Mazda reports best January sales since 2012

[Kedis82ZE8]

http://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/january-2017-sales/

The Mazda CX-5 posted its best-ever January with 8,068 vehicles sold, showing continued momentum leading up to the on-sale date of the all-new 2017 model later this Spring. This number represents an increase of 14.2 percent year-over-year (YOY).

The Mazda CX-9 posted an increase of 210.7 percent YOY, with 1,591 vehicles sold.

Mazdas CX crossover SUV salesincluding the CX-3, CX-5 and CX-9were up 21.1 percent YOY with 10,843 sold. Of the total CX-line sales, 60 percent of vehicles were equipped with i-ACTIV All-Wheel Drive.

Sales of the Mazda6 started the year off strong, posting a 28.3 percent increase YOY with 3,300 vehicles sold.

Even with much of the U.S. experiencing winter weather, popularity of the MX-5 Miata continues with 929 vehicles sold. This number represents an increase of 65.9 percent YOY. Sales totals for the MX-5 include both the MX-5 soft top and MX-5 RF.

==============================

U.S. car, truck sales downshift in January; Toyota falls 11 percent

 

[Kaps]

2017 CX5 and the RF are wooooof! if someone told me they were 2020 release i would not doubt them. I want the RF - I need to get some money for it!

I think 2017 CX-5 will do slightly more than 16.5. wont be surprised to see 8% yoy sales jump.

Also this is what happens when you discount more - Mazda CX5 16 discount equals Rogue 2017 discount numbers.

 

[nickndfl]

I got mine on discount which is one reason I purchased last week. The CX-5 could be the class leader in non-luxury CUV. Only a couple of small things I would change, but all deal with the infotainment system or gauge design. It rides better than a Honda or Hyundai. Mazda should promote how high it rides compared to other brands. That is a desirable feature for older people who cannot bend getting in and out of a car.

 

[yrwei52]

The year-over-year (YOY) sales on January for Mazda CX-5 looks good! Or does it?

January	2016	2017	% +/-
Honda CR-V	19,208	29,287	+52.5%
Toyota RAV4	21,554	22,155	+2.8%
Nissan Rogue	19,762	28,760	+45.5%
⋯
Subaru Forester	11,904	12,853	+8.0%
Mazda CX-5	7,063	8,068	+14.2%

When you look at the sales figures of US top 3 compact CUVs including Honda CR-V、Toyota RAV4、Nissan Rogue, and added with Subaru Forester, you really don't feel this January YOY on Mazda CX-5 is that significant, especially when you see 52.5% jump on Honda CR-V and 45.5% jump on Nissan Rogue.

And "the Mazda CX-9 posted an increase of 210.7 percent YOY, with 1,591 vehicles sold"? Trying to compare sales number of a 10-year-old model with a new model is misleading. In fact Mazda is fully aware the sales of the new 2nd-gen CX-9 is very disappointing.

Mazda dealers look to recover from a rough 2016

Mazda Motor Corp.'s U.S. dealers had a tough 2016 as sales slumped, eroding dealer profitability and leading to high days supply of inventory.
⋯
The one thing that is disappointing to many Mazda dealers is the CX-9. The 2016 CX-9, completely redesigned, is absolutely phenomenal. Unfortunately, it hasn't taken off the way all dealers and Mazda had expected. Mazda is aware of that, and it's one of their main focuses to get that flagship car moving out of the showrooms.

 

[ALafya]

The year-over-year (YOY) sales on January for Mazda CX-5 looks good! Or does it?

January	2016	2017	% +/-
Honda CR-V	19,208	29,287	+52.5%
Toyota RAV4	21,554	22,155	+2.8%
Nissan Rogue	19,762	28,760	+45.5%
⋯
Subaru Forester	11,904	12,853	+8.0%
Mazda CX-5	7,063	8,068	+14.2%

When you look at the sales figures of US top 3 compact CUVs including Honda CR-V、Toyota RAV4、Nissan Rogue, and added with Subaru Forester, you really don't feel this January YOY on Mazda CX-5 is that significant, especially when you see 52.5% jump on Honda CR-V and 45.5% jump on Nissan Rogue.

And "the Mazda CX-9 posted an increase of 210.7 percent YOY, with 1,591 vehicles sold"? Trying to compare sales number of a 10-year-old model with a new model is misleading. In fact Mazda is fully aware the sales of the new 2nd-gen CX-9 is very disappointing.

The CR-V is all new and much improved for 2017, this alone should explain the higher take rate. Not sure about the Rogue, which is only marginally refreshed for 2017. Perhaps related to the recall they had in December 2015? Not sure.
I think the ~50% increase is not sustainable in any case, perhaps a quarter comparison is more appropriate.

 

[Kaps]

Do note that despite the number of sales Hyundai/kia and nissan have lower profit margins. Infact Kia Hyundai numbers are abysmal. Mazda is fine keeping profits up. They cannot produce 300k cx5 for us even if demand was there.
Speaking of that Mazda has a huge market in Japan and Australia

 

[yrwei52]

I think the ~50% increase is not sustainable in any case, perhaps a quarter comparison is more appropriate.

Annual Sales	2014	2015	2016	% +/-
Honda CR-V	335,019	345,647	357,335	+3.2%/+3.4%
Toyota RAV4	267,698	315,412	352,154	+17.8%/+11.6%
Nissan Rogue	199,199	287,190	329,904	+44.2%/+14.9%
⋯
Subaru Forester	159,953	175,192	178,593	+9.5%/+1.9%
Mazda CX-5	99,122	111,450	112,235	+12.4%/+0.7%

 

[mikefly562]

In the Pacific Northwest, CX-5s are EVERYWHERE, and I think they are perfectly suited for this region up here. They are rugged, comfortable, fun to drive, and have really high quality interiors (Grand Touring). I test drove the Rav4, Escape, CRV, and CX-5, and I liked the CX-5 the best, so that's why I ended up buying one. I am surprised that I don't see a lot of new CX-9s though, as they are really nice SUVs and have received good reviews...perhaps Mazda needs to advertise more to make people aware of them.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

In the Pacific Northwest, CX-5s are EVERYWHERE, and I think they are perfectly suited for this region up here. They are rugged, comfortable, fun to drive, and have really high quality interiors (Grand Touring). I test drove the Rav4, Escape, CRV, and CX-5, and I liked the CX-5 the best, so that's why I ended up buying one. I am surprised that I don't see a lot of new CX-9s though, as they are really nice SUVs and have received good reviews...perhaps Mazda needs to advertise more to make people aware of them.

Around here, I see maybe 1 new CX9 a week... whereas I see 10-15 new Pilots everyday.

I have a feeling the low sales are due to the fact most American are ingrained to think you need a V6 or larger engine in a vehicle that size. Aside from Volvo (who has a very loyal customer base) you don't see many folks leaning toward a 3 row vehicle powered by a 4 cylinder engine.

If they could get past that barrier, and tweak their advertising model I think they'd see more sales. They need to do more than just say "driving matters" if they want to broaden their customer base.

YMMV

 

[7eregrine]

Not an awful commercial... I just haven't ever actually seen it before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7nmJnKOpoY

 

[dougal]

The car I don't get is the Rogue. Does not handle well, looks ugly and is not as reliable as the Honda or Toyota. Not sure why so many people buy them.

 

[Kaps]

The car I don't get is the Rogue. Does not handle well, looks ugly and is not as reliable as the Honda or Toyota. Not sure why so many people buy them.

Nissan discounts it like hell + fleet sales. Nissan has good std. Features at entry trim level. I test drove a used 16 altima 2.5s with 4k miles priced at 14k (same price as used corolla or fit). Nissan and Kia family helps many keep up with the Jones' at lower cost.
Altima was ok though no way of using power seat with door closed plus CVT.

 

[MMcCraryNJ]

Nissan also got in a marketing blitz with their Disney partnership with Star Wars. Never doubt America buying a car for the sole reason it was advertised with a popular movie

 

[yrwei52]

Around here, I see maybe 1 new CX9 a week... whereas I see 10-15 new Pilots everyday.

I have a feeling the low sales are due to the fact most American are ingrained to think you need a V6 or larger engine in a vehicle that size. Aside from Volvo (who has a very loyal customer base) you don't see many folks leaning toward a 3 row vehicle powered by a 4 cylinder engine.

If they could get past that barrier, and tweak their advertising model I think they'd see more sales. They need to do more than just say "driving matters" if they want to broaden their customer base.

YMMV

Worse, people bought new 2nd-gen CX-9 with a turbo 4 thinking they have the most fuel efficient、gasoline-powered 3-row CUV, at least according to EPA. But turned out they've found the real-world fuel economy is not much better than the V6-equipped outgoing 1st-gen CX-9 ⋯

 

[RWatters]

Worse, people bought new 2nd-gen CX-9 with a turbo 4 thinking they have the most fuel efficient、gasoline-powered 3-row CUV, at least according to EPA. But turned out they've found the real-world fuel economy is not much better than the V6-equipped outgoing 1st-gen CX-9 ⋯

That's been a big issue with Ford EcoBoost engines as well.

The CX-9's new engine is a gem though. My parents have one and the low end grunt is ridiculous. It has a pull of a diesel.

The parking lot where I work currently has 1 CX-9, 3 CX-5s, and 2 Mazda6s with temporary tags on them. I'd agree that Mazda had a good end and beginning of the year!

 

[piotrek91]

Worse, people bought new 2nd-gen CX-9 with a turbo 4 thinking they have the most fuel efficient、gasoline-powered 3-row CUV, at least according to EPA. But turned out they've found the real-world fuel economy is not much better than the V6-equipped outgoing 1st-gen CX-9 ⋯

The fully for the CX-9 shot up from ~17.7MPG to 22.3MPG. Savings of ~$470/year if one drives 15,000mi with gas @2.69

What 2016 three row CUV gets better real world fuel economy than the 22.3MPG that the 2016 CX-9 gets?

The 2017's have too few cars on fuelly to be meaningful (but all are still lower than the CX-9)

The Pilot (20.7)? Highlander (20.3)? Explorer(18.1)? Pathfinde(17.5)?

 

[dougal]

Worse, people bought new 2nd-gen CX-9 with a turbo 4 thinking they have the most fuel efficient、gasoline-powered 3-row CUV, at least according to EPA. But turned out they've found the real-world fuel economy is not much better than the V6-equipped outgoing 1st-gen CX-9 ⋯

Do you have a cx-9?

 

[yrwei52]

The fully for the CX-9 shot up from ~17.7MPG to 22.3MPG. Savings of ~$470/year if one drives 15,000mi with gas @2.69

What 2016 three row CUV gets better real world fuel economy than the 22.3MPG that the 2016 CX-9 gets?

The 2017's have too few cars on fuelly to be meaningful (but all are still lower than the CX-9)

The Pilot (20.7)? Highlander (20.3)? Explorer(18.1)? Pathfinde(17.5)?

2nd-gen Mazda CX-9 came out less than 9 months and the EPA ratings have changed twice. The revised 2016 EPA ratings for CX-9 AWD have changed from 21/27/23 to 21/26/23 mpg city/highway/combined. For 2017 CX-9 AWD its EPA ratings are downgraded again to 20/26/23 mpg.

We just returned from our Christmas Holiday trip to Nashville and back to Charleston, SC in our 2016 CX-9 GT AWD with 3000 miles on it. Its getting the same mileage as our 2013 GT FWD on the same trip. In the 1300 miles we drove, we got 22 mpg on 95% interstate driving. My wife gets about 18 - 19 mpg around town driving. Our 2013 CX-9 GT FWD got the exact same mileage. Our 2007 CX-9 GT FWD used to get 18 -19 mpg around town and 25 - 26 mpg on the highway. That car had the 3.5 ltr V6. I want that same engine back in the CX-9. I don't know why in the world they replaced it with the 3.7 ltr. V6 as performance is imperceptible but mileage was a lot worse. I think Mazda's Skyactive technology has gone too far with its weight loss. I've noticed the door panels flex more than the older CX-9. I traded in my daughter's CX-5 in for a VW Tiguan because it was built so flimsy. It was recalled for excessive hood flex and door mirrors that vibrated too much because of the lightweight steel in the door panels. It did not make me feel safe putting my daughter in that car. The plastic bumpers flexed so much the reflectors would fall off of them. (shrug)

Yeah, not much more than 21 or 22 MPG most drives. Although I did see about 25MPG on a 40 minute highway drive last week.

Just got confirmation from our local Mazda dealer in our location that the revised fuel consumption for the 2017 CX-9 (AWD versions) are: 11.5L/100K in city or 20MPG and 8.9L/100K hwy or 26MPG with combined MPG pretty much same as 2016. Not much difference though from 2017 vs 2016 though I've read in a lot of postings that current owners aren't experiencing the advertised MPG in real world driving.

I am not getting from my 2016GT AWD much higher mileage than my previous 2011 GT FWD driving them similarly/

still... I am enjoying it

we are now averaging 20-21 mpg in mixed city/highway driving....a bit disappointing since during the summer-autumn it was closer to 22-23 mixed. i think the winter gas formulations and need for heating has hurt the fuel economy for us (which happens every year on every car i've ever driven...not just mazda). but i was hoping as the engine broke in the economy would get better.

I think your MPG is much higher than most of us have experienced, particularly for stop and go combined with hill climbing. See https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123855756-2016-CX-9-Real-World-MPG. If you decide to buy the car, please keep us posted on your mpg.

 

[piotrek91]

2nd-gen Mazda CX-9 came out less than 9 months and the EPA ratings have changed twice. The revised 2016 EPA ratings for CX-9 AWD have changed from 21/27/23 to 21/26/23 mpg city/highway/combined. For 2017 CX-9 AWD its EPA ratings are downgraded again to 20/26/23 mpg.

It's not Mazda's fault that the EPA changed the ratings system while Mazda was releasing the CX-9. Every single car on the market that wasn't redesigned for 2017 got its ratings "downgraded" twice. (some got lucky and didn't cross an MPG threshold on some downgrades)

You didn't answer my question.. what three row CUV gets better real world fuel economy (as reported on fuelly) than the 2016 CX-9?

The only one I could find was the plug in hybrid XC-90.

 

[yrwei52]

It's not Mazda's fault that the EPA changed the ratings system while Mazda was releasing the CX-9. Every single car on the market that wasn't redesigned for 2017 got its ratings "downgraded" twice. (some got lucky and didn't cross an MPG threshold on some downgrades)

You didn't answer my question.. what three row CUV gets better real world fuel economy (as reported on fuelly) than the 2016 CX-9?

The only one I could find was the plug in hybrid XC-90.

Are you sure "every single car on the market that wasn't redesigned for 2017 got its ratings "downgraded" twice"? I can simply name 2016、2017 FWD CX-9's which don't get affected and there're more!

I was merely reflecting many new 2nd-gen CX-9 owner's opinions on gas mileage. YMMV.