Wash. Post's Warren Brown bashes the 5!

[schokie]

From his Real Wheels Discussion on Jan 25th:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/18/DI2008011802070.html

Driver's Seat, Md.: Hi -- love your columns, and I read your minivan review with great interest. We're in need of a new car but don't need to herd huge numbers, so we're looking at the Mazda5 (now dubbed a "microvan"). Item of concern: lack of government crash tests, reflecting either poor sales or no complaints about its safety. Otherwise, it seems like a pretty good vehicle. Your thoughts, or should we be looking for something else?

Warren Brown: Look at something else for reasons that have nothing to do with intrinsic vehicle quality or safety.

The trouble with the Mazda5, despite Mazda's marketing boasts to the contrary, is that the Mazda5 lacks that inherent thing that makes a Mazda a Mazda. It somehow came off the computer assisted design screen and out of the factory into the market without a single ounce of Zoom-Zoom. In short, it's boring, uninteresting, woefully uninspired--which means, I suppose, that Mazda will not use these quotes in an advertisement.

But, perhaps, the company will use these:

Buy the Mazda CX7. It's small enough to suit your psyche and big enough to suit your needs. It's excellently styled, has ample utility, and it's fun to drive. But most of all, it has Zoom-Zoom and lots of it.

Caveat: The CX7 drives and feels like a sports car. Drivers love it. But some soft-bottomed passengers don't.

I disagree with his assessment and thought he didn't answer the question. Your thoughts/comments?

[PGCist]

I usually like his radio show and WaPo columns, but he is completely wrong about the Mazda5.

Mazda's marketing boasts to the contrary
I have NEVER seen a Mazda5-specific commercial on TV or radio or a printed advert in the US.

In short, it's boring, uninteresting, woefully uninspired
He obviously hasn't driven the 5-spd base Sport. I love driving my 5. It has all the "zoom zoom" I could ever want in a small van.

[coolmazda5]

LOL, find me another similar people mover that has Manual Transmission and drives like a car.
Marketing, what marketing?
The CX-7, It is a nice car, no doubt, but it is an SUV, since when an SUV is fun to drive?? I have rented many over the years and they are everything except fun to drive. What is next? A Hummer will race in Indianapolis? THAT will be fun ;)


Don't know the guy, he might have car experience, but I guess he has not driven a Mazda5 and his comments are based on minivan stereotypes. My 2 pesos...

[antlind]

I wonder what he has to say about the Kia Rondo......Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion......Anyway, this is my response to his opinion......hehehehe....(fu)

[jandree22]

Some people think that all it takes for a Mazda to be a quality car is how much Zoom-Zoom it has. The only negative to the 5 is it’s choice to have ‘adequate’ power, rather than getting low 20 mpg’s. It would be different if someone bashed the Porsche Cayenne because it wasn’t sports-car enough, because Porsche is inherently a sports-car manufacturer. However, Mazda is not.

Find me another minivan that offers 5MT and easily tops 30mpg under $20k, then we’ll talk. I couldn’t exactly afford (nor want) to throw down $25k for a CX-7. I guess he thinks that all people care about is high-performance vehicles. When shopping for a family hauler, performance wasn’t at the top of my list, buddy. A one-track, close minded, individual makes for a bad reviewer. This guy’s reviewing and advice-giving skills have more flaws than the 5.

[schokie]

Well, I sent this email to Warren Brown:

Warren:

I thought your recent advice about the Mazda 5 in your 1/25/08 Real Wheels discussion was somewhat off base and did not address the reader's question. If you can, please forward this information to her.

The Mazda5 has done well in crash tests overseas.
EuroNCAP:
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/mazda_5_2005/241.aspx

JNCAP: Called the Premacy in Japan http://www.nasva.go.jp/mamoru/english/2006/type/16_premacy.html

Furthermore, you suggest she would be better off with a CX-7. With that suggestion, I would also tell her that it costs around $5k more, only seats 5, uses recommended premium fuel and will get lower fuel mileage than a 5.

Different strokes for different folks. Thanks for listening to my opinion.

We'll see if I get any response.

[jandree22]

Bizzare, I searched Warren Brown's reviews, and in a separate dedicated 2006 Mazda5 review, he had mostly good to say about it...



"The front-wheel-drive Mazda5 is a brilliant, space-efficient concept."

"The Mazda5 also has moxie -- the guts to move nimbly and quickly through urban traffic, and the ability to steal your heart in the process. That does not mean it will satisfy racetrack lusts. It is a minivan, after all."

"But there is enough oomph in the Mazda5's 2.3-liter, four-cylinder, 157-horsepower engine to get you to the church and everywhere else on time. And because that engine is fuel-efficient, especially when combined with the standard five-speed manual transmission, you should have enough money left to enjoy yourself when you arrive."

"Ride, acceleration and handling: Exceptionally nimble and agile in city traffic. Comfortable ride. Good acceleration, meaning that it changes lanes competently in high-speed traffic."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201412.html


Snug Minivan Built for City Agility
2006 Mazda5 Touring minivan

By Warren Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 24, 2005; Page G01

Small has a chance to make it big in America. Consider the 2006 Mazda5, a minivan that is "mini" in the truest sense of the word.

It is built for the city.

It fits neatly into tight spaces. It presents no visual obstruction to other drivers. But it can carry six passengers and judicious amounts of their stuff.

The Mazda5 also fits into tight pocketbooks, starting below $20,000. But for families with small children, it offers as much utility as the Mercedes-Benz R350, a minivan that has a base price of $48,000.

That could be seen as an apples-and-oranges comparison. The Mazda5 is for the Striving Class. The Mercedes-Benz R-Class is unmistakably for the rich. But these two new-generation minivans are remarkably similar in function and design.

The R-Class, reviewed in this column July 17, also seats six. But it is made for adults who have already reared children, as opposed to those who are still rearing them. Thus, the R-Class has comfortable seating for six adult bodies. The Mazda5 has comfortable seating for four adults -- two up front and two in the middle -- and two small children in the rear.

I am using the term "minivan" because its euphemistic alternatives -- "touring" and "tourer," preferred by fashion-conscious automotive marketers -- make no sense. The official name for this week's vehicle, for example, is "Mazda5 Touring." The Mercedes-Benz R350 and its sibling R500 have been festooned with the moniker "Grand Sport Tourer."

I don't know what a "tourer" is. Here's betting that the buying public is equally befuddled. But I do know a minivan when I see one, and the tubular, high-ceilinged Mazda5 and R-Class -- as well as the Chrysler Pacifica -- are new-generation minivans.

Their newness is in their approach to answering an old question: How do you give sex appeal to what essentially is a utilitarian people hauler?

In the 1990s, with consumers growing weary of unstylish traditional minivans, car companies responded by rolling out sport-utility vehicles. Those models were big, bossy, bodacious. They were assertive. SUVs and other truck-based vehicles now have become so popular that their sales account for nearly 50 percent of the U.S. automotive market.

But SUVs have shortcomings. Larger models swallow fuel and space. Some models that are agile off-road are relatively clumsy on the highway. SUVs have been portrayed as environmental villains, and their owners have been maligned as selfish gluttons. SUV ownership, in that context, is not for the fainthearted.

Many consumers want something else -- something that can carry people and baggage without bearing a load of social opprobrium. Practically, they need minivans and station wagons. But psychically, they want something with more panache than traditional minivans and wagons can offer.

The Mazda5, R-Class and Chrysler Pacifica -- and others, such as the Nissan Murano and Subaru B9 Tribeca -- are the results of that internal consumer conflict. They are all minivans masquerading as SUV equivalents absent SUV problems. But, as shown by the Mazda5, there is much competence in that pretense.

The front-wheel-drive Mazda5 is a brilliant, space-efficient concept. It has no wasted sheet metal. That means it is the right size on the outside with enough space on the inside to do what a minivan is supposed to do -- carry lots of people and things. It has the same business-class three-row seating found in the R-Class and the Pacifica, and it offers many of the amenities, often as options, sold in those more expensive vehicles.

The Mazda5 also has moxie -- the guts to move nimbly and quickly through urban traffic, and the ability to steal your heart in the process. That does not mean it will satisfy racetrack lusts. It is a minivan, after all.

But there is enough oomph in the Mazda5's 2.3-liter, four-cylinder, 157-horsepower engine to get you to the church and everywhere else on time. And because that engine is fuel-efficient, especially when combined with the standard five-speed manual transmission, you should have enough money left to enjoy yourself when you arrive.

- - - - - - - - - -


2006 Mazda5 Touring minivan (Mazda)

Nuts & Bolts
2006 Mazda5

Downside: The rear shoulder belts in the Mazda5 need better anchoring and/or positioning. They bang against the interior wall when they are not in use. Wrapping them around the rear seat headrests -- an inelegant fix -- ends the noise.

Ride, acceleration and handling: Exceptionally nimble and agile in city traffic. Comfortable ride. Good acceleration, meaning that it changes lanes competently in high-speed traffic.

Head-turning quotient: Cosmopolitan, sophisticated. This one looks as though it belongs in traffic in Paris, Rome or Washington.

Body style/layout: The Mazda5 is a compact front-wheel-drive minivan expressly designed for urban areas. It has four doors and a rear hatch.

Engine/transmission: The standard 2.3-liter, inline four-cylinder engine develops 157 horsepower at 6,500 revolutions per minute and 148 foot-pounds of torque at 4,500 rpm. The engine is linked to a standard five-speed manual transmission. A four-speed automatic is optional.

Cargo and fuel capacities: The Mazda5 has seating for six people -- four adults in the first and second rows, and two children in the rear. Total cargo capacity is 44.4 cubic feet. Maximum payload, the weight of what can be carried onboard, is 1,239 pounds. Fuel capacity is 15.9 gallons of recommended regular unleaded gasoline.

Mileage: I averaged 25 miles per gallon in highway driving.

Safety: Front, rear and third-row head protection air bags; side air bags; four-wheel anti-lock brakes.

Price: Base price on the tested 2006 Mazda5 Touring minivan is $18,950. Dealer's invoice price on the base model is $17,717. Price as tested is $22,460, including $2,950 in options (including navigation) and a $560 destination charge. Dealer's price with options and charges is $20,847. Prices sourced from Mazda, Edmunds.com, and Cars.com, a Washington Post affiliate.

Purse-strings note: The Mazda5 is a solid family vehicle buy.

[PGCist]

Hmm. Interesting.

Maybe he has non-paid interns doing the driving, evaluation and writeup?

[BlueWolfCry]

I seriously think the Mazda5 is damn hot. I saw one rolling on the highway the other day and the rims just like so well with the body...That would def be my family car if I needed one!

[CX-7owner]

LOL, find me another similar people mover that has Manual Transmission and drives like a car.
Marketing, what marketing?
The CX-7, It is a nice car, no doubt, but it is an SUV, since when an SUV is fun to drive?? I have rented many over the years and they are everything except fun to drive. What is next? A Hummer will race in Indianapolis? THAT will be fun ;)


Don't know the guy, he might have car experience, but I guess he has not driven a Mazda5 and his comments are based on minivan stereotypes. My 2 pesos...

Have you ever driven the CX-7? It's sportier, sorry.

Don't bash the CX-7 because the 5 got bashed and the CX-7 got praise in return.

[antlind]

Have you ever driven the CX-7? It's sportier, sorry.

Don't bash the CX-7 because the 5 got bashed and the CX-7 got praise in return.

Hey, no one's bashing the CX-7, it's just that the CX-7 and Mazda5 are two totally different cars intended for two totally different customers. Therefore for any journalist to say that the CX-7 better than the Mazda5 (or vice-versa) shows that they don't quite get the intent of these vehicles.

[CX-7owner]

Hey, no one's bashing the CX-7, it's just that the CX-7 and Mazda5 are two totally different cars intended for two totally different customers. Therefore for any journalist to say that the CX-7 better than the Mazda5 (or vice-versa) shows that they don't quite get the intent of these vehicles.


"since when is an SUV fun to drive"

Is bashing the CX-7 because it is, more so than the 5.
It goes against all of what the CX-7 is about, sports car feel, so it is bashing.

I hear what you're saying about them not being in the same class, but I'm talking about something different.

Sporty only speaks one language, so it doesn't even apply to that aspect, now hauling, carrying people, I see what you're talking about.

[jandree22]

Have you ever driven the CX-7? It's sportier, sorry.

Don't bash the CX-7 because the 5 got bashed and the CX-7 got praise in return.
Throw the 2.3L DISI in a 5MT Mazda5, then we'll talk ;)

Kidding aside, the reason us 5 owners got our feathers ruffled is because the person was asking about the Mazda5 and it basically got kicked to the curb for a completely different type of vehicle, the CX-7. That's automatically going to bias us in favor of "our own" and against the "CX-7 intruder".

Personally, I'd love to get my hands on a CX-7 and would consider it if I had another $5k to bring to the table. But I, and no doubt others, didn't have that money, and can't help but defend our purchase.

One final point is that just because it doesn't have a boosted engine, that doesn't necessarily make the 5 boring and un-sporty. It's nimble and hugs corners like a dream. And Tiptronic automatic shifting is a far cry from the experience of clutching a 5MT. I've heard a quote before that goes... "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than it is to drive a fast car slow." There's no clear cut definition of sporty.

[slvrsleeper]

I think Warren may have forgotten his apparently positive experience with the5 when he dispensed his advice about the CX-7. While I don't doubt that the CX-7 is a great crossover (SUV with all the nasty connotation removed) It didn't and doesn't suit my needs. The 5 doe's that is why I bought one. I have read very positive reviews of the CX-7 in many publications and that may be why Mr. Brown so highly recommends it, it stood out in his mind. As happy as we all are with our 5s a minivan just doesn't stand out in the memory of someone whose job it is to drive for fun. I still love the hell out of mine though, and I wonder what spurred him to call it "boring" which is one thing the 5 isn't, even if you do drive for fun for a living.

[coolmazda5]

Have you ever driven the CX-7? It's sportier, sorry.

Yes, I test drove one just for the heck of it when I was getting my 08 Mazda5 (my 2nd Mazda5). First turn-off, it is auto tranny, 2nd turn-off, it is an SUV. It looks much better than any other SUV (call it "sportier" if you want), but it is SUV driving at the end (large, tall, bumpy on backroads, interior space is not used very efficiently).


Don't bash the CX-7 because the 5 got bashed and the CX-7 got praise in return.

LOL, if saying that the CX-7 "it is a nice car, no doubt, but it is an SUV, since when an SUV is fun to drive??" is bashing, be my guest, if you track my posts I have praised the CX-7 in the past, but the last time I checked it was still an SUV (same as the CX-9). Please note that having turbo is not the only consideration for a fun-driving car, it is the handling as well. Yeah, and I'm not saying that I'm driving a sports car, but from there to say there is no Zoom-Zoom on the Mazda5, wroooong.

[MazdaManiac]

Interesting.
I read WB's editorial and was about to post, but then I read all the posts after the first and was caught off-guard.
I guess I should have looked to see what sub-forum I was in!

While his assessment is a bit harsh, it is pretty accurate.

Well, don't feel bad. You should read what he said about the Corvette a few years back!

[Captain KRM P5]

Have you ever driven the CX-7? It's sportier, sorry.

Don't bash the CX-7 because the 5 got bashed and the CX-7 got praise in return.

i could care less personally. my 5 Grand Touring was cheaper, more fuel efficient, holds more passengers, has far more cargo room and was much nicer appointed than even the bottom of the barrel CX-7 with no options. opinions aside, this is pretty much fact.

[CX-7owner]

i could care less personally. my 5 Grand Touring was cheaper, more fuel efficient, holds more passengers, has far more cargo room and was much nicer appointed than even the bottom of the barrel CX-7 with no options. opinions aside, this is pretty much fact.

More value.
It holds one more person, In a smallish third row.
It does hold more passengers, but with a 4cyl with less than 160HP? I'd be afraid to go up hills with more than me and passenger in the car.

It has a considerably cheaper interior compared to the stripper CX-7, way less power, and it's down 1 or 2 gears depending on what year. It's also missing a available AWD, ground clearance, it's not dynamically the same, it's down on cargo space compared to the CX-7(with the second row folded down the CX-7 offers 58 cubic feet of space, the 5 has 44 cubes)
I could go on why the CX-7 is better, even when compared to a stripper.

[CX-7owner]

Yes, I test drove one just for the heck of it when I was getting my 08 Mazda5 (my 2nd Mazda5). First turn-off, it is auto tranny, 2nd turn-off, it is an SUV. It looks much better than any other SUV (call it "sportier" if you want), but it is SUV driving at the end (large, tall, bumpy on backroads, interior space is not used very efficiently).



LOL, if saying that the CX-7 "it is a nice car, no doubt, but it is an SUV, since when an SUV is fun to drive??" is bashing, be my guest, if you track my posts I have praised the CX-7 in the past, but the last time I checked it was still an SUV (same as the CX-9). Please note that having turbo is not the only consideration for a fun-driving car, it is the handling as well. Yeah, and I'm not saying that I'm driving a sports car, but from there to say there is no Zoom-Zoom on the Mazda5, wroooong.

Ok, that doesn't retract what you said, the CX-7 is sportier, and to say "since when is an SUV fun to drive" GOES against what the CX-7 is all about, I've said that before, it DOES handles better, and offers far more power for a more fun to drive experience.
There isn't really much zoom zoom for the 5, the MT option is great, but it needs way more power.
0-60 in 10 seconds is boring and lacks Zoom Zoom.
The CX-7 offers more cargo area, anyway, and don't forget the dimensions are nearly the SAME, so it's not any much more larger, or taller, nor is the space inefficiently used, it offers more space with nearly the same dimensions. It even offers more leg room in the second row.

The only thing the CX-7 lacks compared to the 5 is sliding doors, and a third row.

The CX-7 IS better in many ways, face it.

[Esprit]

MZ5 and CX-7 are totally different kind of vehicle. How can people put them together and see which one is better.????
MZ5 may vs Element, Xb or XL7
CX-7 may vs Escape, Highlander or CRV
This is how I look at price, size and the type of the vehicle.

[Captain KRM P5]

More value.
It holds one more person, In a smallish third row.
It does hold more passengers, but with a 4cyl with less than 160HP? I'd be afraid to go up hills with more than me and passenger in the car.

It has a considerably cheaper interior compared to the stripper CX-7, way less power, and it's down 1 or 2 gears depending on what year. It's also missing a available AWD, ground clearance, it's not dynamically the same, it's down on cargo space compared to the CX-7(with the second row folded down the CX-7 offers 58 cubic feet of space, the 5 has 44 cubes)
I could go on why the CX-7 is better, even when compared to a stripper.

if you bought a mazda for any kind of resale value, you bought the wrong car i can tell you now. ground clearance is meaningless on a vehicle that i am not taking off road, something that neither a stripped or loaded cx7 is properly built to do either. AWD is meaningless on a vehicle of this size and for anyone who, like myself, has lived in snowy climates for twenty plus years and actually knows how to drive in it. i pass plenty of ditched SUVS, trucks and crossovers on unplowed roads every year in this and my other poor RWD and FWD cars. the cx7 and the 5 have the exact same rear headroom at 39 inches, so i guess you too have a smallish rear row for one less person. yours is still a portly 400 lbs heavier and gets worse fuel economy on premium gas on a larger fuel cell.

44 cubic? try 90 cubic if you are aiming for a real comparison champ - with all the rows folded in a 5 it has far more cargo room than a cx7. i've had a full load of people in the car going up steep grades in the rocky mountains with no problems whatsoever. having worked for mazda for several years i can tell you that the materials used in either grand touring models are the same, so unless your interior is "considerably cheap" as well by your definition i regret to inform you they are the same. you aren't driving an RDX anymore than any other mazda owner here.

the cx7 doesn't even have an available five or six speed manual option. how sporty is that?

so lets recap - nearly twice the cargo space, lighter, thousands less from the wallet loaded compared to a stripped model, better fuel economy on cheaper gas, an available manual transmission. i could go on as to why the 5 is better, even when compared to a fully loaded cx-7.

[mazdadude]

I have driven both, and I think both vehicles have their own positive virtues, and appeal to the needs of buyers in different markets.

I will not give up the sliding doors, nor the ease of getting in and out of the second row seats, nor the cargo versatility.

That being said, if Mazda came out with a DISI 2.3turbo Mazda5, I would gladly buy another 5.

[CX-7owner]

19,995 for a stripper CX-7.
Even then it's WAY more fun, the 5 is underpowered.

The interior IS cheaper on a 5, what's so hard about that?
The CX-7's interior is better, by far.
The GT(for the CX-7) gets more silver trim, that's about it.



When you are not carrying a full passenger load, you can fold flat all four backseats and get 5 feet of cargo space, 44 cubic feet in volume

The CX-7 has nearly 6 feet of cargo space in that same configuration.

The 5 offers more feature for the dollar, but the CX-7 offers more sport, way more.

I said smallish third row, not second, so don't twist my words up into something else completely different.

AWD is not meaningless, it's something that can be of assistance over FWD, like going up steep driveways, something FWD can't do in snowy climates, and ground clearance matters in the snow, and in the rain.

Since AWD is SO meaningless, lets not compare a FWD 5's weight with the AWD CX-7's weight, thanks. It's 235 pounds heavier, not 400.

Interior CX-7 MAZDA5
Front Headroom 39.7 in. 38.9 in.
Rear Headroom 39.3 in. 39.2 in.
Front Shoulder Room 58 in. 55.5 in.
Rear Shoulder Room 55.8 in. 55.6 in.
Front Hip Room 54.8 in. 52.9 in.
Rear Hip Room 53 in. 58.3 in.
Front Leg Room 41.7 in. 40.7 in.
Rear Leg Room 36.4 in. 35.2 in.
Maximum Luggage Capacity 29.9 cu. ft. N/A
Maximum Seating 5 6


The configurations are all wrong too, in order for you to have 5 people in the 5 you sacrifice a lot cargo space.

The 5 offers more features for the price, not performance, and with the 5 fully loaded? Can we say dangerously slow?
Considering every passenger is about 150-210 lbs=X5=I can't pass that Kia on the highway without getting rear ended.

[jandree22]

I've had the 5 fully loaded with adults and barely noticed a performance ding. Now stop being a troll and go back to CX-7 land. Nobody invited you over here if all you're going to do is talk shit on us. Seriously, do you think we're going to let you "win" the argument? Just tuck your tail between your legs and go cry to mommy about how your car is teh best. That's about the most compassion you'll get with your whiney "I'm better than you" attitude.

At the end of the day, once you have ‘proven’ that the CX-7 is better than the Mazda5… really, what have you accomplished? Nothing more than making us feel bad about our purchase and making yourself look like a conceited jerk. Oh wait, mission accomplished. Good for you. Now go away now little boy.

[CX-7owner]

2;3637143]I've had the 5 fully loaded with adults and barely noticed a performance ding. Now stop being a troll and go back to CX-7 land. Nobody invited you over here if all you're going to do is talk shit on us. Seriously, do you think we're going to let you "win" the argument? Just tuck your tail between your legs and go cry to mommy about how your car is teh best. That's about the most compassion you'll get with your whiney "I'm better than you" attitude.

At the end of the day, once you have ‘proven’ that the CX-7 is better than the Mazda5… really, what have you accomplished? Nothing more than making us feel bad about our purchase and making yourself look like a conceited jerk. Oh wait, mission accomplished. Good for you. Now go away now little boy.

(blah) No one needs an invitation to post in an open forum.

You poor thing, if you honestly think the 5 is better, SELL it better.

It is underpowered and lacks get up and "zoom zoom" the braking and handling is there but the power is not, and it's missing in a big way.

I'm not the one that had the "my car is better than yours, yours is an SUV and sorry, but an SUV will never be as dynamically correct as the 5" attitude. I'm here to let you know, that isn't true.

Oh and when I said More Value, I was talking about the 5, and I wasn't talking about resale.

[jandree22]

I never said the 5 is better. The 5 is better in that it has sliding doors, available 5MT, better fuel economy, better versatility. The CX-7 is better in performance and IMO, in looks as well. Each has its pros and cons… no one had a gun to your head to buy the CX-7, and no one had a gun to our head to by a 5. We bought what WE liked for OURSELVES so who give’s a shit in what’s “better”. From your and the original reviewers point of view, the CX-7 is better, fine. But the CX-7 is WORSE for ME because it has stuff I don’t want(91 octane and automatic), and doesn’t have stuff I want(sliding doors, lower price). That’s why there are hundreds of models of cars to choose from. This argument hardly has a point and I’m sorry I got wrapped up in it. No hard feelings to you, the CX-7 is a great car IMO. If you want to dislike the 5 based on your priorities in a car, go for it, no one but yourself can decide that. But please realize that for other people, the flip side of the coin applies, too.

[Mazda5wannabe]

I think he writes for the Washington Post which isn't good enough to be used as cage liner for birds.

[Mazda5wannabe]

I never said the 5 is better. The 5 is better in that it has sliding doors, available 5MT, better fuel economy, better versatility. The CX-7 is better in performance and IMO, in looks as well. Each has its pros and cons… no one had a gun to your head to buy the CX-7, and no one had a gun to our head to by a 5. We bought what WE liked for OURSELVES so who give’s a shit in what’s “better”. From your and the original reviewers point of view, the CX-7 is better, fine. But the CX-7 is WORSE for ME because it has stuff I don’t want(91 octane and automatic), and doesn’t have stuff I want(sliding doors, lower price). That’s why there are hundreds of models of cars to choose from. This argument hardly has a point and I’m sorry I got wrapped up in it. No hard feelings to you, the CX-7 is a great car IMO. If you want to dislike the 5 based on your priorities in a car, go for it, no one but yourself can decide that. But please realize that for other people, the flip side of the coin applies, too.

I looked at both when I bought my 5. The CX-7 seats less people (and IMHO in less comfort), gets worse gas mileage, but looks sexier. It's also $32095 Base MSRP compared to $20795 Base MSRP (based on Maxda Canada's website) which means it better be 54% better.

But it's not. For the money a 5 offers a terrific value. As a performance car it's maybe not so good, but it's NOT a performance car, and neither is the CX-7!

[CX-7owner]

I looked at both when I bought my 5. The CX-7 seats less people (and IMHO in less comfort), gets worse gas mileage, but looks sexier. It's also $32095 Base MSRP compared to $20795 Base MSRP (based on Maxda Canada's website) which means it better be 54% better.

But it's not. For the money a 5 offers a terrific value. As a performance car it's maybe not so good, but it's NOT a performance car, and neither is the CX-7!

ffds the CX-7 is a sports crossover, in a class of it's own.

Go buy in America, you will save a bundle.

Also, the seating arrangement is pants in the 5.

You have sacrifice cargo space in order to seat 5/6 in the 5, and the last row is helplessly cramped.

[SuperStretch18]

If I were in the market for a 6 seater, the 5 would have been top of my very short list. Honestly, it is the only "van" (mini, micro or whatever) that I could see myself in. Much more "zoom-zoom" than anything in that segment and the fact that it shares components with the 3 would make adding more a possibility too! :D

The original article seems strange in that the person is asking about a minivan and the writer goes into a sales pitch for the CX-7; truly odd. The two are only slightly similar, so he might as well have recommended a mazda 3...

[Kurt07]

From somebody that doesn't own nor driven a 5 or CX-7 I can't comment on performance. Both serve different purposes. I would not buy a 5 and expect it to perform or do anything that a CX-7 could do. I would not buy a CX-7 and expect it to perform or do anything that a 5 could do. Both vehicles are good looking vehicles. I would buy a 5 before I would buy a CX-7 just because it would serve my needs better. This is not an attack on the CX-7 or there owners, but a "performance SUV/Crossover" is a joke. I am not saying they can't perform, I just see no point in them.

[CX-7owner]

From somebody that doesn't own nor driven a 5 or CX-7 I can't comment on performance. Both serve different purposes. I would not buy a 5 and expect it to perform or do anything that a CX-7 could do. I would not buy a CX-7 and expect it to perform or do anything that a 5 could do. Both vehicles are good looking vehicles. I would buy a 5 before I would buy a CX-7 just because it would serve my needs better. This is not an attack on the CX-7 or there owners, but a "performance SUV/Crossover" is a joke. I am not saying they can't perform, I just see no point in them.

It's called a niche, and if we want to use that logic the 5 is pointless and a Volvo wagon makes much more sense, because it's a wagon and not a miniminivan, and it does all the things the 5 can do.

[Kurt07]

Be that as may. I am comparing the 5 to the CX-7, not the 5 to a Volvo wagon.

[Mazda5wannabe]

And the 5 is an economical people mover, in a class of it's own, which is why comparisons between the two don't work.

I really wanted the 7, but it just didn't fit me, or my family, or ultimately my wallet! I need a vehicle that occasionally needs to fit six, not five. And the 9 is well out of my (self-imposed) financial reach. Different strokes for different folks. You should be happy with your 7, it's a Mazda after all!

Buying in America isn't as easy as it seems, as many of the car manufacturers have forbidden their US dealers to sell to Canadians. Also by the time you factor in travel costs, cross border duties and taxes, and the risk of having a voided warranty, it's not worth buying a new vehicle in the US. At least, not for me.

Buying used, on the other hand, means there are some absolutely killer deals to be had. A friend of mine just bought a two year old Titan for almost $15K less than it could be had here, and that included the flight to San Francisco and all duties and taxes!

As for the git from the Washington Post, offering a 7 in place of a 5 is a silly thing. He's up-selling the buyer by a considerable margin and like many automotive journalists has lost sight of why most people buy cars, which is to go from point A to point B.

That being said, my current job means I have a 100K round trip (62 Mi) of mostly mountainous highway driving. It may take me longer to get up to speed, though in reality I'm pretty quick off the line in ANY car, but once there the 5 has plenty of Zoom Zoom compared to the other people haulers out there. It handles very well, can leap the big hills without panting or down shifting, and does so with remarkable aplomb. I am not bored!

On a trip to Calgary last year, which requires driving through the spectacular Rocky Mountains, the 5 zipped up the passes as fast (faster, truth be told!) as anyone else out there, and maintained it's cool even though it was the height of summer.

I got what I wanted, you got what you wanted, we should both be happy!

[jandree22]

I’m gonna buy CX-7's=LOVE a shiny new ’08 Mazda5 with a big red bow for Christmas this year! :D

[SuperStretch18]

I’m gonna buy CX-7's=LOVE a shiny new ’08 Mazda5 with a big red bow for Christmas this year! :D

How much do I have to piss you off for you to buy me one too? ;)

[jandree22]

How much do I have to piss you off for you to buy me one too? ;)
Brilliant... (lol2)

[Foolish]

Wait, does the world really work like that?

I mean, I would really like to have a Mazda5, and I can act like a huge cock, too, (see, there I go) if that will cause someone to buy me one! ;)

Do I have to wait for Christmas, though, my birthday is in August?

[jandree22]

I can get you one by August, but sorry, it won’t have a big red bow. (Hey, beggars can’t be choosers, right?)

[CX-7owner]

Wait, does the world really work like that?

I mean, I would really like to have a Mazda5, and I can act like a huge cock, too, (see, there I go) if that will cause someone to buy me one! ;)

Do I have to wait for Christmas, though, my birthday is in August?

Acting like a huge cock?
You're on your way.

[Killer]

no...you are.

[Mazda5wannabe]

Ooooh, good come back!

Hey Jandree22, I supported your argument, can you at least make one of my payments?:D

[jandree22]

Ooooh, good come back!

Hey Jandree22, I supported your argument, can you at least make one of my payments?:D
I’ll think about it ;)

[Captain KRM P5]

The 5 offers more features for the price, not performance, and with the 5 fully loaded? Can we say dangerously slow?
Considering every passenger is about 150-210 lbs=X5=I can't pass that Kia on the highway without getting rear ended.

as many owners have stated here, the vehicle pulls just fine loaded up. and yes, as has been my argument all along, the 5 offers more features and utility for the price. i never said it offered more performance. but then again, if all i wanted was performance, the cx-7 would be a lousy choice anyways.

AWD is not meaningless, it's something that can be of assistance over FWD, like going up steep driveways, something FWD can't do in snowy climates, and ground clearance matters in the snow, and in the rain.



this is such a fanboy level of reasoning devoid of any logic, evidence, intelligence its barely worth going after. but hey i like picking fights with fanboys on the internet so here goes. i can make it up a steep driveway layered in 4 inches of snow in my v8 mustang without snow tires, without all wheel drive, on Z rated summer tires. if you require all wheel drive to make it up a driveway in any condition in a vehicle that weighs as much as a 5, then you don't know how to drive, period. ground clearance in the rain - man i laughed at that one.

did i mention that, for any amount of money, the cx-7 can't tow more than my 1996 dodge neon? now thats what i call utility!

The 5 offers more feature for the dollar, but the CX-7 offers more sport, way more.

which has been my entire arugment all along, thank you for actually sticking to the topic

19,995 for a stripper CX-7.
.

you will never get a new CX-7 for 20k. if we're talking used cars, there are even better options than a CX-7

Acting like a huge cock?
You're on your way.

you are the first and really only person coming in this thread acting like a cock. or a male with a small cock. perhaps this is why you bought the superb performing cx-7 (silly)? you can't expect people to be nice to you when you jump in on a conversation running your mouth like a schoolyard punk. get over yourself, you invited this on yourself. regardless, its well known by now that jump in on any thread where people remotely criticize the cx-7 or trade thier cx-7 or don't worship the cx-7. we get it, you love your cx-7. if other people don't love it, it shouldn't matter unless you're so blatantly insecure that you require affirmation from internet forum peers to prove you made a good purchase. in which case, that's terribly sad.

[Captain KRM P5]

but a "performance SUV/Crossover" is a joke. I am not saying they can't perform, I just see no point in them.

not a truer statement spoken about the whole segment, cx-7 included.

[Killer]

as many owners have stated here, the vehicle pulls just fine loaded up. and yes, as has been my argument all along, the 5 offers more features and utility for the price. i never said it offered more performance. but then again, if all i wanted was performance, the cx-7 would be a lousy choice anyways.



this is such a fanboy level of reasoning devoid of any logic, evidence, intelligence its barely worth going after. but hey i like picking fights with fanboys on the internet so here goes. i can make it up a steep driveway layered in 4 inches of snow in my v8 mustang without snow tires, without all wheel drive, on Z rated summer tires. if you require all wheel drive to make it up a driveway in any condition in a vehicle that weighs as much as a 5, then you don't know how to drive, period. ground clearance in the rain - man i laughed at that one.

did i mention that, for any amount of money, the cx-7 can't tow more than my 1996 dodge neon? now thats what i call utility!



which has been my entire arugment all along, thank you for actually sticking to the topic



you will never get a new CX-7 for 20k. if we're talking used cars, there are even better options than a CX-7



you are the first and really only person coming in this thread acting like a cock. or a male with a small cock. perhaps this is why you bought the superb performing cx-7 (silly)? you can't expect people to be nice to you when you jump in on a conversation running your mouth like a schoolyard punk. get over yourself, you invited this on yourself. regardless, its well known by now that jump in on any thread where people remotely criticize the cx-7 or trade thier cx-7 or don't worship the cx-7. we get it, you love your cx-7. if other people don't love it, it shouldn't matter unless you're so blatantly insecure that you require affirmation from internet forum peers to prove you made a good purchase. in which case, that's terribly sad.

well said....well said.

[antlind]

well said....well said.


(headbang)

[slvrsleeper]

And remember everyone "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win, you are still retarded."

[coolmazda5]

The CX-7 IS better in many ways, face it.

Dude, are you still replying? (lol2), If I was not convinced of buying a CX-7 before, now you just hit the last nail of the box. Case dismissed

Insecurity: Trying to win an argument on a Mazda5 area thread while owning a CX-7.

Sounds like the guy who bought a fugly Rondo sometime back and came to the Mazda5 forums for reassurance (lol). If you need that reassurance, you also need medical attention.

[skyhawk]

Just trade in the CX-7 for a new MZ5. That will solve your problem.

[Killer]

Dude, are you still replying? (lol2), If I was not convinced of buying a CX-7 before, now you just hit the last nail of the box. Case dismissed

Insecurity: Trying to win an argument on a Mazda5 area thread while owning a CX-7.

Sounds like the guy who bought a fugly Rondo sometime back and came to the Mazda5 forums for reassurance (lol). If you need that reassurance, you also need medical attention.

DROP IT

[jandree22]

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to lock this monstrosity of a thread (potkettle

[opus]

Some people think that all it takes for a Mazda to be a quality car is how much Zoom-Zoom it has. The only negative to the 5 is it’s choice to have ‘adequate’ power, rather than getting low 20 mpg’s. It would be different if someone bashed the Porsche Cayenne because it wasn’t sports-car enough, because Porsche is inherently a sports-car manufacturer. However, Mazda is not.

Find me another minivan that offers 5MT and easily tops 30mpg under $20k, then we’ll talk. I couldn’t exactly afford (nor want) to throw down $25k for a CX-7. I guess he thinks that all people care about is high-performance vehicles. When shopping for a family hauler, performance wasn’t at the top of my list, buddy. A one-track, close minded, individual makes for a bad reviewer. This guy’s reviewing and advice-giving skills have more flaws than the 5.

Not to mention, the CX-7 is a total gas pig!!!! If I recall correctly the figures were like 16 and 20, or something like that. They had one available for lease here locally for $169.00 a month for 36 months with $1,500.00 down. I thought I would go give it a look. All it took was looking at the mpg, and the recommended premium fuel on the window sticker to get me right back into my car and drive away.

[drzombie]

In all fairness, CX-7's=LOVE did try and address everyone of our arguments about why we prefer the 5 over the CX-7...except for one:

Where is the manual transmission in your CX-7? How on earth can you argue that your car has more zoom-zoom when you only have two pedals??? You want to argue about sportiness then drive standard or you have no credibility. Otherwise, you might as well argue that a Chrysler 300 with a Hemi is more of a sports car and has more zoom-zoom than a 1991 Mazda Miata just because it's way faster in a straight line. Shifting a decently high-revving engine for yourself v. putting it into "drive" makes even a "relatively" slow car like the 5 feel much sportier.
I say relatively, because everytime I hear a moron say "oh no, it only has 160 horsepower, how on earth can you drive something so underpowered" i think back to the cars of the early 1980s, where 160 horsepower would have put you near the top of the pack and most cars had much closer to only 100 horsepower...somehow i don't remember every single car back then rolling furiously backwards when approaching an incline, or maybe all the roads were flat back then...yes that must be it...mountain roads weren't invented until cars starting having more than 250 horsepower.

[jandree22]

ha, my first car was a 1.5L Chevy Spectrum. 70 horsepower... yes, less than 1/2 than the 5. Zipped around just fine and dandy.

[wmzda5]

I got to try driving a CX7 when I got my MZ5 serviced 3 wks ago. I still felt my 5 is more fun to drive. the CX7 felt so big and heavy compared w/ my 5MT 5. I dont like the feel even when I used the triptronic.

[coolmazda5]

DROP IT

LOCK IT then please, it is going nowhere...

Thx

[Captain KRM P5]

LOCK IT then please, it is going nowhere...

Thx

this section needs a dedicated moderator if it already does not have one

i think back to the cars of the early 1980s, where 160 horsepower would have put you near the top of the pack and most cars had much closer to only 100 horsepower...somehow i don't remember every single car back then rolling furiously backwards when approaching an incline, or maybe all the roads were flat back then...yes that must be it...mountain roads weren't invented until cars starting having more than 250 horsepower.

hey hey now don't bring up ancient history or workable math here, that kind of logic goes nowhere on the internet :D chrysler imperials with rear wheel drive v8s made under 175 horsepower and weighed twice what any modern car did, they drove just fine for most people as evidenced by sales statistics of the times. until the tail end of the 70s and early 80s, 3/4 of the cars sold were rear drive v6 and v8 road hugging domestics saddled with primitive power robbing emissions systems. don't even bring up the earlier part of the century where people must have been stranded in even the most inclement of weather! oh yeah forgot, they weren't.

[offset_98]

I'll be honest guys - I own a CX-7 and I like it but it's my wifes. I have a company car but if for some reason I no longer had a company car and we were forced to go buy another car, our second car (my car) would be a 5. I've driven them both, I like them both, they've both got appeal in their own ways.

[rweatherford]

We don't need no stinking moderators.. ;^) Just hash it out.

[jandree22]

this section needs a dedicated moderator if it already does not have one.
I think maybe Perfecto is already the Moderator, but I don't remember the last time I saw him around?

[AIMWO4]

I have a manual with some Zoom-Zoom... If he drove the auto, I could see where he's coming from.

From his Real Wheels Discussion on Jan 25th:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/18/DI2008011802070.html

Driver's Seat, Md.: Hi -- love your columns, and I read your minivan review with great interest. We're in need of a new car but don't need to herd huge numbers, so we're looking at the Mazda5 (now dubbed a "microvan"). Item of concern: lack of government crash tests, reflecting either poor sales or no complaints about its safety. Otherwise, it seems like a pretty good vehicle. Your thoughts, or should we be looking for something else?

Warren Brown: Look at something else for reasons that have nothing to do with intrinsic vehicle quality or safety.

The trouble with the Mazda5, despite Mazda's marketing boasts to the contrary, is that the Mazda5 lacks that inherent thing that makes a Mazda a Mazda. It somehow came off the computer assisted design screen and out of the factory into the market without a single ounce of Zoom-Zoom. In short, it's boring, uninteresting, woefully uninspired--which means, I suppose, that Mazda will not use these quotes in an advertisement.

But, perhaps, the company will use these:

Buy the Mazda CX7. It's small enough to suit your psyche and big enough to suit your needs. It's excellently styled, has ample utility, and it's fun to drive. But most of all, it has Zoom-Zoom and lots of it.

Caveat: The CX7 drives and feels like a sports car. Drivers love it. But some soft-bottomed passengers don't.

I disagree with his assessment and thought he didn't answer the question. Your thoughts/comments?

[starlightmica]

I'd take Warren Brown with a grain of salt, but that's just my opinion after having read his column weekly for about 7 or so years. There's hardly a car he writes a bad review about, not uncommon to the bunch of journalists who get handed a couple of new press cars weekly.

What happens if he writes a bad review? No more cares to review, advertisements from the car manufacturer and dealers get dropped, and a good chance his job goes, too. Interesting to see what he said about the Mz5 when he got a press car, contrasted to what he really thought.

In contrast, there's the LA Times' Dan Neil, who wrote a bad review of the Pontiac G6 with GM pulling $10 million in advertising over the next few months.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Columns/articleId=105386

[slvrsleeper]

^^Which took some Metro bus sized cajones on his part I'm sure! I think car reviewers have their impartiality questioned about as often as the legitimacy of their lineage, especially by us rabid forum dwellers....

[perfecto]

I'm here - and while this thread was off-topic it has settled down just fine. I would prefer that people sort out their arguments themselves rather than resorting to locking threads just for the sake of it!

[rweatherford]

Good job Perfecto!

[brightwhite]

For another perspective (I know this was a CX-7 vs 5 thread, BUT), we just traded our 5 on a 2008 CX-9. It hurt to do, we loved the 5. It was a great car for four people, but the second you introduce a fifth person (even if that person is an infant), the 5 becomes virtually useless. While it sucked to give up a five speed, what we gained in utility for our family was well worth it.

Once you need to use that back row for actual passenger seating, you've lost the ability to carry so much as a few bags of groceries, let alone a stroller or anything bigger than 6" deep. Carrying three kids and a big dog meant not bringing ANYTHING at all. Kind of pointless for us.

I'll still recommend the 5 heartily for families under 4 people, but for us, it was no longer a useful vehicle.

[jandree22]

I'm here - and while this thread was off-topic it has settled down just fine. I would prefer that people sort out their arguments themselves rather than resorting to locking threads just for the sake of it!
ha, uh, hey there buddy ol' pal... (hi) (:o) Point taken.

[bulwnkl]

For another perspective (I know this was a CX-7 vs 5 thread, BUT), we just traded our 5 on a 2008 CX-9. It hurt to do, we loved the 5. It was a great car for four people, but the second you introduce a fifth person (even if that person is an infant), the 5 becomes virtually useless. While it sucked to give up a five speed, what we gained in utility for our family was well worth it.

Once you need to use that back row for actual passenger seating, you've lost the ability to carry so much as a few bags of groceries, let alone a stroller or anything bigger than 6" deep. Carrying three kids and a big dog meant not bringing ANYTHING at all. Kind of pointless for us.

I'll still recommend the 5 heartily for families under 4 people, but for us, it was no longer a useful vehicle.

This is an interesting post. We had family here for Christmas and had 7 people in our American-market 5 (5 adults; no comments about # of seatbelts vs. # of passengers, please) and still had room for all the Christmas dinner shopping. Not saying I'd want to drive cross-country that way, but we found it extremely useful. Oh, and it was also in the middle of a blizzard and we didn't have any trouble going up and down driveways or anything in the nearly knee-deep snow, either. ;)

[brightwhite]

This is an interesting post. We had family here for Christmas and had 7 people in our American-market 5 (5 adults; no comments about # of seatbelts vs. # of passengers, please) and still had room for all the Christmas dinner shopping. Not saying I'd want to drive cross-country that way, but we found it extremely useful. Oh, and it was also in the middle of a blizzard and we didn't have any trouble going up and down driveways or anything in the nearly knee-deep snow, either. ;)

Oh don't get me wrong, in a pinch I think you could get a boatload of people in there, but you wouldn't want to go on vacation that way, or even regularly get groceries that way. It's just not practical or fun to try to store a dozen grocery bags behind the third row seat.

I also don't doubt the 5's winter driving prowess. With Conti winters, ours was pretty much invincible. We put the Contis on my 3 now, and are going to run the CX-9 with the stock 20s until next winter since there's only another month or so of really bad weather and we don't *need* to get anywhere since my wife is currently on maternity leave.

[Hambino]

Mini-vans, regardless of make or model, are lame. Get a wagon, unless you really need to pack 100000 cu-ft of boxes in your vehicle daily.

[rweatherford]

I've already posted somewhere that my Mazda5 will be used for 2 adults and 3 kids and a baby. For extended trips I plan on getting a carrier to mount on a hitch. We are light packers. With 2 adults and 3 kids we put 1.5 Walmart sized carts of groceries inside with one back seat folded down and drove home 45 minutes. Everyone was happy.

In the future my wife plans on making shopping trips while the kids are in school.

[coolmazda5]

Mini-vans, regardless of make or model, are lame. Get a wagon, unless you really need to pack 100000 cu-ft of boxes in your vehicle daily.

No worries, I think the Mazda MPV is already discontinued, so I guess the mini-van discussion is off topic here.

Wagon, right? Mazda has come-up with a concept called Mazda5, which is a space wagon, something like a wagon but with more cargo space. It even has slide doors, so it is an awesome choice (easy get-in and get-out even in very tight places, like my garage with a toddler during Winter, not possible to do otherwise). Don't worry, it will eventually catch-up in this huge ass mini-van centric market.

Some information about this wagon, I like the comments of the 2nd article by the way:
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=18884
http://www.autoblog.com/2004/08/25/mazda5-its-a-bird-its-a-plane-no-its-a-space-wagon/

[starlightmica]

Mini-vans, regardless of make or model, are lame. Get a wagon, unless you really need to pack 100000 cu-ft of boxes in your vehicle daily.
Minivan dad here - nothing beats a van for hauling the little kiddies. The power door on the Sienna is invaluable for dropoff/pickups, the lightweight Mazda5 slider is almost as good as the kids can manage by themselves.

Wagons are incapable (impotent, lame, whatever synonym you want to use) of holding 3 car seats while doing what I need to do with my family.

[jandree22]

Mini-vans, regardless of make or model, are lame. Get a wagon, unless you really need to pack 100000 cu-ft of boxes in your vehicle daily.
Yeah, gonna have to disagree as well… Mini-van sliding doors are a Godsend. You can’t appreciate them until you’ve owned them. Also on Vacation, 1 Toyota Sienna rental fit 5 adults, infant in car seat, 6 full sized suitcases, full sized stroller and pack-n-play crib… comfortably. Good luck with that in a Wagon ;)

Then again it’s cliché to think minivans are lame, so if you don’t have kids or a lot of people to haul, then maybe you wouldn’t understand their value. Before the days of the WRX and P5, I’ll have you remember there was a stigma against wagons, too ;)

[skyhawk]

A friend moved from Years of MIniVan use to small SUV RAV4. He said nothing beats the Minivan. One reason why they wanted SUV is they wanted to try owning one.. and 'the snow sometimes get too deep in the driveway'.

[Captain KRM P5]

A friend moved from Years of MIniVan use to small SUV RAV4. He said nothing beats the Minivan. One reason why they wanted SUV is they wanted to try owning one.. and 'the snow sometimes get too deep in the driveway'.

shovels and snowblowers are cheaper than SUVs :)

[CX-7owner]

as many owners have stated here, the vehicle pulls just fine loaded up. and yes, as has been my argument all along, the 5 offers more features and utility for the price. i never said it offered more performance. but then again, if all i wanted was performance, the cx-7 would be a lousy choice anyways.

Such a lousy choice right? Because in a sport sedan you can carry SO much right?


this is such a fanboy level of reasoning devoid of any logic, evidence, intelligence its barely worth going after. but hey i like picking fights with fanboys on the internet so here goes. i can make it up a steep driveway layered in 4 inches of snow in my v8 mustang without snow tires, without all wheel drive, on Z rated summer tires. if you require all wheel drive to make it up a driveway in any condition in a vehicle that weighs as much as a 5, then you don't know how to drive, period. ground clearance in the rain - man i laughed at that one.

Right, if you can make it up an inclined driveway, 15 degrees in summer tires, link to a video. It has little to do with weight and a lot to do with traction, you aren't getting any traction up a driveway in a RWD mustang on summer tires. You're no more of a fanboy than me. (lol)


Rain that causes flooding, yeah you don't need any ground clearance in that.


did i mention that, for any amount of money, the cx-7 can't tow more than my 1996 dodge neon? now thats what i call utility!

What I call utility is a car that can only seat 4 if you need to carry anything more than a purse, THAT'S!!!!!!!!!!!! Utility!


which has been my entire arugment all along, thank you for actually sticking to the topic





you will never get a new CX-7 for 20k. if we're talking used cars, there are even better options than a CX-7

HAHA, get your fact's straight, ask someone that has bought a FWD Sport CX-7, stripper with no options, it can be had for $19,995+TTL! Why not get some of the hard fact's before writing shit off?

you are the first and really only person coming in this thread acting like a cock. or a male with a small cock. perhaps this is why you bought the superb performing cx-7 (silly)? you can't expect people to be nice to you when you jump in on a conversation running your mouth like a schoolyard punk. get over yourself, you invited this on yourself. regardless, its well known by now that jump in on any thread where people remotely criticize the cx-7 or trade thier cx-7 or don't worship the cx-7. we get it, you love your cx-7. if other people don't love it, it shouldn't matter unless you're so blatantly insecure that you require affirmation from internet forum peers to prove you made a good purchase. in which case, that's terribly sad.

Nice, you insulted me, never did I insult you, but you felt the need to insult me, congratulations, you went on a level lower than mine, FYI personally insulting me shows your insecurity.

This thread was replied to by many that could not believe that someone did not like the 5. That say's a lot on it's own.

If you're questioning the CUV concept, WTF is a space wagon, seriously!

[Hambino]

I like huge conversion vans. It's one of those things I guess, if you have to get a van, go big and ridiculous.

3 car seats, yikes.

[Captain KRM P5]

Nice, you insulted me, never did I insult you, but you felt the need to insult me, congratulations, you went on a level lower than mine, FYI personally insulting me shows your insecurity.

This thread was replied to by many that could not believe that someone did not like the 5. That say's a lot on it's own.

If you're questioning the CUV concept, WTF is a space wagon, seriously!

oh look who's back for more? what took you so long? we missed you! so many more people picked apart your logic and you even forgot to quote them! i'm sure they'll feel awfully left out. i'm so flattered by your insecurity in that you just can't let me have the last word.

1) sticker to sticker, 5 starts at 18, cx7 starts at 24. special rebates, dealers that dump old stock, employee pricing. doesn't count, sorry, get over it.
2) i don't care what you do or don't believe what a competent driver can do with any vehicle on any given sunday. when you live in midwestern winters for 26+ years you learn to adapt. you live where, summerlin? as in nevada near vegas? if thats the case/same place exactly how much actual 'flooding' and 'snow' do you see up there with your cx-7?
3) you acted like a dick, thats my opinion and that of many others. you expressed your opinion regardless of whether or not we liked it. difference is, you backed my opinion up with your behavior. thanks for saving me the effort, yet again!

[coolmazda5]

I like huge conversion vans. It's one of those things I guess, if you have to get a van, go big and ridiculous

That I understand, but if it is your daily commuter as well why waste gas when all the "big and ridiculous" is not needed (like 85% of the time), cannot park/load it in your garage, cannot get manual tranny and cannot drive like a car (boom02).

I'm just trying to figure out the logic of this thread responses after all. Coming to a Mazda5 forum owners area and say "you car sucks", "Why did you say my car sucks?" or "my car is better than yours". It is like going to a Mazda3, CX-7, CX-9, Miata or Protege forum area and tell them that Mazda5 is better and they need to see the light. Does it have any effect on what car they drive? No. Does that alienate the different car communities for free? Yes. Does everyone have different car tastes and family needs? Yes. Do I give a damn on what they drive? No, and I'm not paying for it anyway (except if you drive a Hummer, that hurts :D)

[jandree22]

Watch out guys, I’m convinced CX-7's=LOVE is gonna win teh argument this time around!

Seriously pal, YOU’RE the one trying to make yourself tough by comparing the CX-7 to the more conservative 5… why don’t you also tell us about how your bad ass self just got home from beating up a little 3rd grader. Instead of comparing apples to oranges (flawed approach just like the original reviewer), compare apples to apples. Why did you choose the inferior CX-7 when compared to the WRX Wagon, which albeit has slightly less cargo room(well, more with seats folded down), but also comes with AWD, lower center of gravity, better fuel economy, better straight-line AND handling performance, the seemingly endless availability of aftermarket performance upgrades, and the option of a MT instead of a slushbox? Oh that’s right, you clearly NEEDED the marginal extra cubic feet of storage… that’s it, right? (lol2)

If you’re not the poster boy of someone with a serious inferiority complex issue… :rolleyes:

[Captain KRM P5]

every single one of his points and arguments has been soundly defeated by numbers, facts and reality. it took him a week between responses to come back with the witless nonsense that is his trademark. its not even a debate anymore, its him merely changing up his argument with opinions and loopholes to try and hold ground.

i'm more interested in going at it with this smear campaign fanboy because it frankly entertains me to see how virulent and aggressive he gets over his car's superiority. not just here, but everywhere. anytime someone makes fun of the cupholders in the cx-7 hes on it like a PR rep with a nose full of coke. i love it when people say they are trading the car in for something like an RDX, guy pops blood vessels in thier threads. god forbid people don't agree, god forbid people don't like the car.

but hey cx-7 facts remain cx-7 facts - it doesn't have as much utility, it doesn't have as much cargo room, it doesn't carry as many people, it isn't as inexpensive, it doesn't and physically cannot do what other trucks/suvs in the same price segment does, it doesn't have a manual transmission, it requires more expensive fuel, its detuned compared to its actual sporty cousins, and there are more powerful better optioned better handling and more useful crossoverutilitytruckquasihalfassallwheeldrivecart hings available for the same dollar.

if he loves his cx-7, all power to him. but hating, unjustifiably so, and trying to win people over is making him look more and more like the moron he is every time he clicks "post"

[mazdadude]

LOL, What a fun read.

Can we just start a new thread titled "CX-7=Love Bashes the Mazda5"?(doughpoke

Or is Warren Brown the poster CX-7=Love? (sssh)

Seriously though, this is what I love about Mazda's, they invoke passion, and emotion. I have never seen anyone argue the virtues of their Ford Explorer, and how much better it is then the other persons Ford Aerostar. (fight)

[Captain KRM P5]

i've actually owned an Aerostar :( what a total POS

but it still had more cargo room, a larger engine, more seating capacity, more towing capacity than a CX-7. :D sorry, it comes naturally at this point.

[SuperStretch18]

You guys are making me think I should have bought a 5 instead! :p

And holy crap mazdadude, that is an impressive list of previous cars in your sig! Mazda should send you an RX-8! or a cookie or something, jeez!

[Captain KRM P5]

You guys are making me think I should have bought a 5 instead! :p



cx7s=love will hang you for even daring speak of such blasphemy! repent sinner!

seriously, if you like your car there is nothing wrong with that. i know people with Aveos, Calibers, and Accents who think they are the greatest cars ever. but trying to prove its superiority and going ape feces on people when they don't agree just smacks of being at best arrogant and at worst totally insecure. especially when you fight arguments that you have no chance of winning. its not even that I have an issue with the cx7 at this point, its pretty much just me enjoying the confrontational aspect that this lunatic provides :) hell i don't think i had a real issue with the cx7 until this guy came along.

[WhiteStar III]

compared to the CX-7 It's missing available AWD,

While it normally operates as de facto front-drive, the Mazda can only can route up to 50 percent of its available motive force rearward
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0610_crossover_comparison/specs_pricing.html

ground clearance, it's not dynamically the same, it's down on cargo space compared to the CX-7(with the second row folded down the CX-7 offers 58 cubic feet of space, the 5 has 44 cubes)

NO!

Cargo capacity is meager with six aboard, with maybe 15 cubic feet of space, but ditch a couple of passengers, fold the third-row seats and that grows to 44.4 cubic-feet. (Because the EPA classifies the 5 as a station wagon, the third row isn’t counted, and cargo room is measured behind the first two rows.) Kicking out a couple more passengers and stowing all the rear seats creates a space deep enough to swallow anything up to 63 inches long (89 cubic-feet).

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060605/FREE/60526002

I've said that before, it DOES handles better, and offers far more power for a more fun to drive experience. There isn't really much zoom zoom for the 5, the MT option is great, but it needs way more power. 0-60 in 10 seconds is boring and lacks Zoom Zoom.

it propelled our 3908-pound tester to 60 mph in a respectable 8.0 seconds en route to a 16.0-second/84.6-mph quarter mile.

According to ItelliChoice MZ5 manual is 8.53s (9.4s for the auto according to http://www1.jacksonville.com/autos/stories/012806.shtml ) & 16.59 @ 84.53mph
http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehicleReport/vehicle_nmb/17149/section/specs/type/used/2006/Mazda/Mazda5

CX-7 MAZDA5
Lateral Accel .79 .78

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/FREE/70111008/1007/FREE

Psst, DISLIKES Cheap interior materials & check out the Curb weight/GVWR (lbs): 3929/4780


Which likely only surprises you but you’ve got more weight with a higher center of gravity.

The only thing the CX-7 lacks compared to the 5 is sliding doors, and a third row.

You don’t have children do you?

AWD is not meaningless, it's something that can be of assistance over FWD, like going up steep driveways, something FWD can't do in snowy climates, and ground clearance matters in the snow,

Psst 95% of the time your FWD too & if that was such a worry, you should have chosen a more “performance” oriented SUV that offers full time 4WD, locking diffs and traction aids like hill ascent/decent and offer same or better 0-60 & skidpad #’s (4Runner, Pathfinder, etc.)

and in the rain. Rain that causes flooding, yeah you don't need any ground clearance in that.

Do you also pack dye’s or floats to measure the currents?

[skyhawk]

regarding the TCS or traction control which the MZ5 does not have and i guess the CX7 does have, I drove my friends ford escape to experience the traction control. It's cool. But what it actually does is to 'take over control of the gas' when the roads become slippery. In short, it effectively 'slows down the vehicle'. I can do the same with the MZ5. I can feel when the tire starts to slip and I ease up on the gas.. And with winter tires, I can fine tune my gas pedaling to walk the fine line between slipping and gripping...
or I can stay conservative and simply slow down like the CX7 beside me.

[Captain KRM P5]

traction control on mazdas is pretty much the brakes applying themselves when the wheels spin. its really not needed on front wheel drive cars (cadillac was the first to have this option in the 80s and it took a while to catch on). i find it easier to drive with the TCS off in my wifes car in bad weather than with it on.

you can put all the gadgets and gizmos in a car of any price and a bad driver will still be a bad driver. knowing the elements and how to drive will always trump technology.

[jandree22]

you can put all the gadgets and gizmos in a car of any price and a bad driver will still be a bad driver. knowing the elements and how to drive will always trump technology.
well said... (stupid)

[SuperStretch18]

traction control on mazdas is pretty much the brakes applying themselves when the wheels spin. its really not needed on front wheel drive cars (cadillac was the first to have this option in the 80s and it took a while to catch on). i find it easier to drive with the TCS off in my wifes car in bad weather than with it on.

you can put all the gadgets and gizmos in a car of any price and a bad driver will still be a bad driver. knowing the elements and how to drive will always trump technology.

Yah, honestly, I wish I could permanently turn TCS off!

I actually couldn't agree with you more. I lived in NJ for 26 years, until I moved to FL. Never owned a set of snow tires, chains or whatever. Drove a dodge neon for four years, a festiva before that (don't ask) and never had any issues in a little snow or even a lot of snow, unless it was deep enough to actually catch the bumper...

[WhiteStar III]

traction control on mazdas is pretty much the brakes applying themselves when the wheels spin. its really not needed on front wheel drive cars (cadillac was the first to have this option in the 80s and it took a while to catch on). i find it easier to drive with the TCS off in my wifes car in bad weather than with it on.

you can put all the gadgets and gizmos in a car of any price and a bad driver will still be a bad driver. knowing the elements and how to drive will always trump technology.

As you mention it depends on the vehicle and depends on the traction control system. For RWD I’d like to have it in the absence of a LSD and it is more common now as it is cheaper to produce (open diffs with the ABS acting as an electronic LSD) for 4WD vehicles it’s also the addition of the yaw sensor (skid control) to reduce rollover where it makes the most sense. FWD with good tires and ABS is adequate in most situations.

Now I agree that all of that is no substitute for common sense, know the conditions of the road, your tires, your speed, etc. but it my opinion if you are truly a good driver it causes no harm and will be imperceptible, if you’re a bad driver with it you’ll likely be worse without it.

[dbthompson]

I think that Warren had a temporary slip when he dissed the 5 a few weeks back. I've read him for probably more than 10+ years, and I find him one of the most entertaining auto writers. We disagree on many things (he's a lot shorter than I), but I trust his judgment in many ways. He also makes interesting cultural observations. And he's always fighting for what he thinks is right :)

Here's two quotes from today's chat:

"Washington, D.C.: Hi Warren, on your advice we bought a Mazda3 in 2005 and love the car. It is fun to drive and perfect for living in the city. We now have a baby on the way and are thinking about something a little bigger, but still a good city car. We're considering the Mazda6 and Toyota Matrix. Any thoughts on these and any other suggestions for cars we should check out? Thanks.

Warren Brown: Good morning, everybody. Good morning to everybody, except you folks at AOL. You are driving me nuts! D.C. Here's the deal, D.C. It's not hip. But it works as well as your Mazda 3. Go with the Mazda5. You won't be sorry. "

"Arlington, Va.: We are expecting our first child and want to get a new car. I have narrowed the choices down to the Outback wagon (base model) and the Mazda5 (touring.) This is how I see it:
Outback Positives: AWD, 170hp engine, solid
Outback Negative: Room for only 5
Mazda5 Positives: Room for 6, economical, sliding doors, good size
Mazda5 Negatives: Small engine -- reviews say it struggles when loaded
Which would you pick? The AWD is not a deal breaker. I am concerned about the small Mazda5 engine. Many reviews mention it struggles when loaded and on the highway.

Warren Brown: Congrats on your expected New Arrival. Forget the buff book criticisms that the Mazda5 struggles when loaded. Many small-engine cars struggle when loaded, which is why it's best not to overload them. The Mazda5 provides adequate acceleration in most driving environments, loaded and unloaded. It's no racer. It's not supposed to be. It's a family hauler, and that is what it does quite efficiently."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/01/DI2008020101900.html

[coolmazda5]

^^ (lol2) Look at all the trouble he made us go through. We already alienated 0.03% of the CX-7 owners because of that old bashing.

Forget it, he won't be on my Season's Greetings friend's card list this year (but the CX-7 owners in this forum will) ;)

[mrbwa1]

I actually couldn't agree with you more. I lived in NJ for 26 years, until I moved to FL. Never owned a set of snow tires, chains or whatever. Drove a dodge neon for four years, a festiva before that (don't ask) and never had any issues in a little snow or even a lot of snow, unless it was deep enough to actually catch the bumper...

I agree that FWD cars seem to do quite well in the snow. I had an old '77 Volvo RWD that required snow tires for the winter, and even then just rears got it about everywhere. Moving to FWD cars, I went years without snows. I'm glad I went back though, as it can get pretty icy here for the evening commute in winter and the good quality modern snows help a bit with the stopping.

I have a hard time with people who discount a car without TCS/ESP. We drove for years without ABS, and now it's a sin to not have it. Well, my '01 Toyota ECHO doesn't have ABS and I'm more confident in it's feel than the 5. For a panic stop, I'd prefer the ABS though; I just have to get used to the ABS "feel". TCS would be a wasted extra on the 5. Both the Manual and Automatic trannies can be started from 2nd gear to limit wheel spin. If you can't get it going from a stop in 2nd, then you probably shouldn't be driving in the snow (It's either that bad, or you need some practice).

I can see some merit in having ESP (skid control), but then again, I was taught to abuse the limits in an open, icy parking lot so that I wasn't scared if it happened in real life. I've driving a couple cars with ESP and I'm already reacting to a skid when it does, and that feeling of the car coming to a quick halt to straighten out is a weird feeling to me. Again, I could probably adapt to it, but I know I would hate it, as I have enough testosterone to still like to "refresh" myself with open parking lot antics.

And while some may think that parking lot snow slides and brodies are stupid, the feelings I have found from that have saved me from a few accidents. Ironically, the few times I really have needed those skills, I was pushing the limits harder than I should have anyway. I will add though that I would never do that kind of showboating on the streets, as I nearly wrecked a few cars in my early driving days doing just those stupid things!

[jandree22]

I don't understand how the guy can have SO much hatred for the car one day, then such a proponent a week later? Must've either had an off day or read through this thread? (lol2)

Weird, whatever. Just glad he's talking sense again... no it's not a race car, yes, it's a completely competent family hauler.

[slvrsleeper]

The anti-5 Warren Brown was actually a poster known on these boards as CX7=love. When the REAL Warren Brown saw what a ruckus his impersonator had caused he began a blitz of 5 owner ass-kissing to save face. Oh and he gave CX7=love a melvin for getting him in hot water.

[schokie]

I originally posted Warren Brown's comments and thought it might get a few comments. Never did I imagine it would turn into a 7 page thread! I did send Warren Brown my email (from the 1st page in this thread) and he never directly responded. Whatever happened, Brown's tune does seem to change in last week's article with his first two responses. At least the 5 is back in his head on a good note. With the improvements for 08, I really do think it is a nice automobile at an excellent (for US) price point.

[jandree22]

With the improvements for 08, I really do think it is a nice automobile at an excellent (for US) price point.
So you're saying 06-07 5's are junk, huh? So we're idiots for not getting an 08, is that it?! You smug bastard...






...I KEEED, I keed! I know what you're saying, just bustin your chops (lol2)

[dbthompson]

I originally posted Warren Brown's comments and thought it might get a few comments. Never did I imagine it would turn into a 7 page thread! I did send Warren Brown my email (from the 1st page in this thread) and he never directly responded. Whatever happened, Brown's tune does seem to change in last week's article with his first two responses. At least the 5 is back in his head on a good note. With the improvements for 08, I really do think it is a nice automobile at an excellent (for US) price point.

I've sent him a number of notes, but never received an email reply. He did refer to me indirectly once in a chat session though.

[coolmazda5]

I've sent him a number of notes, but never received an email reply. He did refer to me indirectly once in a chat session though.

Reminds me of this journalist as well:
http://www.mazdav.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3276476&postcount=21

And my opinion stands, whoever Warren used for the first review does not understand the Mazda5 concept. I think the Mazda5 owners who have sent feedback to the journalists are just making them open their eyes, especially because it does not fall into a mainstream car category. If you have not owned nor driven one: it is not a wagon, it is not a minivan, it is not a compact, it is not an SUV, so what the heck is it? If you own/drive one: I don't care how is classified (except for insurance), but matches my needs much better than any of the mentioned above :D

[coolmazda5]

http://www.mazdav.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123698015

[schokie]

Not to revive all the flames that came with the original, but it does seem that Warren had some issues with the original 5. At least he is willing to give it a second look. Here is his quote from this weekend's Post:

Hanover, Va.: Have you had a chance to drive the Mazda5? If so, what do you think? My wife and I are looking for a small minivan and it looks like it might be worth a test drive. Any other suggestions for a smaller minivan?

Warren Brown: Hello, Hanover:

I had a good conversation with the Mazda folks in New York the other day. As you know, I previously had rated the Mazda5 as one of the most boring pieces in Mazda's zoom-zoom collection. Mazda officials, of course, argue that I am wrong. Maybe, they have a point. At any rate, I will take an updated look at the updated Mazda5 and report, again. Fair enough?

[coolmazda5]

^^ I think Warren has multiple personalities :D, his bills are way up so he needs to agree with everyone!

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/ksm/lowres/ksmn1304l.jpg