Imperial)   Hwy: 8.0 L/100 km (35 mpg Imperial)

This report does not take into account the better gas mileage for the 2008 model.  Both the Auto and manual improved by 1.0l/100km in both city and highway.  Comparing real world fuel consumption from an older (less fuel efficient) year with the current years EPA will obviously show a larger different.

That's quite interesting.  With most cars the EPA rating went down.  Did Mazda engineers manage to tweak an extra 1.0 l / 100 km more out of the engine or were their own old figures wrong?  I wouldn't be surprised as they are very clever engineers and they produce great cars as we know!

On your other point, you're quite right, comparing across different rating methodologies is not correct.  That said, I *was* comparing models using the same methodology.  Both the Mazda5 figures and Santa Fe figures that I quoted used the same methodology.  The Mazda5 report was 2006 and the Santa Fe was a 2007 model.  The EPA's new methodology was for the 2008 model year  (see the link here:  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml)

/Eric

[Angry Chicken]

The 5 completely negates the need for any of those stupid behemoths that people buy on the premise that they have three children.

  this always make me laugh. I was watching TV a while ago and this guy said.. I need a full size SUV because I have 3 kids.

I couldn't help but wonder... weren't 3 kids were around long before the SUV?

People that buy "crossover SUVs" like the Santa Fe, Highlander, Outlook, etc., are fooling themselves if they think that their vehicle is much more than a big truck-like station wagon.  Of course, they would be hard to sell if they were station wagons because it doesn't sound trucky enough.  I realize that my Santa Fe is no more than a big unibody station wagon which, BTW, gets much better fuel mileage than the slurpy 2004 Freestar Sport 4.2 l that we replaced with the Santa Fe.  That good ol' boy Detroit iron push-rod V6 was a gas guzzler par excellence. 

[gottarondo]

I couldn't be a bigger fan of the concept of the Mazda 5 and I'm happy for people who love theirs, but (as I know I've said often but for the benefit of the odd newcomer) I don't think any discussion of the category is complete without mentioning the Kia Rondo, which we vastly preferred. 

We were going to buy a Mazda 5 and could have come to terms with its looks, which I simply don't like, and with the non-continuous floor when seats are folded, but neither of us could sit in the driver's seat without hitting knees, head, or both. 

The Rondo offers better seating space in all three rows, if I recall the Mazda 5 correctly.  Not to mention it carries 7 people, not just 6 (also comes in a 5-passenger model).  Has a sunroof.  Has an armrest that passengers can also use.  Also easily achieves 7.3L/100 km going 100% highway (that's our V6).

Not that I'd want to talk anyone out of a Mazda 5 if they love it.  Only, I'd say one should cross-shop the Rondo.

[Angry Chicken]

I couldn't be a bigger fan of the concept of the Mazda 5 and I'm happy for people who love theirs, but (as I know I've said often but for the benefit of the odd newcomer) I don't think any discussion of the category is complete without mentioning the Kia Rondo, which we vastly preferred. 

We were going to buy a Mazda 5 and could have come to terms with its looks, which I simply don't like, and with the non-continuous floor when seats are folded, but neither of us could sit in the driver's seat without hitting knees, head, or both. 

The Rondo offers better seating space in all three rows, if I recall the Mazda 5 correctly.  Not to mention it carries 7 people, not just 6 (also comes in a 5-passenger model).  Has a sunroof.  Has an armrest that passengers can also use.  Also easily achieves 7.3L/100 km going 100% highway (that's our V6).

Not that I'd want to talk anyone out of a Mazda 5 if they love it.  Only, I'd say one should cross-shop the Rondo.

We have neighbours with a Rondo and they absolutely love it.  It's amazing what Hyundai/Kia are coming out with nowadays!  Actually, more impressive is how they seem to be anticipating the market niches really well.  How about that $9995 cash & carry Hyundai Accent, for example?

I actually like the looks of the Mazda moreso than the Kia but, as you said, each to their own.

/Eric

[Spheric]

The only thing I found bad was lack of a dead pedal for my left foot. For a Zoom Zoom company I found this surprising.

No dead pedal = deal-breaker.

[chris]

We love our Mazda 5 and do not find it underpowered at all even with 5 adults and a lot of gear/luggage driving through the mountains.  Sure, a G37 it ain't but passing is never a problem and cruising well above the speed limit is painfully easy.
We regularly see 8L/100km highway (between 120 and 140 kmh) with a little city thrown in and around 10L/100km for all city.  Reasonable mileage IMO but far worse than our first gen Vibe.
The only thing that bothers me about the 5 is the lack of a 6th gear in the MT.  It could easily pull it on the flats.  Other than that, the niggly points are a slightly tight seating position (knees close but not uncomfortably so to the steering wheel shroud) and the seats could be a little longer to provde more thigh support - nothing horrible though.  While the second row does not fold perfectly flat, I never found that a problem even when sliding skis, coolers, tents, and other assorted junk around.

Rondo's ok but if the lack of sliding doors was a no starter for us.  The ease of getting a 2 yr old into the car seat with sliding doors whilst crammed into a parking lot is amazing.

Our mazda 5 is a 2006 MT for reference.

[Schmengie]

When we were car shopping last year, the Mazda5 was at the top of our list. We test-drove one and both of us loved it - the styling, the roomy and functional interior, the comfortable seats, everything. Even the price was right, about $800 less than a comparable Rondo at the time.  If the *^@# dealer in Kelowna hadn't screwed us around we would've bought one, but that's another story.

We're really happy with the Versa, but damn, I would've loved to get that 5....