Topic: Long-Term Test Update 4: 2012 Mazda5 GS Manual

[Mike]

Yes, I have been learning about these taxes and the CO2 fleet exemption.  Not a fan of taxing personally, but the system works in the 'pay to play' sense.

[Jaeger]

Sure enough, with only one digital peg remaining on the fuel display, I was only able to squeeze in about 45 L of regular grade fuel. Mazda lists a 60 L fuel capacity for this vehicle, so they have clearly calibrated the readout to allow for a very ample past-empty reserve. While this is perhaps a prudent choice, it is one that limits the effective range of the vehicle on a long road trip.

What fack does that mean?
Not many people can drive 5 hours and not stop to go to wc so how does 60l effect the range of the vehicle

Gee I'm 51 and can go +5 hrs. 

Me too.    It's not 60L that's limiting - it's that the fuel guage is crying for gas at 45l.  I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the 60l tank size listed on the web site is in error - that is just way too much to be holding in reserve.

[Vanstar]

Yes, I have been learning about these taxes and the CO2 fleet exemption.  Not a fan of taxing personally, but the system works in the 'pay to play' sense.

Yup, fer sure, people hate taxes. But on the other hand, they also rather like government services. Instead of taxing, Harper and McGuinty borrow. I'd rather pay the taxes to avoid the interest charges. To whit, City of Toronto five year bonds pay 6.1%, the Rob Ford version of Borrow and Spend.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Sure enough, with only one digital peg remaining on the fuel display, I was only able to squeeze in about 45 L of regular grade fuel. Mazda lists a 60 L fuel capacity for this vehicle, so they have clearly calibrated the readout to allow for a very ample past-empty reserve. While this is perhaps a prudent choice, it is one that limits the effective range of the vehicle on a long road trip.

What fack does that mean?
Not many people can drive 5 hours and not stop to go to wc so how does 60l effect the range of the vehicle

Gee I'm 51 and can go +5 hrs. 

Me too.    It's not 60L that's limiting - it's that the fuel guage is crying for gas at 45l.  I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the 60l tank size listed on the web site is in error - that is just way too much to be holding in reserve.

Can your wife go 5+ hours 

[theonlydt]

Sure enough, with only one digital peg remaining on the fuel display, I was only able to squeeze in about 45 L of regular grade fuel. Mazda lists a 60 L fuel capacity for this vehicle, so they have clearly calibrated the readout to allow for a very ample past-empty reserve. While this is perhaps a prudent choice, it is one that limits the effective range of the vehicle on a long road trip.

What fack does that mean?
Not many people can drive 5 hours and not stop to go to wc so how does 60l effect the range of the vehicle

Gee I'm 51 and can go +5 hrs. 

Me too.    It's not 60L that's limiting - it's that the fuel guage is crying for gas at 45l.  I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the 60l tank size listed on the web site is in error - that is just way too much to be holding in reserve.

I've run mine to empty, below empty and then another 50km. I put 57l in it. My experience is that the light comes on with anywhere from 45-47l used and I usually fill up by 50 litres used. I still have well over 100km on reserve left (more like 150km) at that point.

I've had some cars similar with their fuel gauges, others where with less than 6l remaining the light comes on. For a vehicle like a rental vehicle I'd rather a light early like the Mazda than later. For my own vehicle it really doesn't matter, within a month or two you know exactly what you can and can not do.

[Jaeger]

A fuel guage that is telling you that you are empty at 45l, then telling you nothing about the consumption of the remaining 15l, isn't much of a fuel gauge.  It's only working for 75% of the tank.  A reserve past empty is a good thing.  A 25% reserve is kinda silly, IMO.

[Cord]

I would assume that the fuel gauge continues to operate normally in the last 1/4. I doubt the needle stops moving once the light comes on.

[Ice]

I like it quite a bit. But not as much as the previous gen's styling which is a rare thing for me (I usually like the newer style). I've had a pretty good look at these and it seems pretty useful but the cargo space isn't that useful unless you fold down the two back seats and loose the seats back there.

I hope Mazda keeps the Mazda5 as part of the line... it's a good looking and practical vehicle and I hope we see a Kodo inspired version with SkyActive sometime in the future. I think Mazda is back on a roll.

[Jaeger]

^^^ I agree - I do hope they keep it as part of the lineup - it's a pretty darned good family car.  Not sure how well it sells for them, though.

I would assume that the fuel gauge continues to operate normally in the last 1/4. I doubt the needle stops moving once the light comes on.

Nope - the fuel guage (digital display, not a needle) is showing empty when in fact there's about a 1/4 tank left (assuming the 60l capacity is correct).  You don't know how much of the remaining fuel you have used, or at what rate beyond that point.

Not the end of the world, but not the way it should be, either.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Maybe the author con speak to someone at Mazda about this , the gauge may out of calibration

[Cord]

^^^ I agree - I do hope they keep it as part of the lineup - it's a pretty darned good family car.  Not sure how well it sells for them, though.

I would assume that the fuel gauge continues to operate normally in the last 1/4. I doubt the needle stops moving once the light comes on.

Nope - the fuel guage (digital display, not a needle) is showing empty when in fact there's about a 1/4 tank left (assuming the 60l capacity is correct).  You don't know how much of the remaining fuel you have used, or at what rate beyond that point.

Not the end of the world, but not the way it should be, either.

If that's the case, then yes, it sucks.

[cruzzer]

Great long term report. If I was restarting a family and was in the market for a minivan, this would be the only one I'd consider. Fun (relatively) to drive, easy on gas, manual transmission and affordable. The CX-5 would be on that list as well for the same reasons. I agree that the new Mazda styling is more appealing than that of the Mazda5, but it's not unattractive and does what it was made to do.

[pcsp]

Major inaccuracy in review: "With direct injection, its 157 hp is decent, but its true strength was the 163 lb-ft of torque available at 4,000 rpm, but much of it delivered earlier, allowing its driver to get up to speed without fuss, and easing the learning curve with the manual transmission."

The van does not have direct injection - it may in the future with SkyActiv, but not now. What it has is an EFI engine that is about 20-40 hp down from the competition for 2.5 engines. Why is Mazda waiting to put SkyActiv in this vehicle? It's a perfect match for the SkyActiv diesel. Don't hold your breath waiting.

[jyarkony]

Major inaccuracy in review: "With direct injection, its 157 hp is decent, but its true strength was the 163 lb-ft of torque available at 4,000 rpm, but much of it delivered earlier, allowing its driver to get up to speed without fuss, and easing the learning curve with the manual transmission."

The van does not have direct injection - it may in the future with SkyActiv, but not now. What it has is an EFI engine that is about 20-40 hp down from the competition for 2.5 engines. Why is Mazda waiting to put SkyActiv in this vehicle? It's a perfect match for the SkyActiv diesel. Don't hold your breath waiting.

You're absolutely right—i was thinking variable valve timing (which isn't always stated in the Mazda specs, but we confirmed it definitely has it with Mazda) but DI just seems to have blurted out...

Mazda has confirmed that SkyActiv will be coming to the Mazda5, but not specifically when, and I wouldn't hold my breath for the complete chassis treatment—probably just powertrain... and if they put the SkyActiv 2.0, it'll be even further down on hp and torque, like the CX-5... i doubt that Mazda will ever go to the trouble to import the diesel in this low-volume model. it'll be a couple years before the Sky-D even shows up in the 6 or CX-5, likely never in the 5....

[garytam]

"With variable valve timing, its 157 hp is decent across a broad range, but its true strength was the 163 lb-ft of torque available at 4,000 rpm"

Strength?? I think the weakest on Mazda's product is the engine. Look the Rav4 and Rogue below, both are 2.5L inline 4, hp are 10% to 15% more and torque are 6 to 8% more  than the 5. Can't Mazda build a better engine to match others performance. I am not even using Honda's 2.4L on the new CRV for comparasion. (same torque with 185hp) 

Is a shame that Mazda emphasis on performace fun to drive vehicle but their engine is inferior to other japanese products. 

Rav4
179 (134) @ 6,000 rpm 
Torque lb.ft. (N.m)
172 (233) @ 4,000 rpm

Rogue
Horsepower - 170 HP @ 6000 rpm
Torque - 175 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

[pcsp]

You're absolutely right—i was thinking variable valve timing (which isn't always stated in the Mazda specs, but we confirmed it definitely has it with Mazda) but DI just seems to have blurted out...

Mazda has confirmed that SkyActiv will be coming to the Mazda5, but not specifically when, and I wouldn't hold my breath for the complete chassis treatment—probably just powertrain... and if they put the SkyActiv 2.0, it'll be even further down on hp and torque, like the CX-5... i doubt that Mazda will ever go to the trouble to import the diesel in this low-volume model. it'll be a couple years before the Sky-D even shows up in the 6 or CX-5, likely never in the 5....
[/quote]

Good points! I tend to agree with your pessimism. Mazda will have left so much money and so many sales on the table if you are correct. SkyActiv gas would not be a great choice for this vehicle. I believe that this "low volume vehicle" could become medium to high volume with the SkyActiv D (I know of at least one guaranteed sale!). Current families with 1-2 kids should be content with considering the Golf TDI wagon and the Prius V - both great choices in my opinion. An aside, why would Mazda think buyers of the 6 would go for a diesel sooner than buyers of the Mazda5? A vehicle that weighs about 4100 lbs. (Mazda 5 with 2 adults, 2 kids, and luggage) NEEDS a diesel.

[JMB]

In England, there are so many of these MPV style vehicles running around.  Man I wish we had more of these in Canada.  England/Europe are so far ahead of us when it comes to proper, useful, efficient and fun vehicles.

I also saw a ton of Mazda5's in Israel when I visited, not that it makes israelis smart... just cheap...

nice ride for this week!

Considering Mazda5 in Israel is about the price of a loaded Odyssey in Canada, and that gas costs about $2.20 canadian per litre, it is no wonder the streets are crawling with them.  Also popular there are the other competitive microminivans from the French and Italian automakers, which of course we don't see here.

[Rupert]

    I like this small van and find myself always comparing it to the Rondo which is the same size seemingly. I don't care about HP and engine capabilities. Mazda always seem to have a pretty decent engine and this one seems plenty powerful especially with the decent torque curve from the sound of the text. I suspect the Rondo engine is also satisfactory. For me though, where the Rondo misses the boat here is in not having the sliding doors...a big plus for the Mazda I think. Easy to use in a parking lot and to slip a grocery bag or package into on occasion. I suspect that the Rondo might have been a better contender here with sliding doors. Anyway maybe the next Rondo will have them. I see the standard shift gear lever there, and that's fine, but is that where the auto shift lever is located also. Pity to loose all of that space for something that is only moved at the start and end of a trip.
    Anyway, like it a lot and report seems to confirm my thinking. Two thumbs up! Hope there is not a patent on thumbs.

[dragonfly]

"With variable valve timing, its 157 hp is decent across a broad range, but its true strength was the 163 lb-ft of torque available at 4,000 rpm"

Strength?? I think the weakest on Mazda's product is the engine. Look the Rav4 and Rogue below, both are 2.5L inline 4, hp are 10% to 15% more and torque are 6 to 8% more  than the 5. Can't Mazda build a better engine to match others performance. I am not even using Honda's 2.4L on the new CRV for comparasion. (same torque with 185hp) 

Is a shame that Mazda emphasis on performace fun to drive vehicle but their engine is inferior to other japanese products. 

Rav4
179 (134) @ 6,000 rpm ...  Or the 2011 Sonata 2.4 4 cylinder with 198 HP and 186 lb/ft of torque. I picked up on that right away...A 2.5 liter engine with 157 HP??? and virtually NO torque??? Whassup with that? Nice article...Nice vehicle...Jack
Torque lb.ft. (N.m)
172 (233) @ 4,000 rpm

Rogue
Horsepower - 170 HP @ 6000 rpm
Torque - 175 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

[jyarkony]

"With variable valve timing, its 157 hp is decent across a broad range, but its true strength was the 163 lb-ft of torque available at 4,000 rpm"

Strength?? I think the weakest on Mazda's product is the engine. Look the Rav4 and Rogue below, both are 2.5L inline 4, hp are 10% to 15% more and torque are 6 to 8% more  than the 5. Can't Mazda build a better engine to match others performance. I am not even using Honda's 2.4L on the new CRV for comparasion. (same torque with 185hp) 

Is a shame that Mazda emphasis on performace fun to drive vehicle but their engine is inferior to other japanese products. 

Rav4
179 (134) @ 6,000 rpm 
Torque lb.ft. (N.m)
172 (233) @ 4,000 rpm

Rogue
Horsepower - 170 HP @ 6000 rpm
Torque - 175 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

It's been a few months since we drove the Rogue, and despite the higher numbers, the CVT doesn't do that engine any favours, feeling laboured, desperate, and whiny all the way up to speed, and I suspect the Rav4 would feel like a dog, too (haven't driven a 4-cy; RAV4 in years), as does the Mazda5 with an automatic (a 5-speed auto...). But with the manual transmission, the power seems more direct, and it feels stronger in its power delivery. And as much as the CR-V makes the right power numbers, it too, sounds irritating to me and feels slow with its 5-speed automatic. Are you going by specs, or feel?

However, in that sentence I wasn't referring to it relative to its competitors (although I was thinking about the CX-5 a bit in the back of my mind), simply in its own right—this engine doesn't have any sort of high-rpm magic, as do various sporty cars, but its torque feels like more than the stated number and seems to pull strongly from low speeds as torquey engines tend to do.