I Know that I am posting this in the first gen Mazda 5 forum, so it may be a little biased. Which generation do you prefer and what are the pro's and con's of each. It would be nice to hear from those who have owned both or at least driven both. It also would be nice to get some input on more than just the obvious exterior design change. Is the interior design better in the 2012?, is there a noticeable difference in power from the 2.3 to the 2.5 mzr engine? Is the stock handling in the 2012 better than the stock in the previous generation? Should one just wait the 2 or 3 more years it will take for sky-activ to reach the 5?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pro's and Con's of the first gen Mazda 5 vs second gen Mazda 5
- Thread starter cburrell
- Start date
I had a 2012 as a rental for a week. Here is my personal opinion.
Pros:
Better driver seat
Quieter
Better acceleration and power
Cons:
Ugly nagare body lines
Ugly Frankenstein looking rear end
Dopey smiley face front end
Dash feels to big and heavy decreasing front visibility
Other then that it pretty much drives and handles the same way. Best thing to do is for you to rent a 2012 for about a week and try it out. If you're lucky you may also find a 2010 up for rent too.
Pros:
Better driver seat
Quieter
Better acceleration and power
Cons:
Ugly nagare body lines
Ugly Frankenstein looking rear end
Dopey smiley face front end
Dash feels to big and heavy decreasing front visibility
Other then that it pretty much drives and handles the same way. Best thing to do is for you to rent a 2012 for about a week and try it out. If you're lucky you may also find a 2010 up for rent too.
I have a 2010, they are just offering great deals right now on the 2012's and my 2010 has a pretty high resale value right now, so it was making me wonder. I agree with the Nagare design language, especially the front fascia, that is most peoples complaints. I know the hp is increased by 14 hp, and supposedly they beefed up the suspension. I was just wondering how much of a difference the changes made, or if I should just wait the 2 or 3 years until sky-activ tickles down to the 5.
Yeah, 4 more horse is nothing to write home about, and i do plan on upgrading the suspension. It would suck to get a 2012, and then a few years later the sky-activ comes to the 5, which will bring so much more to the table, maybe even a design change to the Kodo language that is on the CX-5 and the upcoming 2014 Mazda 6. Davicho, how is it in San Bernardino with the budgets short falls? Saw it on the news about the city facing chapter 11 because of spending crazy public officials and over inflated wages and benefits negotiated by the public labor unions. Is it really that bad?
Cburrel, I haven't seen or felt any of the consequences that follows a chapter11 filing within the city however I know it is just a matter of time. Luckily I am currently renting and we plan to move out by the end of the year. Although...now that you mention it, I have seen downtown pretty lonely.
phunky.buddha
Booga Booga?
- :
- DFW TX
- :
- No mo MZ5 want MX5
Pro:
Larger engine, more torque throughout rev range
6 speed manual available (I want to find one cheap and swap it into my 09)
More refined interior
Cons:
Ugly
More expensive than a used 1G
Ugly
Ugly
Larger engine, more torque throughout rev range
6 speed manual available (I want to find one cheap and swap it into my 09)
More refined interior
Cons:
Ugly
More expensive than a used 1G
Ugly
Ugly
- :
- 2008 Mazda5 GT
I would not trade-up for ’12+ model. It is only a financial loss and those who do like to keep up with the Joneses –or to stay within factory warranty. If you are looking at the manual (6 sp) AND commute a lot of HWY miles, then it may make a little sense for the sake of less NVH and possibly better MPG return for HWY travel but if you are not using the 6th gear, you’ll more than likely consume more gas as is the typical case when engines get bored out larger and larger for the sake of power (no free lunch).
Mazda has already announced the Sky-G WILL be the base engine and it makes sense that it will replace all existing MZR (a living dinosaur). The question is will Mazda phase it in sooner (when the Mz5 is due for a MCR refresh), which should be next year of the following. IMO, it is unlikely they will kill off the Nagare in time for MCR and they will have to stick with it till end of the life cycle for 2nd gen, so another 2-3 years wait for the 3rd gen and we should see a much better looking Kodo inspired Mz5 with a much more competitive SKY powertrain.
I waited for the ’12 to come out before I decided on my ’08. My conclusion, the miniscule gains of the +’12 + the benefits of the <’10 does not offset the added expense. Most importantly, the ’12 still looks like it was hit too many times with an ugly stick that only a mother can love.
Mazda has already announced the Sky-G WILL be the base engine and it makes sense that it will replace all existing MZR (a living dinosaur). The question is will Mazda phase it in sooner (when the Mz5 is due for a MCR refresh), which should be next year of the following. IMO, it is unlikely they will kill off the Nagare in time for MCR and they will have to stick with it till end of the life cycle for 2nd gen, so another 2-3 years wait for the 3rd gen and we should see a much better looking Kodo inspired Mz5 with a much more competitive SKY powertrain.
I waited for the ’12 to come out before I decided on my ’08. My conclusion, the miniscule gains of the +’12 + the benefits of the <’10 does not offset the added expense. Most importantly, the ’12 still looks like it was hit too many times with an ugly stick that only a mother can love.
Yeah, it seems like the 5 is on the back burner for sky-activ because it isn't a top-seller. I hope when they do, they make the diesel available, but to be honest even the sky-g engine that can get 35 mpg on the highway with the 5 would be impressive, because I don't see the bloated Sienna or Odyssey getting any smaller and yielding those kind of mpg's. That in and of itself may help the 5 sell better in the U.S., because everyone likes to quote that the 2012 Odyssey gets 28mpg's on the highway, but what they don't mention is that you have to spend almost 40 grand to get the high efficiency model that offers 28 mpg's.
Davicho- thanks for the reply, I just thought I would get the scope from someone that actually lived there, you now how the news can over dramatize things.
Davicho- thanks for the reply, I just thought I would get the scope from someone that actually lived there, you now how the news can over dramatize things.
Yeah, it seems like the 5 is on the back burner for sky-activ because it isn't a top-seller. I hope when they do, they make the diesel available, but to be honest even the sky-g engine that can get 35 mpg on the highway with the 5 would be impressive, because I don't see the bloated Sienna or Odyssey getting any smaller and yielding those kind of mpg's. That in and of itself may help the 5 sell better in the U.S., because everyone likes to quote that the 2012 Odyssey gets 28mpg's on the highway, but what they don't mention is that you have to spend almost 40 grand to get the high efficiency model that offers 28 mpg's.Davicho- thanks for the reply, I just thought I would get the scope from someone that actually lived there, you now how the news can over dramatize things.
Nobody gets that kind of mpgs in the Odyssey - even WITH the VCD. I think the best you can expect is 25 mpg hwy (16 city GULP!)
I just did a fueleconomy.gov compro looking for a 6+ seater that will return anything close to the Mz5 & the short list is: 4-banger Journey: 18+ city/25 hwy, Colorado/Canyon truck w/2 bench seats: 18/23, 4-banger Sierra. All options have some serious negatives, esp since none get better than 20% less city mpgs than my 5MT. Dragging around 4200 lbs with a 2.7L in the Sierra has to be an experience best equated to driving a 1976 Microbus.
I agree that the Odyssey numbers are inflated in real world driving, but some how they got the E.P.A rating of 28 highway mpg's for that model. I still don't know how they did that. I just know a lot of people who aren't willing to sacrifice the space that the Sienna or the Odyssey offers for 3 or 4 more mpg's. My mom straight up told me she wouldn't trade in her 05 Sienna which does get 25 mpg's on the highway for a 5 because she wouldn't trade all the extra space for 3 to 5 mpg's more. Sad reality is that people are willing to pay a little more in gas for more space. A 3 to 5 mpg's difference on the highway isn't that much of a difference for a lot of people who want the room, but if the 5 with sky-g could get 35-38 highway mpg's, then the pay off in gas to space ratio would be very compelling for potential buyers. I am not saying I agree with the rationale, but that is what everyone I know who has a Sienna's or Odyssey tells me when I tell them my 5 is practical and gets better gas mileage than their huge vans. Of course, they always seem to gloss over the fact that in city driving that the 5 averages in the mid to lower 20's for mpg, when most of their vans average 16 or 17 mpg's.
Nail on Head, cburrell. But, at the same time, people just simply do not think practically when it comes to transportation. they will use coupons, argue with their utility providers and drive 2 miles to save $.03/gallon gas, but never put it together that if they drive 12,000 mi annually (conservative in today's world) that they could save 91 gallons of gas annually, or $324 at $3.60/gal. And the numbers go up dramatically when the miles either increase or the driving conditions switch from hwy/suburban to city/stoplights. All in all, its safe to say that an Odyssey or Sienna will cost $400 more to operate in gas alone, or $2000 over 5 years. If you are going to throw away $2000 over 5 years, you might as well get a Dodge Caravan and lose it in resale value.
The 6 of us fit comfortably in our Mz5, although I would hesitate to stuff us all in it for a road trip. We've taken it on 60 mile round trips to the other side of town to visit the grandparents & 160 mile round trips to visit the other grandparents. When there were 5 of us, we took it 500 mi round trips as well, but the 5MT's tall gearing got us seeking alternatives that were better on mpgs up near 80 mph.
This is an arrogant criticism of our modern society, so if anyone gets offended, I apologize in advance: I think we have become so incredibly detached from our families thanks to modern electronics that we can no longer stand to be around them. Hence the "mini"van or full-size SUV for 2-child households. Those few times I end up in a fast food drive thru, I am often behind one of the above, and even tho its merely a few mi btw starting and stopping destinations where I live, I see the LCD screen on, so that Mom won't be annoyed by the constant demand for attention from her offspring. Really, we can't even let our kids go 10 minutes without being diverted by a TV screen? They get the big family wagon so they can stuff their kids as far away from the front as possible. I find that to be pretty sad.
The 6 of us fit comfortably in our Mz5, although I would hesitate to stuff us all in it for a road trip. We've taken it on 60 mile round trips to the other side of town to visit the grandparents & 160 mile round trips to visit the other grandparents. When there were 5 of us, we took it 500 mi round trips as well, but the 5MT's tall gearing got us seeking alternatives that were better on mpgs up near 80 mph.
This is an arrogant criticism of our modern society, so if anyone gets offended, I apologize in advance: I think we have become so incredibly detached from our families thanks to modern electronics that we can no longer stand to be around them. Hence the "mini"van or full-size SUV for 2-child households. Those few times I end up in a fast food drive thru, I am often behind one of the above, and even tho its merely a few mi btw starting and stopping destinations where I live, I see the LCD screen on, so that Mom won't be annoyed by the constant demand for attention from her offspring. Really, we can't even let our kids go 10 minutes without being diverted by a TV screen? They get the big family wagon so they can stuff their kids as far away from the front as possible. I find that to be pretty sad.
Perhaps just a touch off-topic... but can you really call the 2012 a "next gen" product? I mean, the core platform is essentially unchanged. Sure, it's got a mostly new skin, new engine options, and a few technical improvements, but the base architecture is essentially the same. Same roof-line, same wheelbase, same width. Am I missing something? Typically a "next gen" would mean a complete platform change.
Yes, that is a opinion, but it isn't an unfounded one. Most of the people I know would be lost and not know what to do if they had to go a week without their TV's, cellphones, and movies. At work our company just enforced a rule that bans us from using our cell phones at work because everyone was playing on them instead of working. My co-workers have acted like they are going to die. One coworker made a good point : What did you guys do before cell-phones became mainstream? I would agree that technology has made our lives better, but the flip side of that is that it has also made us lazy and disconnected from the people around us. I think it was the communist party of america who said in the 60's that the way to take over America wasn't through guns and war, but through the TV, so these points you make have some merit. I also agree with the size of the 5, it is perfect for our family and I have taken it on several long trips and it has always handled like a champ. Yes people aren't practical when it comes to their vehicles, my dad said he didn't care if something a little smaller got 5 mpg's more, his Sienna drives like a Cadillac( there is only two of them, why do they need a mammoth van?) I can testify that the Sienna may feel smooth while riding on the road, but it feels totally isolated and numb at the steering column, with absolutely no communication from the wheels to the driver. Its handling at best is dull and has a horribly long turning radius. Sad fact is that companies like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, GM, Chrysler, and Ford can make cars with awful driving dynamics and as long as they put over sized shocks that makes the ride feel smooth than people think their car drives nice. Can't really blame them though, because if all a person has driven is a Toyota or a Chevy their whole life, they know no different. They have nothing to compare it to. My 5 out handles a lot of compact cars on the road today, but no one seems to care. It is just like the Mazda commercial said, " we aren't try to make cars that everyone will drive, just cars that everyone who still loves to drive will drive."
Perhaps just a touch off-topic... but can you really call the 2012 a "next gen" product? I mean, the core platform is essentially unchanged. Sure, it's got a mostly new skin, new engine options, and a few technical improvements, but the base architecture is essentially the same. Same roof-line, same wheelbase, same width. Am I missing something? Typically a "next gen" would mean a complete platform change.
I don't think its off-topic at all. Its just that the powers-that-be have decided that the new product is significantly different enough to be called anext gen. When yous trip it down to the stamped-steel body tho, I doubt anyone besides the engineers would be able to identify the difference.
Yes people aren't practical when it comes to their vehicles, my dad said he didn't care if something a little smaller got 5 mpg's more, his Sienna drives like a Cadillac( there is only two of them, why do they need a mammoth van?) I can testify that the Sienna may feel smooth while riding on the road, but it feels totally isolated and numb at the steering column, with absolutely no communication from the wheels to the driver. Its handling at best is dull and has a horribly long turning radius. Sad fact is that companies like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, GM, Chrysler, and Ford can make cars with awful driving dynamics and as long as they put over sized shocks that makes the ride feel smooth than people think their car drives nice. Can't really blame them though, because if all a person has driven is a Toyota or a Chevy their whole life, they know no different. They have nothing to compare it to. My 5 out handles a lot of compact cars on the road today, but no one seems to care. It is just like the Mazda commercial said, " we aren't try to make cars that everyone will drive, just cars that everyone who still loves to drive will drive."
Toyota officially out-Buicked Buick when they released the 2nd gen Avalon. Its all been downhill from there. But the good news is that #1: People who drive those cars die off & #2, When Toyota stopped putting its last supercharger on a Tacoma and its last turbo in a Supra, it left a big hole for Buick to morph into an interesting car company. Buick has a chance to out-VW Volkswagon. And b/c GM has Chevy, it can pull it off, since anyone who doesn't like it can always go get a Malibu. Ford had the same opportunity to do that with Mercury, but passed on it, electing to keep making Ford clones with vertical grilles instead and we see what that brought them. Their dismissal of the premise opened up the opportunity for GM & as long as the Buick name is able to survive the transformation, they will see success from it.
I got to spend about 530 mi in a Venza last week, and to be truthful, it was a lot like being inside the 5-seat verson of the Pacifica. Every part of the door panels was this wierd Rubbermaid-like plastic except for the elbow-rests, and the dash seemed to be the outcome from a 200-level design-school project: Needlessly swoopy with no practical outcome and a bit of disorientation thrown in. I like a good 80+% of the exterior styling of the thing - I think its got a hip-ness that is matched in the Mz5 styling that speaks "youthful" the same way minivan design language speaks "encumbered with responsibility." But now that I've been inside, it will forever be the butt of private jokes.
Last edited:
I got to agree that the Venza's exterior is a nice design, but how were the driving dynamics? Wait Toyota hasn't made anything respectable when it comes to a sporty suspension since the Supra. What a shame. Just look at the reviews for the new Focus, Ford decided to go with the global platform for the U.S. which has a more sporty european tuned suspension, and although it doesn't quite compare to the 3, the reviewers liked it's handling, but yet also criticize it for not absorbing the road as good as it's competitors. They always rip Mazda for this, in one sentence they praise the handling and in another criticize it for being too harsh for ordinary people. We know Mazda is committed to the driving experience, but why would other car companies like Toyota risk losing sells because the old folks who drive them may think they drive to harsh, if they actually put a sporty suspension on their cars. The big three have known this for sometime, just make the car feel smooth and isolated from the road, and american's will think they drive great. Most american cars have had poor driving dynamics for a long time. Toyota and Honda used to care about driving dynamics, but learned what the Big 3 already knew, most Americans could care less that they have to take most turns at 20 mphs, as long as it is a smooth ride. So they sold out, and saw their sells volume go up too.
I don't like the way they package the newer Mazda5s. I have a 2006 MAzda5 GT and it came with the sun-roof. The New Mazda5s, the sunroof is now an option on the GT (translation: additional money needed). So basically if you buy a GT, you are just buying a GS with some additional side sills and maybe leather steering wheel and rear spoiler etc. I think I got more car for my money with our 2006 MAZDA5s. Also The rear end of the new MAZDA5 is I think a bad decision as it makes the MAZADA5 look like an ordinary station wagon. I like the shape of my 2006 MAZDA5 GT better than the new ones.
People used to wonder "What car is that?" when they see a mazda5. Nowadays when viewed from the rear, the MAZDA5 looks like a 'trying -hard' mercedez benz - (i.e. with an upside down insignia). On the other hand, maybe the newer ones drive much better than the older mazda5s.. Something that I will not experience - because we are keeping our 2006 GT until it dies completely.
People used to wonder "What car is that?" when they see a mazda5. Nowadays when viewed from the rear, the MAZDA5 looks like a 'trying -hard' mercedez benz - (i.e. with an upside down insignia). On the other hand, maybe the newer ones drive much better than the older mazda5s.. Something that I will not experience - because we are keeping our 2006 GT until it dies completely.
I don't like the way they package the newer Mazda5s.
I have to agree... this is my biggest complaint with the 2012 (at least with how it's packaged for North America). You used to be able to get the manual transmission across the whole Mazda 5 lineup... now it's only available on the lowest end sport, which now only comes with the 16" wheels and limited color pallet. For some of us, moving "up" to a 2012 would be a real downgrade. My bet is that when they move to the Skyactive power-train, we won't be seeing the manual option at all... A real loss for those of us who like their zoom-zoom...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 126
- Views
- 18K
