Mazda5 on PBS' Motorweek... [Archive]

mrbwa1

06-05-2009, 08:51 PM

Nice to finally see an updated review of the 5 from MW. Now, I have to say, that they just plain never meet a car they can't say something nice about.

That said, I have read the previous review and they do seem to like the 5.

I also have to admit I have watched a lot of MW over the years and watching the 5 carve the cones really shows the virtues of the Mazda suspension setup. In addition, the emergence lane change/swerve thing was pretty impressive, though there was a bit of tail wag. Most likely that was mainly due to the snow tires on the rig though. They looked to be the older Blizzaks which are similar the the Yokohama IG-10s I have on me Toyota Echo. This design seems to add bit of um "unpredictability" to emergency handling. I can confirm due to an incident where I had to perform a similar swerve at freeway speed that led to a violent series of fish tails. (another thread, but I probably won't buy that type of winter tire again because of that incident).

But I digress...

The 5 really can handle! In fact, I haven't really had much change to push it as it is the family hauler, but it has been a blast to go fast (around corners)

Heat

06-06-2009, 03:33 AM

"...Interior materials are of solid quality..."

This is incorrect - I've never seen such cheap plastic on a car before. Try rubbing your fingernail over your glovebox, you can leave a scratch it - I know, I did it while trying to rub out another scratch that happened because I dropped a soft-sided cooler into the passenger floorboard, the zipper rubbed (just rubbed) against the glovebox leaving a deep and permanent groove.

Maybe a scratch isn't noticible on black glove boxes, but on the sand (tan) colored ones it really sticks out. This is why I don't recommend the sand interior which I have - it's much too easy to get dirty (it's way too light) and the tan colored plastic trim is really cheap.

The interior quality is a big negative in my book, as are the rear tire issues but like I've said before the Mazda5 is all about compromise and overall I still like it. Lots of pros compared to a few cons.

Back to the video - nice handling scenes! Let's see a "full size" minivan do those moves! On the sharp curves the rear tires are vertical - I wonder if that's why they have so much tilt (camber)?

red headz

06-06-2009, 06:13 PM

"...Interior materials are of solid quality..."

This is incorrect...

I would agree. Interior is not of high quality, but this is an entry level 'mini-van' or space wagon as my kids call it.

No power doors, power liftgate or high quality anything... but it's a great family hauler and for the money spent - it's worth it. Small children can ruin a $35K Honda Odyssey or they can ruin a $20K Mazda5.

You pay for what you get, and I'm content with the Mazda5. I'll make a few upgrades, but for the most part - we are very happy with our purchase.

Rockin03mp5

06-06-2009, 08:56 PM

have you guys been in a chryster? they cost a lot more and their interiors are crap!

this stuff is strange, yes, but fit and finish is great.

coolmazda5

06-07-2009, 07:01 AM

this stuff is strange, yes, but fit and finish is great.

+1, Of course is not the best quality plastic (looks platicky, specially the Sports) but the design and finish seem better than many of the rentals I've driven, and that is including all brands and models, like a Nissan Altima and a Toyota Sienna.

Heat

06-07-2009, 04:20 PM

I would agree. Interior is not of high quality, but this is an entry level 'mini-van' or space wagon as my kids call it...
True - I only paid $16,500 for my Sport with 3 years 0% financing. That's why I call the Mazda5 the great compromise - great design layout, good gas mileage, relatively fun to drive, but really cheap interior plastic, wheel issues, and expensive keys. Overall though, for the price, it is a very good car. But the interior plastic is pathetic.

+1, Of course is not the best quality plastic (looks platicky, specially the Sports)...
Wait a second, Mazda used a lower quality plastic for the Sports, or do the Sports just have more of the plastic?

x10dude

06-07-2009, 04:50 PM

True - I only paid $16,500 for my Sport with 3 years 0% financing. That's why I call the Mazda5 the great compromise - great design layout, good gas mileage, relatively fun to drive, but really cheap interior plastic, wheel issues, and expensive keys. Overall though, for the price, it is a very good car. But the interior plastic is pathetic.

Wait a second, Mazda used a lower quality plastic for the Sports, or do the Sports just have more of the plastic?

I think it is the same. It comes down to subjective taste. Some think it looks fine, some don't

coolmazda5

06-07-2009, 07:50 PM

Wait a second, Mazda used a lower quality plastic for the Sports, or do the Sports just have more of the plastic?

Same plastic, but no leather shift knob nor leather steering wheel. Also, they don't have the metal gray plastic trims on the door handles (inside), they are just plain black (which I actually like better BTW :))

But as somebody mentioned earlier, just look at the price of a Sienna. Last time I parked next to one which still had the dealer window sticker, my wife laughed and said: "hey you can buy 2 of these for the price of one of those, and these ones look better" :D

morethan5

06-07-2009, 11:12 PM

But as somebody mentioned earlier, just look at the price of a Sienna. Last time I parked next to one which still had the dealer window sticker, my wife laughed and said: "hey you can buy 2 of these for the price of one of those, and these ones look better" :D

Fortunately, not all Siennas are that expensive. In the US, the price difference between a base Sienna and a base 5 is about $6k. This drops to $5k if you opt for the automatic transmission in the 5.

As for build quality -- initially, I really thought Mazda did a nice job. After 15 months of ownership, I'd say that I've never driven a car that had more annoying noises (squeaks, creaks and crunches) than the 5 -- not even a 15 year old Chevy Blazer. Even a worn-out pinion bearing in that truck (at 197,000 miles) caused less vibration than the 5 has with "balanced" factory tires @ 50 mph.

coolmazda5

06-07-2009, 11:28 PM

Fortunately, not all Siennas are that expensive. In the US, the price difference between a base Sienna and a base 5 is about $6k. This drops to $5k if you opt for the automatic transmission in the 5.

As for build quality -- initially, I really thought Mazda did a nice job. After 15 months of ownership, I'd say that I've never driven a car that had more annoying noises (squeaks, creaks and crunches) than the 5 -- not even a 15 year old Chevy Blazer. Even a worn-out pinion bearing in that truck (at 197,000 miles) caused less vibration than the 5 has with "balanced" factory tires @ 50 mph.

I actually rented a Sienna, check the report, it was OK, but not really a wow thing:
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123688195

Yeah, as per the squeaks, my 06 started to have them intermittently and corrected under the TSB, not brought back (yet, almost 4 years ownership).

The 06 vibration is virtually gone with the new tires (old tires started to give it some). The 08 only has vibration under very cold weather when tires are very cold), and that one does not squeak. My old Civic, decent interior finish, but that thing's suspension squeaked like there was no tomorrow...

offset_98

06-07-2009, 11:33 PM

Eeegads! I didn't realize it was so slow! I thought it was a 9 second 0-60 / 16.4 second 1/4 miler.

morethan5

06-08-2009, 12:05 AM

I actually rented a Sienna, check the report, it was OK, but not really a wow thing:
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123688195.

Your review is reasonable, however, I get considerably better mileage than you reported.

I routinely average (in my 2007 Sienna) >25 mpg over 2500-3500 mile family trips, that inevitably include 2-4 hours of stop-n-go in large cities. At 60 mph I easily get 27 mpg. In town, I get closer to 20 mpg. On my last trip, with a medium size tent trailer (2000 lbs.), I averaged 20 mpg over 350 miles (the wind wasn't hurting me that time).

For comparison, I generally get 28-31 mpg, in mixed suburban/city driving, with my 2008 5. The best I've gotten is 34 and change -- it's only been on one highway trip (which was <300 miles long).

morethan5

06-08-2009, 12:08 AM

Eeegads! I didn't realize it was so slow! I thought it was a 9 second 0-60 / 16.4 second 1/4 miler.

Of course, compared to a Sienna, 9 seconds is still really slow.

VenomDesign

06-08-2009, 01:07 AM

Don't forget that they were on the winter tires and with a automatic tranny. :( The driver did push the 5 at the limit in cornering ;)

DKaz

06-08-2009, 01:34 AM

I'm going to find somewhere safe to do a 1/4 mile with Dynolicious on my 5 speed 5. Or just go to street legal track days. I believe the 5 speed should do 0-60 in 8.1 seconds and 1/4 mile in 16... same as the Sienna.

x10dude

06-08-2009, 02:05 AM

Eeegads! I didn't realize it was so slow! I thought it was a 9 second 0-60 / 16.4 second 1/4 miler.

Most people don't realize how slow the Mazda5 is in straight acceleration. It barely beats the Prius for goodness sake.

However, for most normal driving it is somewhat hidden by the decent handling... except of course if trying to pass someone at freeway speeds is your normal driving.

mazdadude

06-08-2009, 02:19 AM

True, the 0-60 time sounds disappointing, however one has to only watch the Japan video of the Honda and Mazda vans racing on the track to realize how much more ability the Mazda5 has when it comes to maintaining momentum around curves.

I have lost count, the number of times I have watched tailgaters struggle with car control when they realize they can't take curves or the freeway on-ramp/off-ramp at the same speed as me.:D

I also fully utilize the manual shift mode of the automatic about 50% of the time.

morethan5

06-08-2009, 08:12 AM

I believe the 5 speed should do 0-60 in 8.1 seconds and 1/4 mile in 16... same as the Sienna.

The Sienna isn't exactly a comparable vehicle to the 5, but a 2007+ Sienna is considerably faster than that (0-60 time).

Sienna FWD 7.2 sec / 15.7 sec / 0.76g
Sienna AWD 7.4 sec / 15.8 sec / 0.74g (winter tires for all)
Mazda 5 9.4 sec / 17.3 sec / 0.80g

Sienna FWD
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/vans/2007_hyundai_entourage_vs_2007_nissan_quest_2008_d odge_grand_caravan_2007_toyota_sienna_2007_honda_o dyssey_comparison_test+page-5.html

Sienna AWD with winter tires
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/suvs_family_haulers/2009_toyota_sienna_limited_awd_short_take_road_tes t

Car and Driver earlier published 0-60 times as low as 6.7 sec for the Sienna FWD -- which is possible if manually shifted. The biggest challenge is keeping the tires from letting go -- which do let go in 1 and 2 with no problem, and 3 if shifted late, from 2.

Mazda 5
http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/mazda/mazda_5/2008_mazda_5/2008_mazda_5_grand_touring_short_take_road_test+t-specs+page-2.html

I'm not sure that the manual 5 speed is going to be much, if any, faster than the auto 5 speed. A torque converter isn't a bad thing, for acceleration, if it keeps the engine at a higher rpm during the event. The biggest penalty is going to be weight. If the auto is shifted manually, the times are going to be pretty close.

Kojack

06-10-2009, 09:07 AM

I love our 5. i bought it 2 years ago on a 5 year finance. love it so much we paid off the loan and plan on keeping it until it dies. i have never owned a car that i said that about before, and I had vw's, caddilac, merc, etc...

this thing is that cool, and fun!

coolmazda5

06-10-2009, 10:57 AM

The Sienna isn't exactly a comparable vehicle to the 5, but a 2007+ Sienna is considerably faster than that (0-60 time).

Sienna FWD 7.2 sec / 15.7 sec / 0.76g
Mazda 5 9.4 sec / 17.3 sec / 0.80g

I'm not sure that the manual 5 speed is going to be much, if any, faster than the auto 5 speed.

Not that my wife and I are going to race a Sienna soccer mom out of Target or Home Depot parking lot, but here are the numbers for the manual tranny model, I do see a difference:

Engine 2.3 I-4
Transmission 5-Spd Manual
Drive System fwd
Acceleration, 0-60 MPH: 8.53
Quarter Mile 16.59@84.56

Source:
http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehicleReport/vehicle_nmb/17149/section/specs/type/used/2006/Mazda/Mazda5

And not to create an anti-Sienna thread here (for a family with 3 kids I would really think about it, along with an Odyssey), but take a look at the most basic Sienna (CE, hubcaps included ;)) specs so to make it a fair comparison with what you pay for a Mazda5:

http://www.toyota.com/sienna/features.html

Rockin03mp5

06-10-2009, 11:14 AM

this is a mazda forum... so i think we can be biased a little

DKaz

06-10-2009, 11:40 AM

Manual rules! :D I'm still going to take my 5 to a dragstrip when I have money to waste and see what I get, I still remember seeing a manual 5 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. It doesn't really matter anyway -- great handling = not having to slow down on corners = no need to accelerate = Mazda 5 wins!

mazdadude

06-10-2009, 05:15 PM

Wow, I did not figure the 5speed vs. Auto numbers were that big of a difference. That is the first published figures I have seen for Manual Trans.

No wonder you 5spd guys rave about the 5spd so much!

I would like to see a 5spd vs Automatic vs Auto in Manual shift mode test.

DKaz

06-10-2009, 05:41 PM

Yah.. the torque convertor still robs quite a bit of power.

Put in a DSG Automatic Transmission however (aka Twin Clutch, no Torque Convertor, shifts in milliseconds) that the Nissan GT-R, VWs/Audis, and Mitsubishi Lancer EVO/Ralliart has. There is a discussion of whether the DSG is the final blow to the manual transmission or just a better alternative to the torque converter automatic transmission. I have yet to drive a DSG but from what I hear from my stick shift buddies, they're absolutely blown away by its performance, though there's still no way we're giving up the clutch pedal.