How common are Mazdas?

[jhu8]

Apparently either you cherry pick the posts you want to see, or you simply ignore the sequence of post in this thread and start doing personal attacks without any merit!

JSB33 posted the sales numbers on CX-5. I merely made a comment. Dr. Awkward then responded with one-month sales figure to prove my comment on low sales number "is pretty lame and just not true"! I then replied with 5-year sales figures for major compact CUVs to show CX-5 sales are indeed at the bottom of the list. So what's wrong with posting the most recent sales data and not the same data like you implied? Especially when other member presented wrong information?

It seems you feel you're the higher authority of this forum who can criticize any posts you don't like even if it's the fact, and set up rules to pick and choose what kind of information we can post! It's your own business if you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts. But the fact of matter is you have no authority to control what we can post in this forum, especially if it's the fact!

I think it's ridiculous by saying Mazda doesn't want to sell more CX-5's in the US!

When you're interviewing for a sales VP job, try to tell the head of Mazda North American Operations that those damn sales statistics that mean nothing and your goal is to keep the sales of CX-5 staying at the bottom of the list! If you'd get hired the sun will be rising from the West!

That's not the case at all. I have absolutely no problem with criticizing the cx5. I have made my complaints too because there are definitely areas that can and should be improved. So I'm not burying my head in the sand as you put it. You just fail to understand that Mazda isn't going to ever have the sales numbers of companies such as Honda, Toyota. They're a smaller company and they know that. Yet because there sales don't stack up to those larger companies, you think the CX5 and Mazda is a failure.

 

[yrwei52]

That's not the case at all. I have absolutely no problem with criticizing the cx5. I have made my complaints too because there are definitely areas that can and should be improved. So I'm not burying my head in the sand as you put it. You just fail to understand that Mazda isn't going to ever have the sales numbers of companies such as Honda, Toyota. They're a smaller company and they know that. Yet because there sales don't stack up to those larger companies, you think the CX5 and Mazda is a failure.

See, Dr. Awkward just posted that CX-5 is the top-selling compact CUV in Australia, how come you don't apply the same logic to his claim? Face it, the sales of CX-5 or Mazda in general in the US are not good. They're even behind the smaller auto makers such as Subaru! In Australia, CX-5 offers many features I've been complaining about not been offered here such as memory seat, glove compartment and courtesy lights, which would help the sales in addition to good handling. Diesel option also helps the sales down there.

 

[jhu8]

See, Dr. Awkward just posted that CX-5 is the top-selling compact CUV in Australia, how come you don't apply the same logic to his claim? Face it, the sales of CX-5 or Mazda in general in the US are not good. They're even behind the smaller auto makers such as Subaru! In Australia, CX-5 offers many features I've been complaining about not been offered here such as memory seat, glove compartment and courtesy lights, which would help the sales in addition to good handling. Diesel option also helps the sales down there.

First time I've seen it. I only commented on your post because I've seen that same chart far too many times from you. I agree with you though, it's a shame how much Mazda cuts out in the US version of the cx5. Do you think adding those things will increase the sales of the cx5? I honestly don't think so. I think its just the whole reliability aspect. People just go for the Hondas, Toyotas because they're proven. Whereas Mazda is not, especially since the split from ford. But I think they're working in the right direction. Also, isn't the cx5 really expensive in AUS?

But hey, maybe mazda is taking note. The cx5 sport version is suppose to have LED headlights. I believe a first for Mazda.

 

[yrwei52]

I'm not worried about being the top dog in Sales figures so long as the car manufacturer engineers quality vehicles with new innovation whilst maintaining sustainable profits to enable growth.

Quality vehicle with new innovation is useless if its safety rating is not the best or at least on par with industry's average. CX-5's NHTSA frontal crash rating dropped from 5 to 3 stars on passenger side for 2016 MY. I still haven't mentioned this to my wife as I persuaded her to get the CX-5 instead of a Lexus RX or NX. At time I assumed those crash ratings should be the same as 2015 MY. This is something Mazda screwed up big time as 3-star is below industry's average in the class as others get at least 4 stars!

 

[Unobtanium]

The last two posts explain Mazda's strategy since their uncoupling with Ford.
According to most auto journalists, US News, Consumer Reports, etc. they hit home runs with the Mazda 3, the CX 5, and the new CX 3.
The flagship CX 9 is already getting rave reviews and this trend should continue.
Especially when gas prices start going back up.

A huge reason I bought my CX-5. It may not be a "large SUV", but it's going to retain value like a MOTHER! being AWD, decent size SUV for a starter family, and running economically on 87 octane, having an auto transmission, and getting such good CR ratings and safety ratings. If I do choose to sell it in a few years (I likely won't, because of the above!), it should bring a premium return, especially if gas is $5-8 a gallon! I remember when gas first spiked in my time, back in 2004ish. New Prius could not be had. They were sold before they hit the lot. Old Prius was going for $3-5K over KBB, no matter how many miles/rough it was.

 

[Unobtanium]

Quality vehicle with new innovation is useless if its safety rating is not the best or at least on par with industry's average. CX-5's NHTSA frontal crash rating dropped from 5 to 3 stars on passenger side for 2016 MY. I still haven't mentioned this to my wife as I persuaded her to get the CX-5 instead of a Lexus RX or NX. At time I assumed those crash ratings should be the same as 2015 MY. This is something Mazda screwed up big time as 3-star is below industry's average in the class as others get at least 4 stars!

Glad I have a 2015. No funky LED lights that ice over. No transmissions that die. Better NAV. No crappy safety flaws. But that 9# of insulation and better front end...y'all can be happy with those things

 

[m8te]

Quality vehicle with new innovation is useless if its safety rating is not the best or at least on par with industry's average. CX-5's NHTSA frontal crash rating dropped from 5 to 3 stars on passenger side for 2016 MY. I still haven't mentioned this to my wife as I persuaded her to get the CX-5 instead of a Lexus RX or NX. At time I assumed those crash ratings should be the same as 2015 MY. This is something Mazda screwed up big time as 3-star is below industry's average in the class as others get at least 4 stars!

Here you go again, picking out something not perfect for this model. Well, in Australia we follow the ANCAP Safety rating which is based on European standards and I've not heard news of it dropping it's passenger safety rating. This just shows that different countries have different test criteria and different standards. Claiming a car is a failure due to your own specific arguments, ie. sales figures in the US and the passenger safety ratings in the US only is rather one-eyed.

The Mazda CX-5 had sold it's 1 millionth car worldwide since it's launch only over 3 years ago which is 2nd best in Mazda history and I doubt that it is viewed as a failure winning over 60 car awards worldwide. It is no Porsche Macan but it is without a doubt an excellent vehicle for the price you pay. It's strong resale value and countless positive automotive reviews and awards validates this. If you're not happy with it, sell it and go buy an equivalent rival just so you get your perfect US passenger safety rating but lose out on plenty of other factors that contribute to a car being an excellent package.

 

[Unobtanium]

Here you go again, picking out something not perfect for this model. Well, in Australia we follow the ANCAP Safety rating which is based on European standards and I've not heard news of it dropping it's passenger safety rating. This just shows that different countries have different test criteria and different standards. Claiming a car is a failure due to your own specific arguments, ie. sales figures in the US and the passenger safety ratings in the US only is rather one-eyed.

The Mazda CX-5 had sold it's 1 millionth car worldwide since it's launch only over 3 years ago which is 2nd best in Mazda history and I doubt that it is viewed as a failure winning over 60 car awards worldwide. It is no Porsche Macan but it is without a doubt an excellent vehicle for the price you pay. It's strong resale value and countless positive automotive reviews and awards validates this. If you're not happy with it, sell it and go buy an equivalent rival just so you get your perfect US passenger safety rating but lose out on plenty of other factors that contribute to a car being an excellent package.

Right. Here in America, it's safe to drink milk laced with rBGH, and it's safe to eat Farm Raised salmon. The fact that it's illegal in some other country doesn't indicate anything at all. It's a good decision! We follow AMERICAN FDA standards!

 

[m8te]

Right. Here in America, it's safe to drink milk laced with rBGH, and it's safe to eat Farm Raised salmon. The fact that it's illegal in some other country doesn't indicate anything at all. It's a good decision! We follow AMERICAN FDA standards!

In that case, the rest of the world should follow American Gun Laws too! Take your pick, choose to see it as a failed product from one country or success from the rest of the world. Unlike some, I prefer to view things from a worldwide perspective.

 

[Unobtanium]

In that case, the rest of the world should follow American Gun Laws too! Take your pick, choose to see it as a failed product from one country or success from the rest of the world. Unlike some, I prefer to view things from a worldwide perspective.

Some of America's gun laws make sense, some don't. I wish we would mix Europe's laws with ours so silencers (mufflers, suppressors) would be easily purchasable as safety devices that they are. I feel for you all in AUS, though. Gotta be a farmer, and then it's some bolt gun or something, with written permission, etc. etc. etc. At least, that's what I understand?

 

[m8te]

Some of America's gun laws make sense, some don't. I wish we would mix Europe's laws with ours so silencers (mufflers, suppressors) would be easily purchasable as safety devices that they are. I feel for you all in AUS, though. Gotta be a farmer, and then it's some bolt gun or something, with written permission, etc. etc. etc. At least, that's what I understand?

Haha. No no it's not like that. You don't need to be a farmer to get a gun license. You can obtain by being a member of a club or for hunting etc. just that we don't have as much choice when it comes to purchasing the types of guns.

 

[yrwei52]

Here you go again, picking out something not perfect for this model. Well, in Australia we follow the ANCAP Safety rating which is based on European standards and I've not heard news of it dropping it's passenger safety rating. This just shows that different countries have different test criteria and different standards. Claiming a car is a failure due to your own specific arguments, ie. sales figures in the US and the passenger safety ratings in the US only is rather one-eyed.

Nothing wrong with car owners looking for safer vehicles! Although NHSTA crash standard may be different from Australian ANCAP crash standard, but one would like to see a vehicle which can survive different crash standards better. In real-world car crashes they're even harder to predict the result due to so many factors. A vehicle will be safer if it can score good on any different crash ratings, not just doing good for one rating but poor on the other. This almost makes me think the same issue on CX-5 for EPA's fuel economy estimates. CX-5 seems only programmed for good performance to preset EPA test cycle, hence having disappointed gas mileage in the real-world environment, especially the AWD on the highway. Mazda itself had admitted this on AWD CX-5 and stated they'd modified 2016 CX-5 AWD system to improve real-world fuel efficiency in the press release.

You also seem to believe CX-5 is a perfect compact CUV and pointing out poor NHTSA crash rating is nitpicking! I only presented the facts and let people be the judge. I'd never said Mazda CX-5 is a failed product so don't put your words into my mouth and urge me to sell the car! Kind to think about it, if I told my wife the downgraded NHTSA passenger crash rating on her CX-5, she may really want to sell it and get a Lexus!

There's no news for this downgrade and I learned it from a potential CX-5 buyer posting this question here. May be your ANCAP hasn't truly tested a 2016 CX-5 and uses data from previous MY. Of course I believe you guys in Australia don't have a recall on fuel filler pipe which may leak fuel during rear-end crash found by NHTSA. Although your ANCAP haven't found the same issue, but would you want to fix that problem so that your CX-5 is safer?

This has been very strange experience that certain people here simply can't take any criticisms against CX-5 or Mazda in general even if they're the facts! We should urge Mazda to improve the products especially in the area of safety related, not try to argue with those who presented the facts!

 

[Unobtanium]

Haha. No no it's not like that. You don't need to be a farmer to get a gun license. You can obtain by being a member of a club or for hunting etc. just that we don't have as much choice when it comes to purchasing the types of guns.

I still think that sounds terrible. Is it like some places, where the firearm must be kept at the club, etc?

 

[daonly1around]

usually if you buy a Mazda once, you will buy them again. I've owned 4, my brother is on his second. But overall they are not popular even though their reviews are best in class a lot of the time, but when people look at mid size sedans and compact cars as disposable as cell phones, lease every three years, people will go with a low lease payment over a quality car. I would never lease a 6 over a camry, but would never buy a camry over a 6

 

[velcrodog]

usually if you buy a Mazda once, you will buy them again. I've owned 4, my brother is on his second. But overall they are not popular even though their reviews are best in class a lot of the time, but when people look at mid size sedans and compact cars as disposable as cell phones, lease every three years, people will go with a low lease payment over a quality car. I would never lease a 6 over a camry, but would never buy a camry over a 6

For us it was a little more complicated than that. We had a 2006 Mazda 3 that suffered some serious rust problems and really did make us look at other brands because of this. While we realized that every brand has its share of problems watching a car rust uncontrollably is difficult to come to terms with when it comes time to replace it. Based off this experience we decided to lease our CX 5 until Mazda rather than purchase because I just wasn't prepared to accept that they had solved the rusting issue. Sure those thoughts might be unjust but that thinking ultimately kept us in a Mazda.

 

[m8te]

Nothing wrong with car owners looking for safer vehicles! Although NHSTA crash standard may be different from Australian ANCAP crash standard, but one would like to see a vehicle which can survive different crash standards better. In real-world car crashes they're even harder to predict the result due to so many factors. A vehicle will be safer if it can score good on any different crash ratings, not just doing good for one rating but poor on the other. This almost makes me think the same issue on CX-5 for EPA's fuel economy estimates. CX-5 seems only programmed for good performance to preset EPA test cycle, hence having disappointed gas mileage in the real-world environment, especially the AWD on the highway. Mazda itself had admitted this on AWD CX-5 and stated they'd modified 2016 CX-5 AWD system to improve real-world fuel efficiency in the press release.

You also seem to believe CX-5 is a perfect compact CUV and pointing out poor NHTSA crash rating is nitpicking! I only presented the facts and let people be the judge. I'd never said Mazda CX-5 is a failed product so don't put your words into my mouth and urge me to sell the car! Kind to think about it, if I told my wife the downgraded NHTSA passenger crash rating on her CX-5, she may really want to sell it and get a Lexus!

There's no news for this downgrade and I learned it from a potential CX-5 buyer posting this question here. May be your ANCAP hasn't truly tested a 2016 CX-5 and uses data from previous MY. Of course I believe you guys in Australia don't have a recall on fuel filler pipe which may leak fuel during rear-end crash found by NHTSA. Although your ANCAP haven't found the same issue, but would you want to fix that problem so that your CX-5 is safer?

This has been very strange experience that certain people here simply can't take any criticisms against CX-5 or Mazda in general even if they're the facts! We should urge Mazda to improve the products especially in the area of safety related, not try to argue with those who presented the facts!

Dude, I never said the CX-5 was a perfect compact CUV, far from it. Didn't I say it was no Porsche Macan hence I'm sure there are plenty of improvements to be had. I just don't believe your suggestion and criticism of the CX-5 has anything to do with the underwhelming sales figures in the US as you mentioned of. Mazda is just not a strong seller in the US for whatever reason they may be. As for the rated fuel economy figures, tell me one car that can match their claimed fuel consumption figures? I don't think Mazda lied about it like Mitsubishi.

 

[ALafya]

Nothing wrong with car owners looking for safer vehicles! Although NHSTA crash standard may be different from Australian ANCAP crash standard, but one would like to see a vehicle which can survive different crash standards better. In real-world car crashes they're even harder to predict the result due to so many factors. A vehicle will be safer if it can score good on any different crash ratings, not just doing good for one rating but poor on the other. This almost makes me think the same issue on CX-5 for EPA's fuel economy estimates. CX-5 seems only programmed for good performance to preset EPA test cycle, hence having disappointed gas mileage in the real-world environment, especially the AWD on the highway. Mazda itself had admitted this on AWD CX-5 and stated they'd modified 2016 CX-5 AWD system to improve real-world fuel efficiency in the press release.

You also seem to believe CX-5 is a perfect compact CUV and pointing out poor NHTSA crash rating is nitpicking! I only presented the facts and let people be the judge. I'd never said Mazda CX-5 is a failed product so don't put your words into my mouth and urge me to sell the car! Kind to think about it, if I told my wife the downgraded NHTSA passenger crash rating on her CX-5, she may really want to sell it and get a Lexus!

There's no news for this downgrade and I learned it from a potential CX-5 buyer posting this question here. May be your ANCAP hasn't truly tested a 2016 CX-5 and uses data from previous MY. Of course I believe you guys in Australia don't have a recall on fuel filler pipe which may leak fuel during rear-end crash found by NHTSA. Although your ANCAP haven't found the same issue, but would you want to fix that problem so that your CX-5 is safer?

This has been very strange experience that certain people here simply can't take any criticisms against CX-5 or Mazda in general even if they're the facts! We should urge Mazda to improve the products especially in the area of safety related, not try to argue with those who presented the facts!

I think that people don't object to hearing facts. However:
1. You add your own interpretation to said facts. For example, your theory that Mazda made the CX-5 to work well only for the EPA test, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from real drivers.

2. Repetition of negative comments. Dude, we heard you the first time, keep repetition to a minimum, it is tiresome.

 

[ALafya]

People in the US buy more domestic pickups, Toyotas and Hondas for variety of reasons.
Some are logical: reliability & resale value (Toyota & Honda). Some are not. I know people that drive a pickup because that's what they are used to, even if they don't need one. People were gobbling the seriously inferior Corolla for years. They could have bought a better Civic for a similar resale value and reliability.
People also think that if a previous gen model was reliable, than a newer gen will be too. For example, Subaru has made a name for itself for being reliable for 20 years, essentially by selling the same engine and transmission for decades. When they came out with a new engine and transmission, people gave them credit as if some guarantee existed it will be as reliable. Sure enough, people started experiencing oil consumption, but even when this became known, people still flocked to buy Subaru because "it's reliable".
Couple this with superior production capacity for large brands along with a larger dealership network and ability to reduce prices and make money on volume, small companies will struggle to compete. In fact, some see small companies like Mazda disappearing from the landscape altogether, even with superior products.

 

[m8te]

You also seem to believe CX-5 is a perfect compact CUV and pointing out poor NHTSA crash rating is nitpicking! I only presented the facts and let people be the judge. I'd never said Mazda CX-5 is a failed product so don't put your words into my mouth and urge me to sell the car! Kind to think about it, if I told my wife the downgraded NHTSA passenger crash rating on her CX-5, she may really want to sell it and get a Lexus!

If your wife decides to buy a Lexus, here is an interesting comparison review of the 2 cars for some light reading. If the main criteria for you in choosing a vehicle is a high crash rating of the passenger front, then it shouldn't be too hard to find an alternative. I respect your own criteria but I doubt many buyers are going to go to the NHTSA website to do their own research on specific compartment crash rating before choosing the vehicle to buy. This has nothing to do with the popularity of Mazda in your country which this thread was all about. Many many factors are considered in choosing a vehicle, everyone is different I guess.

 

[Unobtanium]

Went to supper with a pharm D that has an Acura RDX. Did not drive or ride around in it, but the difference in quality was absurdly apparent looking and listening. If his wife wants a Lexus, I bet the Mazda is off the table unless amenities and "touch quality" don't matter to her, which would be odd, or unless budget matters more.