Test drove 2019 CX-5. Disappointed

[Avoidin Deer]

This conversation reminds me of one I had regarding pickup trucks.

I lived in the suburbs of DC. Those pickup trucks never saw any action beyond hauling the annual Christmas tree back home without having to lash it on the roof of the family car. Beyond that, they are over-speced for the job they're actually doing...rush hour commutes while playing country music and pretending.

I would venture to say that most SUVs are the same. People see the commercials with owners camping and going up rugged trails, and buy an SUV not because they actually do those things...they buy an SUV because they embrace the image. Or there are people like me who enjoy the higher-than-car ride and the bus-like feel for passengers who don't need to feel like they're crawling out of a pit when they egress (and not just Baby Boomers).

Just like trucks, I think the actual market for SUVs has morphed well past the "sport" and "utility" labels. 26% of SUV buyers are ages 55-64, and 31% are older than that. All we need is room for groceries and a safe ride...that's our utility. I bet it's the same for a lot of the younger buyers as well.

 

[Unobtanium]

This conversation reminds me of one I had regarding pickup trucks.

I lived in the suburbs of DC. Those pickup trucks never saw any action beyond hauling the annual Christmas tree back home without having to lash it on the roof of the family car. Beyond that, they are over-speced for the job they're actually doing...rush hour commutes while playing country music and pretending.

I would venture to say that most SUVs are the same. People see the commercials with owners camping and going up rugged trails, and buy an SUV not because they actually do those things...they buy an SUV because they embrace the image. Or there are people like me who enjoy the higher-than-car ride and the bus-like feel for passengers who don't need to feel like they're crawling out of a pit when they egress (and not just Baby Boomers).

Just like trucks, I think the actual market for SUVs has morphed well past the "sport" and "utility" labels. 26% of SUV buyers are ages 55-64, and 31% are older than that. All we need is room for groceries and a safe ride...that's our utility. I bet it's the same for a lot of the younger buyers as well.

33, here. I bought a CUV because I need the space (haul dog, guns, ammo, groceries, whatever, but I don't want it exposed in a truck bed), I need the mpg (I drive 30K miles a year), and I need the ground clearance and AWD (I live rather rural).

I gave up sports cars due to the ground clearance issue, mainly, so any kind of "sport" that I can shoe-horn into the equation is highly desired for me.

 

[Chocolate]

There is a CX-5 in the photo thread with Geolandars, looks pretty good for a light offroad CUV. Would be nice to see Mazda offer an offroad spec version of the CX with a higher suspension, it's a logical expansion to their best seller.

The yellow dots are supposed to be mounted next to the TPMS sensor or valve stem per Yokohama, as that will require the least amount of weights.

I removed the silly plastic aero flaps near the tires. They might improve aerodynamics a little bit, but they're unsightly and low hanging.

 

[Unobtanium]

There is a CX-5 in the photo thread with Geolandars, looks pretty good for a light offroad CUV. Would be nice to see Mazda offer an offroad spec version of the CX with a higher suspension, it's a logical expansion to their best seller.

The yellow dots are supposed to be mounted next to the TPMS sensor or valve stem per Yokohama, as that will require the least amount of weights.

I removed the silly plastic aero flaps near the tires. They might improve aerodynamics a little bit, but they're unsightly and low hanging.

Looks good! The overhangs kill it for real offroading, IMO, though.

 

[Kaps]

I didn't mention about not talking about performance, just regarding taking it to a track. Does this guy have to worry about his hybrid battery dying on the road like it would on the track? And those SUVs are all luxury SUVs. People buy them for the badge. Mazda doesn't compete with them, they compete with the RAV4 and Foresters of the world, where interior space matters. Maybe you are willing to sacrifice space and fuel economy, but 8 out of 10 buyers in this segment won't.

CX5 GTR and CX5 Signature do not compete with any of those cars you mentioned. It does compete with the Q3, X3, NX200t / 300h, RDX,XC40 and certain Mini models.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

33, here. I bought a CUV because I need the space (haul dog, guns, ammo, groceries, whatever, but I don't want it exposed in a truck bed), I need the mpg (I drive 30K miles a year), and I need the ground clearance and AWD (I live rather rural).

I gave up sports cars due to the ground clearance issue, mainly, so any kind of "sport" that I can shoe-horn into the equation is highly desired for me.

I hear you on all counts. I've owned 2 trucks (bought new). The first was an extended cab and the second was a crew cab, specifically so I could have a place to secure stuff. You can't go shopping with a friend in a standard cab, unless you want your lettuce flying out of the bed on the drive home.

I was looking at getting another Bugeye Sprite (to recapture those days gone by), but it's just not feasible living where I do. That car was so low to the ground that I once pulled up to a red light and picked up a dime off of the pavement I saw lying there...without taking off the seat belt! I just leaned over and grabbed it. That's not gonna work on my 1/2 mile long "driveway."

Regarding your needing space and mileage...you still bought a CX-5 turbo. Kinda goes to my earlier point regarding "sufficient room" and "good enough mileage." There are other factors to consider. After owning this car, anything else would be unsatisfyingly "utilitarian."

 

[murky]

It's 1" larger on turbo models.
The Mazda infotainment is far from the worst out there. Try using Lexus' Remote Touch. Mazda's voice commands for the factory nav are more accurate than those of Lexus, as well.
The infotainment works great with Carplay, if you use an iPhone. I am enjoying lossless music (FLAC) from the free "Vox" app.

Either I got a dud, or it doesn't like my voice. It's difficult to imagine a system with less accurate voice command acceptance than my 2018 CX-5 GT premium. It's comically awful.

Before Android Auto became available, I was mounting my phone on the windshield for navigation.

It would be nice to get the turn by turn directions in the heads up display, but not worth the aggravation of trying to interface with the Mazda factory Nav.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

Either I got a dud, or it doesn't like my voice. It's difficult to imagine a system with less accurate voice command acceptance than my 2018 CX-5 GT premium. It's comically awful.

Before Android Auto became available, I was mounting my phone on the windshield for navigation.

It would be nice to get the turn by turn directions in the heads up display, but not worth the aggravation of trying to interface with the Mazda factory Nav.

I was having VR issues on my 2019, limited to my use of navigating through XM channels. It seems to have gotten better, but still needs to completely load before trying it or it seems that my pre-fully loaded interruption means it won't finish loading that driving session.

I've used the NAV system quite a bit, but never with VR.

My main VR complaint is lack of complete instructions. The tutorials are: "You can say something like 'BlahBlahBlah," but there is no comprehensive list of voice commands for any of the functions (NAV, Phone, Entertainment) that I can find anywhere. Many times you have to be in specific screens for specific commands.

Too much Trial & Error, and likely missing out on some handy [undocumented] stuff.

Regarding the turn-by-turn instructions: It's worth it to just manually enter the address into the system. You can see how far it is until the next turn on the HUD and get a heads-up when it's approaching (2 miles away at highway speeds and 1/2 mile away at in-town speeds).

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Would be nice to see Mazda offer an offroad spec version of the CX with a higher suspension, it's a logical expansion to their best seller.

The Gen 1 was an inch higher than the Gen 2 if I recall.

 

[Unobtanium]

I hear you on all counts. I've owned 2 trucks (bought new). The first was an extended cab and the second was a crew cab, specifically so I could have a place to secure stuff. You can't go shopping with a friend in a standard cab, unless you want your lettuce flying out of the bed on the drive home.

I was looking at getting another Bugeye Sprite (to recapture those days gone by), but it's just not feasible living where I do. That car was so low to the ground that I once pulled up to a red light and picked up a dime off of the pavement I saw lying there...without taking off the seat belt! I just leaned over and grabbed it. That's not gonna work on my 1/2 mile long "driveway."

Regarding your needing space and mileage...you still bought a CX-5 turbo. Kinda goes to my earlier point regarding "sufficient room" and "good enough mileage." There are other factors to consider. After owning this car, anything else would be unsatisfyingly "utilitarian."

I think that I may trade as soon as I break-even, for a Ford Edge ST/Sport, though. The turbo 4 is just "soft" down low, regardless of what the numbers on a dyno may allege. I always hated that about 4 cylinders, and had thought the dyno would supercede this, but it just ain't so, even if it gets all of the torque at 2K. I could live with this...but it's ALSO soft up top, ROFL! It's just weak, see more below.

That would: Give me a lower note (buying 1-3 years used). Give me more hauling capacity in a faster, better handling vehicle, and we have a dealer here that offers lifetime powertrain warranty (They have been around for years, offered it for years, and I know people who have used it and say it's legit, no gimmickiness or pressure or weaseling, and the dealer has darn near 5 star reviews on every website that you can find reviews for local businesses on).

I'm very happy with everything about the vehicle except the mirrors that you need to replace the motors in every 20K miles, and the way the turbo loses all power in the cold, and is "soft on the hit".

Also, I cannot replicate magazine acceleration numbers in my CX5. 7 seconds is as best it will do 0-60. Every other car I've had? I can replicate or BEAT magazine numbers with. I shouldn't be nearly 1 second off in this one.

Anyway, it will do until such time comes as I get into something else, but honestly, as much as I love the rest of the car, I gotta say that almost 25K miles in, I do regret the purchase. Mazda has lost me as a customer over this one. The mirrors ($1500 every 20K miles), and the "iffy stiffy" turbo are just lame. Yes, my mirrors are already getting weaker on folding/opening, with one (the one that's been on 3K longer) going notably slower than the newer one. I suspect in another 15K miles or so, it will be time for another replacement. During the lifetime of t he warranty (150K miles), this will cost my dealer over $10000, at MSRP.

 

[shadonoz]

Also, I cannot replicate magazine acceleration numbers in my CX5. 7 seconds is as best it will do 0-60. Every other car I've had? I can replicate or BEAT magazine numbers with. I shouldn't be nearly 1 second off in this one.

That's the first I've heard of that. So you're only gaining about a second and a half over the NA to 60. Pretty pathetic. Response is much better, but power is certainly lacking, even when the turbo is working at all.

During the lifetime of t he warranty (150K miles), this will cost my dealer over $10000, at MSRP.

You can be sure it won't cost the dealer anywhere near what he would charge you, so MSRP is irrelevant. And maybe wait for a few more failures before you draw conclusions about longevity.

 

[ruthrj]

I think that I may trade as soon as I break-even, for a Ford Edge ST/Sport, though. The turbo 4 is just "soft" down low, regardless of what the numbers on a dyno may allege. I always hated that about 4 cylinders, and had thought the dyno would supercede this, but it just ain't so, even if it gets all of the torque at 2K. I could live with this...but it's ALSO soft up top, ROFL! It's just weak, see more below.

That would: Give me a lower note (buying 1-3 years used). Give me more hauling capacity in a faster, better handling vehicle, and we have a dealer here that offers lifetime powertrain warranty (They have been around for years, offered it for years, and I know people who have used it and say it's legit, no gimmickiness or pressure or weaseling, and the dealer has darn near 5 star reviews on every website that you can find reviews for local businesses on).

I'm very happy with everything about the vehicle except the mirrors that you need to replace the motors in every 20K miles, and the way the turbo loses all power in the cold, and is "soft on the hit".

Also, I cannot replicate magazine acceleration numbers in my CX5. 7 seconds is as best it will do 0-60. Every other car I've had? I can replicate or BEAT magazine numbers with. I shouldn't be nearly 1 second off in this one.

Anyway, it will do until such time comes as I get into something else, but honestly, as much as I love the rest of the car, I gotta say that almost 25K miles in, I do regret the purchase. Mazda has lost me as a customer over this one. The mirrors ($1500 every 20K miles), and the "iffy stiffy" turbo are just lame. Yes, my mirrors are already getting weaker on folding/opening, with one (the one that's been on 3K longer) going notably slower than the newer one. I suspect in another 15K miles or so, it will be time for another replacement. During the lifetime of t he warranty (150K miles), this will cost my dealer over $10000, at MSRP.

It is a shame you drive too much in a year to lease.

 

[Sig cx-5]

I think that I may trade as soon as I break-even, for a Ford Edge ST/Sport, though. The turbo 4 is just "soft" down low, regardless of what the numbers on a dyno may allege. I always hated that about 4 cylinders, and had thought the dyno would supercede this, but it just ain't so, even if it gets all of the torque at 2K. I could live with this...but it's ALSO soft up top, ROFL! It's just weak, see more below.

That would: Give me a lower note (buying 1-3 years used). Give me more hauling capacity in a faster, better handling vehicle, and we have a dealer here that offers lifetime powertrain warranty (They have been around for years, offered it for years, and I know people who have used it and say it's legit, no gimmickiness or pressure or weaseling, and the dealer has darn near 5 star reviews on every website that you can find reviews for local businesses on).

I'm very happy with everything about the vehicle except the mirrors that you need to replace the motors in every 20K miles, and the way the turbo loses all power in the cold, and is "soft on the hit".

Also, I cannot replicate magazine acceleration numbers in my CX5. 7 seconds is as best it will do 0-60. Every other car I've had? I can replicate or BEAT magazine numbers with. I shouldn't be nearly 1 second off in this one.

Anyway, it will do until such time comes as I get into something else, but honestly, as much as I love the rest of the car, I gotta say that almost 25K miles in, I do regret the purchase. Mazda has lost me as a customer over this one. The mirrors ($1500 every 20K miles), and the "iffy stiffy" turbo are just lame. Yes, my mirrors are already getting weaker on folding/opening, with one (the one that's been on 3K longer) going notably slower than the newer one. I suspect in another 15K miles or so, it will be time for another replacement. During the lifetime of t he warranty (150K miles), this will cost my dealer over $10000, at MSRP.

I haven't been a member here for that long. I remember when you decided on purchasing the GTR CX-5, long time members kept repeating how surprised they were you purchased another. I'm starting to understand why.

 

[Unobtanium]

That's the first I've heard of that. So you're only gaining about a second and a half over the NA to 60. Pretty pathetic. Response is much better, but power is certainly lacking, even when the turbo is working at all.



You can be sure it won't cost the dealer anywhere near what he would charge you, so MSRP is irrelevant. And maybe wait for a few more failures before you draw conclusions about longevity.

I believe it's the super conservative tq converter. It really makes it a dog off the line. Midrange is good.

 

[shadonoz]

Woman I'm troubled, I be all worried in mind
Well baby I just can't be satisfied
And I just can't keep from cryin'
-Muddy Waters

 

[Unobtanium]

I haven't been a member here for that long. I remember when you decided on purchasing the GTR CX-5, long time members kept repeating how surprised they were you purchased another. I'm starting to understand why.

Eh, it does get good mpg and the ride is excellent. I dont strongly dislike it, but it could do a few things better. Would not do again. But not a bad car either.

 

[shadonoz]

I believe it's the super conservative tq converter. It really makes it a dog off the line. Midrange is good.

Sounds exactly like my NA! Just a tad quicker.

 

[Unobtanium]

Sounds exactly like my NA! Just a tad quicker.

It's the same 0-20 probably, but the midrange is actually legit. I think that's why it gets good mpg is the strong mid.

 

[shadonoz]

If you can only get there in 7, I wonder what others can do. Anyone?

Yours seems like an outlier in terms of FE, so I wonder if it is also for power.

 

[Unobtanium]

If you can only get there in 7, I wonder what others can do. Anyone?

Yours seems like an outlier in terms of FE, so I wonder if it is also for power.

Well, one guy with a cx9 here has timed themselves 7.8 to 60, and magazines are getting 7ish.