GRM Review: Mazda CX-5

New design language, new chassis, all Skyactiv. Click through to read about it. Think it was stupid to test the Rogue? Cars like that give us perspective on just how awesome this one is.

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new-cars/2012-mazda-cx-5/

Was the one you test AWD or FWD? And manual or automatic?

Damn, and I just bought a CX7 last year....Nice car, but this sounds altogether better.

93EXCivic wrote: Was the one you test AWD or FWD? And manual or automatic?

FWD, automatic.

JG nailed it.

Tow rating?

I'm very impressed by the economy numbers from this thing. Even the average populous is getting nearly 30mpg:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5/2013

Wonder if it could be made even more fun too, if anyone will make parts for it

Dayum! 5 stars across the board?!? I need to test drive one of these...

It would be great if at some point they'd have a V6 option to make it usable for towing. My wife would gladly take it as is, but I won't consider it without more oomph. The V6 RAV-4 stands apart from Mazda and Honda in this regard.

I have no use for a vehicle such as this, but for those people I know who need to sit higher up than cars I will recommend the CX-5 every time. I think Mazda raised the bar in the crossover segment. I'm curious to see what the competition comes up with.

My wife bought the Touring model and totally loves it. Looks amazing, nicely equipped and great economy but the best part is the steering. I've never drove a Miata but I did own an S2000 and it reminds me of that car.

The CR-V has a better interior but the driving experience is nowhere near the CX-5.

I keep having this gut feeling I'm gonna end up with one of these. It doesn't really tick any "want" boxes for me other than being all SkyActiv-y, and in fact ticks a number of "do not want" boxes like "Crossover", "FWD", and "underengined".

Still... I keep catching myself giving it sidelong glances.

ReverendDexter wrote: I keep having this gut feeling I'm gonna end up with one of these. It doesn't really tick any "want" boxes for me other than being all SkyActiv-y, and in fact ticks a number of "do not want" boxes like "Crossover", "FWD", and "underengined". Still... I keep catching myself giving it sidelong glances.

Me too. Currently driving an "05 MPV, but not enjoying the 20 mpg around-town mileage and the barely 25 mpg highway. My biggest concern is cargo space with 4 passengers aboard. I'm not sure I can use a smaller vehicle than I've got now. And my neighbor's Ford Edge is pretty cool, and seems big enough. Not sure how it is on gas, though. Thing has like a million horsepower.

My feeling about things like this is its not much of an improvement over my wifes current car an 05 matrix. I don't see an increase in space for people or cargo its mostly just ride height and her car already tends to get 30+ as an automatic

In reply to Jaynen:

If a Matrix is approximately the same size inside as a Mazda3, I can guarantee you that the CX-5 is far roomier, especially in the backseat which is important for carseats, and will have more cargo area. The CX-5 is about half way between a Mazda3 and a Mazda5.

I suggested the CX-5 to my dad since he needed to replace his rapidly falling-apart Rendezvous. He's not a sporty driver or gearhead in any sense of the words, but he LOVED the CX-5! He thought it looked great and the handling was lovely for a cute-ute. He said it reminded him of a slower Mazdaspeed3. When I used to own an MS3, he would borrow from time-to-time when he had to lend his Buick to one of my sisters when their cars were broken. He didn't buy one because they were slightly above his price limit, but he did find a cherry, old lady driven 2010 CX-7 FWD. Not a bad consolation prize IMHO.

Their turbos are also really good for bolting on other cars.

ProDarwin wrote: Tow rating? I'm very impressed by the economy numbers from this thing. Even the average populous is getting nearly 30mpg: http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5/2013

according to that site, the mazda 3i skyactiv's are averaging 4 mpg better than CX-5.

that's why i ended up with the 3i instead of the CX-5. plus it's cheaper, and (probably) handles better. and not a ton smaller.

Javelin wrote: In reply to Jaynen: If a Matrix is approximately the same size inside as a Mazda3, I can guarantee you that the CX-5 is far roomier, especially in the backseat which is important for carseats, and will have more cargo area. The CX-5 is about half way between a Mazda3 and a Mazda5.

We are planning on kid number 2 and thinking we might have to go larger than something like the CX-5 (not that its not doable just so much more space with the dreaded minivan)

belteshazzar wrote: according to that site, the mazda 3i skyactiv's are averaging 4 mpg better than CX-5.

My recent hobby has been translating mpg differences to real world savings:

I'm assuming that we're talking 34mpg for the 3i and 30 for the CX-5 That's 2.94g/100mi and 3.33. Difference of 0.4g/100mi.

With $4/gallon gas and 12k miles/year, that's an annual savings of $192 or $16/month.

$16 saved per 1000 miles driven doesn't sound nearly as impressive to me as 34mpg vs 30mpg.

Assuming you kept the car for 200k miles, it would pay for 1.5 challenge cars over it's lifetime, though, so there is that.

that's an important illustration.

i also like that my 3 is a couple hundred pounds lighter, and all that such a detail implies.

That math is what keeps me holding onto my Jetta TDI 6k buyin 43mpg when doing 80 on the highway, seat 4 maybe 5 in a pinch and large trunk

The math easily justifies going from something that gets 12 MPG to something that gets 25 MPG. However, going from 25 MPG to something higher is a case of diminishing returns. I did the math and was pretty stunned by the lack of a huge difference between my V6 RAV4 that I use to commute 400 miles per week and just about anything short of a Prius. I average 24-25 MPG using regular grade fuel in the RAV4, and the annual fuel cost difference between the RAV4 and a Prius wasn't anything to write home about. In my case, the break even for purchasing a new car was many years out (like 7+). And that's ignoring the time value of money (i.e. spending real money now that will only benefit me 7+ years from now)...

What seems to make the most sense is when it's time to replace the RAV4 (hopefully many years from now), I'll look for something more economical.

The other thing that sucks about humans having money is that we tend to overspend money we perceived that we saved.

I got the Volt almost a month ago. So far I've used .275 gallons of gas, and about $8-9 of charging to go around 500 miles. Volt Math somehow equates that to an equivalency of 578mpg.

At any rate, I'm not putting $30-40 on my credit card twice a week for gas anymore. But boy am still putting that same money on there, and then some. "I didn't buy gas for two weeks, sure I'd love to take you to the movies, old pal. Chili's after? Sure, the Volt will pay for it? Indonesian hooker? Not for you pal, I insist on only the most needle-free Bulgarians we can find you, Volt's treat!

So while it certainly lowers my gas bill, the money still goes into the local economy, at least until I can learn to restrain myself a bit better.

jg

haha yup that will get you everytime

I remember doing some interesting math on bio fuels. You could convert a powerstroke to veggie using the vegistroke kit and even if you bought the prefiltered oil in bulk (in pallet containers of about 250 gallons) the price was like 1.78 a gallon so cost wise it was the equivalent of the truck getting 38mpgs on normal diesel prices. And you could do that to an expedition which not only can tow but also seat like what 8 people?