2016.5 v. 2016 Grand Touring

RobDMB

Member
:
Mazda CX-5
I am looking to get a 2016/2016.5 Grand Touring w/ Tech & I-Active Sense in the next month or so. Is there any reason to look for a 2016.5 model versus the 2016 in the Grand Touring trim? Has anything changed with regard to that model? I saw some articles mention new signature LED but it seems the Grand Touring already had LED headlights - is anything different in that regard?

Thanks.
 
Here is the 2016.5 announcement from Mazda. No new stuff, just a different packaging and pricing model.

http://www.mazdausamedia.com/2015-1...rd-Features-to-Best-Selling-Compact-Crossover

No significant change, just a few bells/whistles moved into different trims and pricing adjusted.

You still can't get AWD or the excellent 6-speed AT with the sweet little 2.0L engine (although you can in other markets). And you can't get upgraded headlights or stereo unless you're willing to accept and pay for a heavy moonroof (that I have no desire to have above my head). The North American market screws itself with it's idiotic buying choices which lessens demand for the best configurations that are offered in other markets.
 
No significant change, just a few bells/whistles moved into different trims and pricing adjusted.

You still can't get AWD or the excellent 6-speed AT with the sweet little 2.0L engine (although you can in other markets). And you can't get upgraded headlights or stereo unless you're willing to accept and pay for a heavy moonroof (that I have no desire to have above my head). The North American market screws itself with it's idiotic buying choices which lessens demand for the best configurations that are offered in other markets.

I love my 2.5L and heavy monroof optioned GT. (yippy)
 
Yes moonroof should be standard on the top trim UK sport, but isn't.
 
Thats what i'm thinking. The dealers keep telling me there are no notable changes - particularly if you are getting a loaded GT, but you never know what else they may have tweaked.
 
Someone commented in another thread the 2016.5s have a cover/door over the slot in the dash to the left of the steering wheel, where the old tom-tom nav unit used to be. So I imagine if you could peer into the driver's side window, look at that area, and then you'd know whether or not you're looking at a 2016.5 or not.
 
I was told by a dealer it will probably be at least a month before the 2016.5 hit the lots. As i'm looking for a deal this month I probably wont wait unfortunately.
 
Thats what i'm thinking. The dealers keep telling me there are no notable changes - particularly if you are getting a loaded GT, but you never know what else they may have tweaked.

If you're looking at a Touring, look for heated seat buttons below the climate control. Previously these were GT only I think.
 
Thats what i'm thinking. The dealers keep telling me there are no notable changes - particularly if you are getting a loaded GT, but you never know what else they may have tweaked.

Yep, I bought 2 vehicles with "silent changes" so far.

2011 Z06...got the ZR1 oil-cooler, and did away with the plate-style oil cooler. My oil temps on a cold day ran a more optimal 190ish on the freeway as opposed to 130-150 that <2010 owners were experiencing. ZERO published data on that change...
2012 370Z...got an oil-coolant style oil cooler, and I never had any over heating issues like previous years claimed. ZERO published data on that change...

So, I am a huge fan of the "latest and greatest" in that aspect. Also, who knows if a bushing/bearing/synchro liner/etc. wasn't tweaked and improved that year? They won't publish all of that. It just gets done as part of PiPs.
 
Yep, I bought 2 vehicles with "silent changes" so far.

2011 Z06...got the ZR1 oil-cooler, and did away with the plate-style oil cooler. My oil temps on a cold day ran a more optimal 190ish on the freeway as opposed to 130-150 that <2010 owners were experiencing. ZERO published data on that change...
2012 370Z...got an oil-coolant style oil cooler, and I never had any over heating issues like previous years claimed. ZERO published data on that change...

So, I am a huge fan of the "latest and greatest" in that aspect. Also, who knows if a bushing/bearing/synchro liner/etc. wasn't tweaked and improved that year? They won't publish all of that. It just gets done as part of PiPs.

True enough. One possible way is to check the manufacturing month on the driver's door sill. A December, or perhaps even November build date is worth looking for, if the press release is accurate about going on sale in January - it takes a few weeks to make it over the ocean by ship.
 
So, I am a huge fan of the "latest and greatest" in that aspect. Also, who knows if a bushing/bearing/synchro liner/etc. wasn't tweaked and improved that year? They won't publish all of that. It just gets done as part of PiPs.

Actually, this can work both ways. I spent a few years as a "cost reduction engineer" for an unnamed telecommunications company. We went to great lengths to shave pennies, quarters and dollars out of our "latest" products. Obviously, the goal was to reduce cost without impacting performance or quality, but anytime design changes are made there is the potential for unexpected problems. I can think of a few times when the earlier versions were actually better than the "later" versions.

Hopefully Mazda puts a higher priority on performance and quality than it does on cost reduction.
 
Actually, this can work both ways. I spent a few years as a "cost reduction engineer" for an unnamed telecommunications company. We went to great lengths to shave pennies, quarters and dollars out of our "latest" products. Obviously, the goal was to reduce cost without impacting performance or quality, but anytime design changes are made there is the potential for unexpected problems. I can think of a few times when the earlier versions were actually better than the "later" versions.

Hopefully Mazda puts a higher priority on performance and quality than it does on cost reduction.

Oh, I agree! Such as when the Mustang GT got its forged pistons replaced by hypereutectic(*sp) pistons in 1993.
 
From the article I posted

2016.5 Grand Touring AWD

SKYACTIV-G 2.5L engine with SKYACTIV-DRIVE 6-speed automatic transmission $29,870 (includes Navigation)
Grand Touring Technology Package $1,155

Total: $31,025

In July, when I bought my 2016, the sticker price was

2016 GRAND TOURING AWD

SKYACTIV-G 2.5L engine with SKYACTIV-DRIVE 6-speed automatic transmission $29,470
Grand Touring Technology Package $1,505 (includes Navigation)

TOTAL: $30,975

So the 2016.5 costs $50 more for the same stuff, unless they added a few more gizmos, which I don't know.

Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
No significant change, just a few bells/whistles moved into different trims and pricing adjusted.

You still can't get AWD or the excellent 6-speed AT with the sweet little 2.0L engine (although you can in other markets). And you can't get upgraded headlights or stereo unless you're willing to accept and pay for a heavy moonroof (that I have no desire to have above my head). The North American market screws itself with it's idiotic buying choices which lessens demand for the best configurations that are offered in other markets.

But you CAN get it with the even sweeter 2.5!
 
But you CAN get it with the even sweeter 2.5!

It depends on what your intended usage is. Yes, the 2.5L would be my choice for towing anything but a very light trailer or for extended high speed driving (above 80 mph). For everything else I like the 2.0L better.

Simpler design without balance shafts, freer revving and 112 pounds lighter which I really appreciate when driving on any soft surface like old snowpack 2-3 feet thick, mud or wet lawns. But the best two features are it's economical nature (extended range) and it's nimble, balanced handling in the corners. This balanced handling in the corners is what makes it so exceptional in the snow and ice!

I haven't confirmed this yet, but it looks like it might also have a lower center of gravity (if the 2.5L engine is mounted 2-3" higher to accommodate the balance shafts).

The 2.0L was designed with the optimum bore/stroke ratio, the 2.5L was simply scaled up (but with compromises due to peak piston speed concerns). Both fine engines but the 2.0L is the sweetest!
 
Mazda engineers choice for turbo charging was the 2.5L and it will be the turbo version in the 3 Speed and the CX9. The 2.5L supposedly is better suited and has stronger internals to handle the turbocharging.

I know you are a big fan of the 2.0L and you of course own the 2.0L version in your CX5.

I drove the 2.0L version and I felt it was under-powered. The 2.5L is also on the verge of being slightly under-powered and when loaded with people, the 2.5L is under-powered, especially climbing grades.

Ideally, the CX5 should have around 230HP and 230LB FT of torque.
 
Back