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

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.
Firstly, Mazda has only 2% US market share, not 6%.

Secondly, if people buy cars like you did based on a lot of good reviews you mentioned on CX-5 or other Mazda products, how come Mazda's market share is only 2% in the US? And how come the best-selling vehicle from Mazda, the CX-5, is at the bottom of the sales volume in compact CUV class?

Thirdly, if you were Takahiro Hachigo or Toshiaki Mikoshiba and see US sales figures for compact CUVs, you really think they feel Mazda CX-5 is a serious competitor for their new CR-V? They would think Nissan Rogue is the dangerous one as its sales have gone up 44.2% and 14.9% for the last two years!

Annual US Sales201420152016% +/-
Honda CR-V335,019345,647357,335+3.2%/+3.4%
Toyota RAV4267,698315,412352,154+17.8%/+11.6%
Nissan Rogue199,199287,190329,904+44.2%/+14.9%
Subaru Forester159,953175,192178,593+9.5%/+1.9%
Mazda CX-599,122111,450112,235+12.4%/+0.7%

Yes, I seriously don't think Honda noticed that the CX-5 is Australia's #1 SELLING SUV for 2016! Mazda sold merely 24,564 units of CX-5 in Australia for the whole 2016! :)
 
I think they're paying attention. I wouldn't have thought before I read that article.

2%? No way. Wow. That's nuts. Well, I promise the Cleveland market is way more then 2% Mazda. I see so many Mazda's here.

Where did I get 6 from? Read something about 6. Ford still own 6%?


Sent from my LG V10
 
From a comparison standpoint, it really isn't fair to compare a brand-new platform against a 4.5 year-old one. An accurate side-by-side comparison will be the 2017 CX-5 versus the 2017 CR-V.
The problems is the 2017 2nd-gen CX-5 carries over the same powertrain and all the data on performance and fuel economy should be very similar to 2016/2016.5 CX-5. The SA-D 2.2L diesel should change the fuel economy figure. But with added maintenance cost on urea injection and higher price on diesel fuel, the overall savings from higher MPG on diesel would be very minimum; not to mention the higher selling price on diesel CX-5 and problematic DPF Regeneration for people with only short trips.
 
I guess you keep missing my point.

No, I did not. You keep making it repeatedly
If the RAV4 AWD is "more efficient", get it, only to see it gets 22/25/28 MPG from the EPA, which is less than the CX-5 AWD. In fact, there are very few AWD CUVs that get better EPA numbers than the CX-5 AWD, all with more efficient transmissions (CVT mostly). At least one of which does not get expected results on fuelly, by real owners:

Outback
Forester
2017 CR-V
Rogue
Tucson Eco (but not any other trim)

We already know that the final drive for AWD is different than the FWD, which is probably a big part of the reason there is a gap between the AWD and FWD.
Anyway, when you look at fuelly data and compare it with other vehicles, the variance of the CX-5 is equal or lower to that of competing vehicles. This suggests that the CX-5 "gap" does not materialize as much as the EPA test predicts, or that other vehicles' variance, i.e. the distribution of how many owners get crappy actual MPG, is equal or worse to that of the CX-5.
 
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 has functionally identical skidpad ratings (0.82 CRV, 0.81 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)

Everything you quoted is within the limits of error, and the tire's traction would have varied enough to swing all the G readings, if the air/road temp was 5 degrees higher for the CRV.

NONE of those numbers describes 'handling'. They describe tire traction limits. I've owned sports cars (honda crx, mitsu eclipse, pos audi pos a4 pos). The CX-5 is MUCH better handling than all but the CRX, which weighed half as much, and had a center of gravity that was FEET lower.

And here's a good aside... Guess the car I enjoyed driving the most: CRX, Eclipse, A4, CX-5, Outback.

It was the 2000 Outback, with a 5-speed, -1 wheels and tires, and a full exhaust from down under. It was slow and leaned more than that famous tower in Piza, but the dynamics were just SO much fun.

I'll give you points for the MPG comparison. I spent some time at fuelly.com, and altho I couldn't limit subsets to strictly AWD vehicles, the 2016 crv population had higher MPG than the CX-5. But the driver who is interested in the CX-5 wouldn't have MPG as the highest parameter of purchase. Real-world, you'd be talking a few hundred dollars more in fuel consumed. Cut out one fast-food burger a week, and you've recouped that money.

I wonder if honda tuned the crv for max torque (max efficiency) at lower rpm than mazda did. I'd expect the Miller cycle to be more efficient... I'll have to google some.
 
The new CR-V is an excellent vehicle. Honda did a great job. If I was buying now (which I am not), I would seriously consider it over the CX-5.
However, the CX-5 is still an excellent choice, in many respects.

Regarding fuel economy, this has been discussed to death.
All the AWD vehicles which get better fuel economy than the CX-5, at least according to the EPA, are equipped with a CVT, except for the new Tucson Eco, which has 7 speed DCT, and not any other Tucson trim. The list is very short. In fact, most other CUVs get less favorable EPA results. Even on this short list, some get these lofty results only on paper.
The reason the CR-V gets such an excellent result is due to much work from Honda on an excellent engine + the use of a CVT. However, it is too soon to say how real life drivers fair with this CUV. Currently fuelly shows only marginal improvement over 2016, but that could still change.

With the Diesel SkyActiv-D, Mazda will have a great entry, with very high MPG, with competition only from the Equinox Diesel (in the US), which is much less exciting engine.
With the HCCI engine SkyActiv-2, Mazda will hopefully have an even better entry in a few years.

I agree, but don't forget that currently and for the last few years diesel has cost a lot more than 87...
 
Sounds like your drinking Honda koolaid! Really? Based on one article, you're done with Mazda?
No. I'm not trading in my CX-5. Mainly for cost. I bought it to be a cheapskate, and trading vehicles negates that, but if I could have had the CRV or the CX5 at the same price that day? CRV all the way, with the new styling. Old styling, I couldn't have done it.
What about those of us that just don't like Honda? I think that's absurd. I can understand styling, or some other thing turning you off, but to say "I just don't like Honda" (or any other brand, without a good reason to back it up other than just brand bias), is just laughable. Don't like Toyota either but the Rav4 is much prettier. And the Rogue with the 3d camera? Sweet! Or don't care about MPG? Or don't like the wood paneling inside? Blech. It's all about driving, maaaan. The CRV is the most athletic CUV out there in its price range. Do you even race, bro? *throws back the popular CX5 justifications*
I'm not a fan boy. This is my first Mazda. I simply prefer smaller car companies. There it is. Now that, I can respect and understand. It's not brand bias, it's company style bias. Just say that, IMO My other car is a Volvo. I didn't want a BMW. I like not seeing my car every time I turn a corner. Ok...I see a lot of CX5s...damnit...didn't expect that. Me too. They and Subaru dominate my area in this market. I would buy a Jeep with that gorgeous panoramic roof and heated steering wheel over the CRV. I came from a Jeep due to quality and reliability reasons. I really want another one, but damn I got bit hard :( Decisions... I did test drive a CRV just because it gets good reviews. I didn't love it. Like the Cherokee, it drives like a small SUV. The Mazda feels more like a big car with tight steering. It blew me away compared to the CRV and Cherokee. With the new lower center of gravity and this G Vectoring, I bet the new CX5 will continue to embarrass the competition where it matters to me: enjoying the drive.



Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

I am curious what the new CX-5 (2017) posts up for numbers.
 
Firstly, Mazda has only 2% US market share, not 6%.

Secondly, if people buy cars like you did based on a lot of good reviews you mentioned on CX-5 or other Mazda products, how come Mazda's market share is only 2% in the US? And how come the best-selling vehicle from Mazda, the CX-5, is at the bottom of the sales volume in compact CUV class?

Thirdly, if you were Takahiro Hachigo or Toshiaki Mikoshiba and see US sales figures for compact CUVs, you really think they feel Mazda CX-5 is a serious competitor for their new CR-V? They would think Nissan Rogue is the dangerous one as its sales have gone up 44.2% and 14.9% for the last two years!

Annual US Sales201420152016% +/-
Honda CR-V335,019345,647357,335+3.2%/+3.4%
Toyota RAV4267,698315,412352,154+17.8%/+11.6%
Nissan Rogue199,199287,190329,904+44.2%/+14.9%
Subaru Forester159,953175,192178,593+9.5%/+1.9%
Mazda CX-599,122111,450112,235+12.4%/+0.7%

Yes, I seriously don't think Honda noticed that the CX-5 is Australia's #1 SELLING SUV for 2016! Mazda sold merely 24,564 units of CX-5 in Australia for the whole 2016! :)

Sales numbers don't determine whether a car is good car or not or whether a manufacturer tries to set the benchmark or compare itself against it's competitors. There are plenty of average cars that sell in large numbers eg. Camry. The US whilst a large market is not the global market. Globally VW has now the biggest sales numbers and if Honda wants to compete globally, they would compare even the CRV against the excellent new Tiguan. Mazda being a smaller company will never EVER sell more cars than Honda, thats not to say they don't make good cars and won't be compared to with other manufacturers. All the manufacturers compare themselves against it's competitors in their respective class. Surely they try to improve their brand in every market and achieve positive and favourable reviews of their models against it's competitors. Honda and Mazda both Japanese sub-premium brands definitely compare themselves to each other (not in terms of global sales).
 
Just saying if I was a car company with a CUV and saw Mazda...tiny little Mazda...killing me in AUS and the darling of the US reviewers...I'm taking a closer look at what they're doing right.

Sent from my LG V10
 
Firstly, Mazda has only 2% US market share, not 6%.

Secondly, if people buy cars like you did based on a lot of good reviews you mentioned on CX-5 or other Mazda products, how come Mazda's market share is only 2% in the US? And how come the best-selling vehicle from Mazda, the CX-5, is at the bottom of the sales volume in compact CUV class?

Thirdly, if you were Takahiro Hachigo or Toshiaki Mikoshiba and see US sales figures for compact CUVs, you really think they feel Mazda CX-5 is a serious competitor for their new CR-V? They would think Nissan Rogue is the dangerous one as its sales have gone up 44.2% and 14.9% for the last two years!

Annual US Sales201420152016% +/-
Honda CR-V335,019345,647357,335+3.2%/+3.4%
Toyota RAV4267,698315,412352,154+17.8%/+11.6%
Nissan Rogue199,199287,190329,904+44.2%/+14.9%
Subaru Forester159,953175,192178,593+9.5%/+1.9%
Mazda CX-599,122111,450112,235+12.4%/+0.7%

Yes, I seriously don't think Honda noticed that the CX-5 is Australia's #1 SELLING SUV for 2016! Mazda sold merely 24,564 units of CX-5 in Australia for the whole 2016! :)

They probably did notice to be honest, and laughed their asses off. People in board rooms do that. They don't miss much, and they are very cruel, lol. Mazda is probably the butt of their jokes on the sales front. I know when I worked for a Ford dealership we made fun of everything we could behind closed doors with corporate. You should have seen some of the product launch videos they sent us comparing Chrysler trucks to F150's, lol!
 
Just saying if I was a car company with a CUV and saw Mazda...tiny little Mazda...killing me in AUS and the darling of the US reviewers...I'm taking a closer look at what they're doing right.

Sent from my LG V10

So the same reviews that you think Mazda should be proud of, are the one's people are now saying "disregard that..." because the CR-V is doing better in them? Which way should we lean :/
 
Everything you quoted is within the limits of error, and the tire's traction would have varied enough to swing all the G readings, if the air/road temp was 5 degrees higher for the CRV.

NONE of those numbers describes 'handling'. They describe tire traction limits. I've owned sports cars (honda crx, mitsu eclipse, pos audi pos a4 pos). The CX-5 is MUCH better handling than all but the CRX, which weighed half as much, and had a center of gravity that was FEET lower.

And here's a good aside... Guess the car I enjoyed driving the most: CRX, Eclipse, A4, CX-5, Outback.

It was the 2000 Outback, with a 5-speed, -1 wheels and tires, and a full exhaust from down under. It was slow and leaned more than that famous tower in Piza, but the dynamics were just SO much fun.

I'll give you points for the MPG comparison. I spent some time at fuelly.com, and altho I couldn't limit subsets to strictly AWD vehicles, the 2016 crv population had higher MPG than the CX-5. But the driver who is interested in the CX-5 wouldn't have MPG as the highest parameter of purchase. Real-world, you'd be talking a few hundred dollars more in fuel consumed. Cut out one fast-food burger a week, and you've recouped that money.

I wonder if honda tuned the crv for max torque (max efficiency) at lower rpm than mazda did. I'd expect the Miller cycle to be more efficient... I'll have to google some.

You're not talking about handling, you're talking about "feel". I'm talking about the CRV is going to edge the CX5 out if you race them on any track or drag strip or curvy mountain road.

I had an Infiniti G20. It was at least as fun to thrash in the corners as my 370Z was. It sure as hell would have lost in a competition of any sort, though! Same for my Grand Jeep Cherokee. It actually handled better than my 370Z. It was more neutral in corners, it had better rebound control, and it tracked like a blood hound trailbraking or on the throttle could vary its angle very well, while the 370Z was an on-throttle car. You do not trailbrake a 370Z much at all. If at all. But the 370Z would have been my tool of choice if there was a competition involving corners.

Does this make sense? I don't care about "fun or feel" when I say the CRV is a better handler. I care about the fact that it has higher limits of adhesion and apparently handles direction transitions better (M&T figure 8).
 
Huh? I didn't say Mazda should be proud. Nor anyone should disregard.

The CRVs numbers are moving closer to the CX5 according to that article. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Sent from my LG V10
 
No, I did not. You keep making it repeatedly
If the RAV4 AWD is "more efficient", get it, only to see it gets 22/25/28 MPG from the EPA, which is less than the CX-5 AWD. In fact, there are very few AWD CUVs that get better EPA numbers than the CX-5 AWD, all with more efficient transmissions (CVT mostly). At least one of which does not get expected results on fuelly, by real owners:

Outback
Forester
2017 CR-V
Rogue
Tucson Eco (but not any other trim)

We already know that the final drive for AWD is different than the FWD, which is probably a big part of the reason there is a gap between the AWD and FWD.
Anyway, when you look at fuelly data and compare it with other vehicles, the variance of the CX-5 is equal or lower to that of competing vehicles. This suggests that the CX-5 "gap" does not materialize as much as the EPA test predicts, or that other vehicles' variance, i.e. the distribution of how many owners get crappy actual MPG, is equal or worse to that of the CX-5.

This! People need to keep this in mind. As soon as I learned of it, it enlightened me greatly, and I'm happy for the trade. It's not that Mazda has a crappy AWD system, it's that they gear the car differently...and I'm okay with that. Honestly, I'm okay with the mileage I'm getting. I just wish it had been sold to me honestly.

I feel like a guy who bought an M4 carbine that was touted as "shooting 1/4 inch at 100 yards" only to find out that it couldn't do better than 1/2". Am I still happy as a pig in mud? SURE! But I feel lied to when I could have chosen from other rifles that were delivering 1/2" groups too...
 
Huh? I didn't say Mazda should be proud. Nor anyone should disregard.

The CRVs numbers are moving closer to the CX5 according to that article. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Sent from my LG V10
Closer? They are superior in nearly every way.

And...


*whispers*

"I bet it's NAV and infotainment system aren't circa 2005 like current CX-5's."
 
They don't seem that different to me. Below is the data from the 2017 CRV and the other is from my car, the 2014 CX-5. Which one is which?

Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec @ 87 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 123 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g*

Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.5 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.82 g

CRV is listed on the bottom. You can tell because it has a 3mph higher trap speed. To put that in perspective, that's the near exact difference between a Subaru WRX, and a Subaru WRX STi. 268hp vs. 305hp in the same vehicle, basically. It's a very large difference.
 
I compared the infotainment in CRV, CX5, Cherokee and Crosstrek.

I liked the CX5 best. Cherokee worst. The others in the middle.
I'm loving it. The Commander knob and volume / mute right by my hand? Freaking love.

Sent from my LG V10
 
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!

Due to new real-world emission tests which will come into play soon, the trend now which has already started in Europe is to go the opposite direction in up-sizing the engines. The use of small capacity turbo engines have reached it's limits.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/490266/...es-to-meet-real-world-emissions-tests-report/


Good for Mazda in terms of staying with NA engines and not going what everyone else was doing in going turbo.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/500110/...better-real-world-fuel-economy-and-emissions/
 
Back