I'm quite tall (6'-04") and I notice a HUGE difference in the way it fits my body compared to any sedan or hatchback I've been in. I can't speak to that, as I'm 5'10.5", but I know 'vette and viper guys that would make you feel short that get along just fine.The CX-5 is, to me, like a car is to someone who is 5'-08". Even a big sedan with good ground clearance like my Volvo S80 T6 feels real low when I get in/out and I have to watch my head to avoid banging it on the roofline, no chance of that with the CX-5! Bicycles come in sizes to fit your body and so do cars!
At 6'4", I'd not really think it such a big deal, honestly. My Grandpa was your height, and drove all sorts of things from a truck to a grand torino to whatever they had in the 40's. Buggies? (LOL)
Other advantages I notice:
Better MPG, especially in city traffic. Hwy MPG still beats the Volvo by a good margin (33-34 MPG HWY vs. 28-30 MPG for the Volvo). The Volvo is FWD and aerodynamic and it still can't match the efficiency built into the CX-5. Honda Accord is pretty darn frugal...I get that the CX-5 has more cargo room, but you can't FIT anything in it. At least, nothing I carry around or travel with. That frustrated me pretty good, realizing that even though I have more space, I dont have enough space for any "big items", if that makes sense. It's like, you can haul a LOT of groceries in the CX-5. But that's about it. No ply-wood, no boards, no multiple dog crates, nothing like that. It's juuuussst out of "no-man's land" in that area, where a few people will need it, but most just THINK they need it, and many need way more, or can do just fine with a car.
More trunk space for large items like pressure washers, outdoor packs/gear, large multi-day coolers, chairs, work benches, BBQ's, lamps, etc, etc. etc. This is a huge difference for me. The Volvo has a huge trunk for a sedan and the rear seats are 40/20/40 but it is more difficult to load bulky/heavy items due to the lower trunk lip and much less height. In the CX-5 bulky/heavy items go straight in. That's a consideration I have not...considered. I consider lifting heavy things fun, but I realize that for people who don't, this is a legit thing.
High speed handling goes to the Volvo by a small margin but the CX-5 feels more sporty, gives better driver feedback on icy roads and is more nimble on the types of roads I use the most. It dodges potholes better and soaks up bigger bumps on roads in poor condition better. The "fun" award goes to the Mazda. It is pretty nimble for an SUV, even though I really consider it more of a car like the Subaru Impreza, considering they are similar in size, interior-wise, just googling "Cargo volume" of each, with a slight edge to the CX-5. That's kindof what I mean, it only has about 10 cubic feet more space.
Parking. The CX-5 is very easy to park in tight spaces vs. a car of comparable useable interior volume. Is it? I think that's perception. For example, my Z06 was smaller than my 370Z, but it felt HUGE in comparison. Maybe that's perception due to the CX5's seating position and short hood.
I still like sedans for long trips without bulky cargo but a CUV like the CX-5 has a lot more going for it vs. a car than just more ground clearance!
