I hope Mazda did some real good stuff for 2017...

Bringing 2.5T or even the diesel to CX5 in USA would be silly. It will not help sales much (remember these are budget SUVs). It will be very costly for Mazda - so why would they bring a new engine choice just for 4-5K sales in US?
A lot of folks buying crossovers have illusion that it is safe / easy to get kids in an out / cargo capacity. Not 0-60.
CX5 is a good balance between fun and practical. Only downside is the 2017 decimated 2016.5.
When it gets released and dealers still had 2016.5 i am thinking 20% off msrp would be doable - 2017 is just miles better in every way.
Just imagine getting a loaded 16.5 touring for 23.5 K - that would be sweeet!
 
The reason is the big difference in displacement. 1.0 is huge. I mean the Skyactiv 2.5l would have better mpgs than a CX-5 with 3.5l engine. Again I know I'm repeating myself but Mazda should've developed a 1.5-2.0 turbo engine. Imagine Honda's turbo 1.5 swapped in a CX-5 chassis mated to a non CVT tranny like umm hey the skyactiv auto tranny (or manual). Add in the Kodo exterior and sleeker interior.
Like I said, Mazda needs to get with it. I hope the new chassis upgrades will be enough to keep up with the new CR-V.

CRV is faster
CRV stops shorter
CRV has functionally identical skidpad ratings (0.82 CRV, 0.81 CX5)
CRV has better brakes (no fade, compared to slight fade, in C&D's testing)
CRV has IDENTICAL weight-distribution as CX5
CRV MotorTrend Figure 8 time/g's is 27.9 sec @ 0.60 g (avg), while CX-5's is 28.0 sec @ 0.59 g (avg)
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/cr-v/2017/2017-honda-cr-v-touring-awd-first-test-review/
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2016/2016-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-first-test-review/

SO ya, the 2017 CR-V does handle better. It does stop as well or better. It is faster in a straight line.

But now everyone who sang "Mazda is about driving performance only!" will start talking about "I don't like the fake wood accents", lol!

Or better yet "The Mazda FEELS faster even though it's slower." This is a fun one. I had a Z06, and raced ZR1's. The ZR1's had higher limits, better traction, and were much faster, but racing them on the track they felt softer, FAR less "twitchy", and if you ignored the facts like lap-times, they "felt" a lot less like a race car than my Z06, which was harsher, twitchier, etc. Well and good. Buy a Velocitor. I'm sure they feel faster yet as they are smaller and lower. The facts are that the 2017 CRV dusts off the 2016 CX5 in every measurable performance category I could find.

So like I said...I sure hope Mazda has some great things to take away the "Drivers CUV" title from a damn Honda CRV in 2017, lol!

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...2016-mazda-cx-5-25l-awd-instrumented-test.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...iew-car-and-driverhondacr-vawdtouring2017.pdf

^Driven by the same driver, no-less!
 
Really? In my months of research I never once saw anything about "class leading MPG" for the CX5. Maybe I wasn't looking.

Mazda makes cars people love is what I got:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5UjmHOl4pU

Mazda makes cars for families is what I got from this, and DRIVING MATTERS

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

Wait! Finally found one from 2 years ago that mentions MPG:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7wEP_kijSM

But, of course, it was that 10 year old kid that always kept Mazda in the back of my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4D3jwSYpEc

Screw MPG and SkyActiv. Zoom Zoom mother f.... :D


https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/cx-5/features
CONQUER MORE HIGHWAY ON LESS FUEL

Added horsepower with incredible fuel efficiency

SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY
PERFORMANCE MEETS EFFICIENCY

When Driving Matters, performance is never compromised for fuel efficiency. So we came up with a way to enhance both. SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY1 is a unique engineering approach that gives you a better driving experience with equally impressive EPA-estimated MPG

https://www.mazdausa.com/why-mazda/skyactiv

CLEANER, MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT ENGINES
Skyactiv-g gasoline

Conventional internal combustion engines only harness around 30 percent of the potential energy of fuel. So Mazda engineered a smarter engine. By pushing the limits of internal combustion, the SKYACTIV-G 2.0L and 2.5L gasoline engines deliver much greater fuel efficiency. With higher compression ratios than conventional engines. Simply put, SKYACTIV engines can compress the air-fuel mixture in the cylinders to an extraordinary degree. Squeezing far more energy from every drop of fuel.

Literally almost any place Mazda USA's website mentions performance regarding power/acceleration, it also harps on efficiency.
“EPA report names Mazda the most fuel-efficient auto manufacturer in the U.S.4 Mazda’s 2014 Fleet Offers Highest Adjusted MPG.”
https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/cx-5/accolades

It is then by clicking on the EPA award that we are linked to the press release, which states, and I quote:
SKYACTIV is a suite of component and engineering technologies intended to cut vehicle weight and improve engine efficiency for outstanding environmental and safety performance, without sacrificing the brand’s renowned driving pleasure.


“At Mazda, Driving Matters and so does fuel economy,“ said Jim O’Sullivan, president and CEO, Mazda North American Operations. “Using SKYACTIV Technology, Mazda has been able to achieve class-leading fuel efficiency in nearly every segment it competes in. This achievement verifies that Mazda has evolved to offer what others can’t, vehicles that are of high-quality, great looking, fun-to-drive and fuel efficient.“

http://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/pre...s-mazda-fuel-efficient-auto-manufacturer-u-s/
 
Yea, I didn't spend much time on Mazdas webpage. Other then the purchase and offers section.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
 
Yea, I didn't spend much time on Mazdas webpage. Other then the purchase and offers section.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

I didn't research the vehicle a ton, but it was readily apparent that efficiency was the #1 goal of it. Hell, it's a compact CUV! What ELSE would be the first goal regarding the driveline, aside reliability? That's why the 2.0 was the initial engine it was offered with, and that's why it's sleeker than the Tribute it replaced, as well as uses the transmission, tq converter, and structural design it does. Efficiency and weight and miserly use of fuel were the driving goals, to lower the Mazda fleet emissions and get tax breaks, etc. It was wrapped in "super fun to drive" as a sales point, and I personally think this was all well played by Mazda, but the tiny 1.XL Turbo engines from Europe and other countries are going to eventually destroy naturally aspirated power as an efficiency king, unless Mazda gets their HCCI engine working well enough to reliably install in a passenger vehicle, which, if they do, I think it would be killer! If not, well, I hope they get on board with the other for the sake of sales for them.
 
Last edited:
Geez? Why am I getting such flack over my feelings on MPG? LOL

I didn't research the vehicle a ton, but it was readily apparent that efficiency was the #1 goal of it.

Well, apparently we did different research. Readily apparent to me was that Mazda makes cars for people who LIKE to drive.
"Passion for the Road" "Driving Matters" "Zoom Zoom" "We make cars we like to drive"

Hell, it's a compact CUV!
Well, technically it's a Compact SUV.
What ELSE would be the first goal regarding the driveline, aside reliability?
Not really sure what you mean by "Driveline".

That's why the 2.0 was the initial engine it was offered with
Yea, I understood the 2.0 was very efficient. Didn't care.

and that's why it's sleeker than the Tribute it replaced,
I thought it replaced the CX-7?

The 4 most important things to me when shopping were:
#1 FUN TO DRIVE Mazda beat everyone. Jeep Cherokee was a close second...not the CRV.
#2 Reliable
#3 Good looking
#4 More room then the car I replaced while maintaining the utility of the car it replaced.
Not MPG, not resale.

IMO after test driving the CRV and the Mazda almost back to back... the CX5 was the car to beat. Honda knows this. Reading that review it seems to me that the CRV is becoming more CX-5 like. Honda knows who the real competition is. Not the Rav4. Not the Rogue. Even though C&D also rated the CRV #1 last year, that wouldn't have lasted @ #1 without a redesign this year versus the 2017 CX-5. Nope. ;)
 
Last edited:
Really? In my months of research I never once saw anything about "class leading MPG" for the CX5. Maybe I wasn't looking.

Mazda makes cars people love is what I got:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5UjmHOl4pU

Mazda makes cars for families is what I got from this, and DRIVING MATTERS

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

Wait! Finally found one from 2 years ago that mentions MPG:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7wEP_kijSM

But, of course, it was that 10 year old kid that always kept Mazda in the back of my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4D3jwSYpEc

Screw MPG and SkyActiv. Zoom Zoom mother f.... :D
You like Mazda but you don't even care Mazda's recent design philosophy of SkyActiv Technology??? The statement I quoted earlier is directly from Mazda sales brochure of CX-5! In fact, if there was no SkyActiv Technology which greatly improved the fuel efficiency for Mazda vehicles and turned the sales around, you won't be able to enjoy the Zoom Zoom much longer! :)
 
The reason is the big difference in displacement. 1.0 is huge. I mean the Skyactiv 2.5l would have better mpgs than a CX-5 with 3.5l engine. Again I know I'm repeating myself but Mazda should've developed a 1.5-2.0 turbo engine. Imagine Honda's turbo 1.5 swapped in a CX-5 chassis mated to a non CVT tranny like umm hey the skyactiv auto tranny (or manual). Add in the Kodo exterior and sleeker interior.
With preset EPA fuel economy test cycles, small displacement engine with turbo and CVT will always be easier to be programmed with better MPG results. But like Unobtanium said, new Honda CR-V AWD now gets 32 mpg at 75 mph which is only 1 mpg shy from its EPA highway estimate! The best on our CX-5 AWD at 75 mph is what? 26~28 mpg at the best? Of course you seems to overlooked my main complaint on our CX-5 AWD. Why the gap is 4 mpg on EPA highway estimate between FWD and AWD on CX-5 while the gap on other competitors is only 1 mpg?
 
⋯ the CX5 was the car to beat. Honda knows this. Reading that review it seems to me that the CRV is becoming more CX-5 like. Honda knows who the real competition is. Not the Rav4. Not the Rogue. Even though C&D also rated the CRV #1 last year, that wouldn't have lasted @ #1 without a redesign this year versus the 2017 CX-5. Nope. ;)
With US sales volume at 3:1 ratio between Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5, and CX-5 yearly sales are at the bottom of the Compact CUVs in the US, I really can't see how Honda would think CX-5 is their real competition! Yes, Honda may have improved the performance and handling on new CR-V, but that's the common knowledge from car critics on deficiencies of the CR-V and Honda doesn't need to learn those from Mazda. And Honda knows all along that their real competitors for CR-V are indeed Toyota RAV4 and Nissan Rogue, the no. 2 and no. 3 compact CUV sellers in the US!
 
I'd rather have a big underworked engine than a small pressurised flogged to death engine for longevity.
Totally agree! But under the pressure of CAFE fuel economy standards car manufactures have no choice but going the direction of turbo and CVT. Who cares about longevity? That's 100,000 miles later and the warranty is gone!
 
With preset EPA fuel economy test cycles, small displacement engine with turbo and CVT will always be easier to be programmed with better MPG results. But like Unobtanium said, new Honda CR-V AWD now gets 32 mpg at 75 mph which is only 1 mpg shy from its EPA highway estimate! The best on our CX-5 AWD at 75 mph is what? 26~28 mpg at the best? Of course you seems to overlooked my main complaint on our CX-5 AWD. Why the gap is 4 mpg on EPA highway estimate between FWD and AWD on CX-5 while the gap on other competitors is only 1 mpg?

Good point. I guess we have to look for a common denominator/s found in competitors NOT found in the CX-5. CVT first comes to mind.
 
Totally agree! But under the pressure of CAFE fuel economy standards car manufactures have no choice but going the direction of turbo and CVT. Who cares about longevity? That's 100,000 miles later and the warranty is gone!

lol

Automakers might not, but customers definitely care.

I found a BSFC map for the Skyactiv 2.0 and the Honda EarthDreams 1.5T on the EPA site.

There no denying that Honda has a really really good engine..

The manual CX-5 will cruise at 80MPH at 3074RPM and use 31KW of power to do so. It'll run at 233g/KWh so math says I'll get 29MPG at 80MPH which is right around what I get.
The Honda will also use ~31KW of power to go 80MPH, RPM can be anywhere the CVT wants them to be, so it'll run at 222g/KWH so math says it'll get 31MPG @ 80

The 2.5L BSFC is not going to be as good as the 2.0L.. so the gap between a 2.5L CX-5 and the CRV will be bigger.

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Honda.PNG
    Honda.PNG
    204.3 KB · Views: 2,733
  • Mazda.PNG
    Mazda.PNG
    73.5 KB · Views: 3,675
Totally agree! But under the pressure of CAFE fuel economy standards car manufactures have no choice but going the direction of turbo and CVT. Who cares about longevity? That's 100,000 miles later and the warranty is gone!

The guys that buy them out of warranty do but I take your point.
 
With US sales volume at 3:1 ratio between Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5, and CX-5 yearly sales are at the bottom of the Compact CUVs in the US, I really can't see how Honda would think CX-5 is their real competition!

Really? You don't think they have an entire department monitoring every little trend around the globe? You think Honda didn't notice that the CX-5, while maybe not having stellar sales, is praised in nearly EVERY professional review for how well and fun it drives? Every single one. That it became Mazda's #1 selling vehicle in the hottest car segment right now? The most lucrative car segment.
You don't think Honda noticed this tiny little company with a 6% market share is suddenly ranked by Car & Driver as being #2 second ONLY to themselves? or the CX-3 ranked #2 (and the HRV #7)? or the CX-9 is ranked #1! You think Honda isn't aware that people buy cars (like I did) based on a lot of this?
You seriously don't think Honda noticed that the CX-5 is Australia's #1 SELLING SUV for 2016?
I don't think it is a coincidence they added a few features that bring it more inline with the CX-5. Seems like an obvious attempt to cut Mazda off at the pass, so to speak.

Yea, the war is on. The ball is in your court Mazda.
 
Who cares about longevity? That's 100,000 miles later and the warranty is gone!

EVERYONE cars about longevity today. American car companies DIDN'T in the 80's. Look how that turned out. It took decades to recover from that and there are still to this day people that think Japanese is superior to American cars based very much so on those days..,,, No one today wants to be "that car that doesn't last beyond 100K".
 
lol

Automakers might not, but customers definitely care.

I found a BSFC map for the Skyactiv 2.0 and the Honda EarthDreams 1.5T on the EPA site.

There no denying that Honda has a really really good engine..

The manual CX-5 will cruise at 80MPH at 3074RPM and use 31KW of power to do so. It'll run at 233g/KWh so math says I'll get 29MPG at 80MPH which is right around what I get.
The Honda will also use ~31KW of power to go 80MPH, RPM can be anywhere the CVT wants them to be, so it'll run at 222g/KWH so math says it'll get 31MPG @ 80

The 2.5L BSFC is not going to be as good as the 2.0L.. so the gap between a 2.5L CX-5 and the CRV will be bigger.

attachment.php

attachment.php


Nice data. Very interesting and well explained. Is it safe to assume, wind and road conditions (grade, etc) would alter those numbers?
 
unobtanium - you are comparing a full refreshed CRV with the CX5 - automakers full refreshes hardly overlap due to release cycles. So when the skyactiv 2 comes out and Honda still has 1.5T and no major changes we can compare.
Till then the early market victory is for CRV, we can argue the 2017 CX5 will win on looks a lot and a bit more functionality. Maybe its numbers will be similar to 2016.5 or better.

Again - I think Mazda can never have the Honda / Toyota numbers because the average owner of those cars is asking for a lot of value at low price point. For them refinement is not as important as resale. Having the same Honda running 10-12 years later is even more important.

i think as we are seeing with cellphones that people by default replace it in 1-2 years, with the advancement of Car tech / mpg / electric will mean you dont want to be the guy holding to a 8 or older model year car unless it is financially impossible for you to upgrade. You miss out on tons of features + better mpg.
 
I'd rather have a big underworked engine than a small pressurised flogged to death engine for longevity.

I totally agree with You on that. Which is why I love my CX-3 2.0 compared to my previous Fiat Bravo 1.4 Turbo (which was a very good engine, but with poorer mpg).

Unless the Honda 1.5 Turbo is a huge improvement on most other smaller turbos, real life MPG will be much lower than stated in the official test.
You may be able to cruise at a steady 75 mph and get good mpg, but as soon as You touch that pedal and the turbo spins up, it'll drink fuel at a much higher rate.
 
My 2 liter turbo was pretty efficient on my Saab(s).

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
 
Back