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

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 :/

A 2017 CRV is doing better than a current-gen CX5 released in 2012? Is it significantly better? Or has it come just come up to par overall?
 
The shifter alone in the Honda kills it for me. Might as well just use a column shifter at that point.

I agree. What sort of sporty vehicle would ever place it there? I mean, only bad cars like the Porsche Carrera V10 GT, right?
Porsche-Carrera-GT-Interior.jpg
 
A 2017 CRV is doing better than a current-gen CX5 released in 2012? Is it significantly better? Or has it come just come up to par overall?

Well, it honestly remains to be seen, but by the numbers, it outperforms the best the CX-5 has to offer, while getting equal and better mileage, and offering more cargo space by far. Here is the CX5 for 2016:
34.1 ft, 64.8 to 65.4 ft with seat area
Here is the CRV:
39.2 ft, 75.8 ft with seat area


So you tell me? It gets a real-world of about 5mpg better on the highway, and offers comparable to superior acceleration, and agility and braking, with slightly better brakes (no fade).

I also bet the infotainment destroys Mazda.

Basically, it's a much better family hauler that offers better performance and more efficiency.
 
Well, it honestly remains to be seen, but by the numbers, it outperforms the best the CX-5 has to offer, while getting equal and better mileage, and offering more cargo space by far. Here is the CX5 for 2016:
34.1 ft, 64.8 to 65.4 ft with seat area
Here is the CRV:
39.2 ft, 75.8 ft with seat area


So you tell me? It gets a real-world of about 5mpg better on the highway, and offers comparable to superior acceleration, and agility and braking, with slightly better brakes (no fade).

I also bet the infotainment destroys Mazda.

Basically, it's a much better family hauler that offers better performance and more efficiency.

Honda has always been good in terms of cabin space at the expense of aesthetics, I give it that. Performance wise in every day family duties there is probably not much in it. These are not sports cars. I have no doubt the CX-5 would still be the driver's choice in coming comparisons. Don't be so sure about the infotainment. Mazda's MZD with the rotary style dial is considered a solid system with a strong emphasis on ease of use whilst on the move. As for the shifter in the CRV, it's ugly as hell and is in an annoying angle whether it being the same in that Porsche model or not.
 
Honda has always been good in terms of cabin space at the expense of aesthetics, I give it that. Performance wise in every day family duties there is probably not much in it. These are not sports cars. I have no doubt the CX-5 would still be the driver's choice in coming comparisons. Don't be so sure about the infotainment. Mazda's MZD with the rotary style dial is considered a solid system with a strong emphasis on ease of use whilst on the move. As for the shifter in the CRV, it's ugly as hell and is in an annoying angle whether it being the same in that Porsche model or not.
I grant you that, but you touch the shifter...what? once or twice? When you start, and when you park...

So Mazda has live traffic and live color radar now? because that's what I'm coming from, and what I've seen out of Mazda has kept me from even bothering to get the NAV update in my 2015. Is the 2017 going to be nice?
 
I grant you that, but you touch the shifter...what? once or twice? When you start, and when you park...

So Mazda has live traffic and live color radar now? because that's what I'm coming from, and what I've seen out of Mazda has kept me from even bothering to get the NAV update in my 2015. Is the 2017 going to be nice?

Not sure about live traffic. Depends on the market. I thought you guys had it in the US? Not sure what you mean by color radar. CX-5 always big on safety tech. New addition is Head Up Display with pedestrian and traffic sign recognition.
 
I just noticed the post of mine that you replied inline to. My god your opinionated, aren't you?
I've never liked Honda or Toyota. I've never liked the styles. There's been one Honda I thought was nice. Ever. S2000. Only the newest Civics imo sheds that boring exterior. I've never bought one car based on what so many people buy those cars for: reliability. That's not good enough for you? I've only bought cars that were fun to drive, cost be damned. I'm sorry you decided to go cheap and buy a car you really didn't want. That'll never be me. I love driving. A car is something I want to enjoy being in. Not just something to get me from A to B. Mazda fits that criteria. I'll buy something used if I can't afford the car I want.

I bet the Porsche you showed us has paddle shifters. You know who else made a shifter like that? The Vibe / Matrix. Yea, I said I liked the shifter there...because I though it was a bold move 10 years ago when Pontiac did it. It was different. I like different. (I rented a Vibe once. POS. But cool shifter).no don't like it enough to buy a car based on that.

Did you test drive the CRV? I don't think you did. The stereo isn't great. And that wasn't changed for 2017. Oh! They added a button. Like the Commander knob? Sort of.

I like the GPS. When did we become so reliant on traffic updates? Do you not have a smartphone?

If I was buying this summer, as I said, it would be down to the same 2 models as it was when I did buy I can almost guarantee. Cherokee v CX5.

Sent from my LG V10
 
Not sure about live traffic. Depends on the market. I thought you guys had it in the US? Not sure what you mean by color radar. CX-5 always big on safety tech. New addition is Head Up Display with pedestrian and traffic sign recognition.

That's really cool with the HUD. My 2012 370Z had live color weather radar. Was nice. Especially on long road-trips. I miss it. From what I understand, my 2015 is the last CX-5 that had live traffic re-routing.

Also, the phone tether is super lame. Give me a real radio with XM.
 
Not sure about live traffic. Depends on the market. I thought you guys had it in the US? Not sure what you mean by color radar. CX-5 always big on safety tech. New addition is Head Up Display with pedestrian and traffic sign recognition.
Mazda did false advertising on "Life Traffic" in the US. The printed sales brochure of CX-5 says it has it, but ended up there's nothing for "Life Traffic" in our Nav system!

Remember we're been treated as second-class citizen in the US by Mazda as we don't get many nice features offered in Australia! We may get Head Up Display on upcoming CX-5 but I doubt we'll get new pedestrian and traffic sign recognition.
 
I just noticed the post of mine that you replied inline to. My god your opinionated, aren't you?
I've never liked Honda or Toyota. I've never liked the styles. Well, that makes two of us then... There's been one Honda I thought was nice. Ever. S2000. Honda did what they always do, they created a wonderful machine, did virtually nothing to it for a decade, and wondered why it stopped selling and finally killed it :( Only the newest Civics imo sheds that boring exterior. I've never bought one car based on what so many people buy those cars for: reliability. That's not good enough for you? I've only bought cars that were fun to drive, cost be damned. I'm sorry you decided to go cheap and buy a car you really didn't want. That'll never be me. I love driving. A car is something I want to enjoy being in. Not just something to get me from A to B. Mazda fits that criteria. I'll buy something used if I can't afford the car I want.
I get that, but I bought it when I was making 20% less, and quite honestly, I over-reacted to about a $30k/year pay-cut that ended up being rather temporary. On the flip side, I've been able to afford a lot more ammo and other consumables lately, and it's going to make buying an estate cake with such a low D/I ratio vs. had I gone with something like an SRT8 Jeep.

I bet the Porsche you showed us has paddle shifters. You know who else made a shifter like that? The Vibe / Matrix. Yea, I said I liked the shifter there...because I though it was a bold move 10 years ago when Pontiac did it. It was different. I like different. (I rented a Vibe once. POS. But cool shifter).no don't like it enough to buy a car based on that.
No, that Porsche has 3 pedals like a true sports car :p

Did you test drive the CRV? I don't think you did. The stereo isn't great. And that wasn't changed for 2017. Oh! They added a button. Like the Commander knob? Sort of.
I did not. The stereo in the Mazda sucks too, FWIW, and I'm not an audiophile. I just know it's very mediocre to my damaged ears.

I like the GPS. When did we become so reliant on traffic updates? Do you not have a smartphone?
Yes, and I prefer not to screw with it while driving, and when I get out into remove stretches of the countryside that don't have cell reception, that ever-present XM satellite correspondence sure is nice...I hate losing my music, and being able to always make a 911 call has value.

If I was buying this summer, as I said, it would be down to the same 2 models as it was when I did buy I can almost guarantee. Cherokee v CX5.

Sent from my LG V10

Porsche-Carrera-GT-Interior.jpg
 
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.
My point has always been that CX-5 AWD is not efficient as evidenced by bigger gap on EPA ratings than others between its FWD and AWD. I've never intended to compare CX-5 AWD to other AWD's like you repeatedly did it here - comparing CX-5 AWD to Toyota RAV4 AWD and other AWD's again!

The EPA rating gap between FWD and AWD for the same vehicle model on all other CUVs is 1 mpg, but for CX-5 it's 4 mpg on highway! If Mazda can improve efficiency on CX-5's i-Activ AWD system with only 1 mpg penalty from its FWD, a 28/25/32 Combined/City/Highway EPA estimate would be very close to new Honda AWD's 29/27/33! In fact I was the one pointed out CX-5 does have different final gear ratio between FWD and AWD which contributes the poorer mpg on AWD. But I believe the current fuel efficiency gap is too large, and Mazda should do something on it. And apparently Mazda agrees and has been making a couple of modifications trying to improve real-world gas mileage on its CX-5 AWD!

And you repeatedly used Fuelly data trying to make your point. Unfortunately Fuelly data mixed FWD and AWD on the same vehicle and there's no way to break down the difference between them. I simply don't see what these data are good for the argument on fuel efficiency between FWD and AWD?
 
My point has always been that CX-5 AWD is not efficient as evidenced by bigger gap on EPA ratings than others between its FWD and AWD. I've never intended to compare CX-5 AWD to other AWD's like you repeatedly did it here - comparing CX-5 AWD to Toyota RAV4 AWD and other AWD's again!

The EPA rating gap between FWD and AWD for the same vehicle model on all other CUVs is 1 mpg, but for CX-5 it's 4 mpg on highway! If Mazda can improve efficiency on CX-5's i-Activ AWD system with only 1 mpg penalty from its FWD, a 28/25/32 Combined/City/Highway EPA estimate would be very close to new Honda AWD's 29/27/33! In fact I was the one pointed out CX-5 does have different final gear ratio between FWD and AWD which contributes the poorer mpg on AWD. But I believe the current fuel efficiency gap is too large, and Mazda should do something on it. And apparently Mazda agrees and has been making a couple of modifications trying to improve real-world gas mileage on its CX-5 AWD!

And you repeatedly used Fuelly data trying to make your point. Unfortunately Fuelly data mixed FWD and AWD on the same vehicle and there's no way to break down the difference between them. I simply don't see what these data are good for the argument on fuel efficiency between FWD and AWD?

The issue is gearing, though. The AWD has a steeper final drive. It's not the AWD system itself screwing the rating, it's the deeper gearing in part, as well. To me, the acceleration and grunt going up hills is well worth it. To others, it may not be and it may well annoy the hell out of them. That's a choice Mazda made that will have its fans (me) and those who are not fans (you). No real "right or wrong" way about it though, imo
 
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).
Ture. But sometimes it depends on how you define a "good car". People do buy "good cars"! Apparently at least in the US, most people think a "good car" should be very reliable, fuel efficient, and have the most amenities. They don't really think the best handling car is a "good car" if you don't have the previous virtues mentioned. Even in your country down south is the same. That's why Toyota vehicles and Camry have always been the best sellers in Australia because most people there think Toyota's and Camry's are good cars!

Another example is new 2nd-gen Mazda CX-9. The reviews are good as mentioned in previous posts. But the sales so far 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.

I was always wondering why some people believe Mazda wants to be small, and Mazda doesn't want to sell more vehicles and becomes one of the larger car manufactures like Honda has done. If that's the case, why Mazda Motor Corp. CEO Masamichi Kogai wants to bring up its US customer retention rate to improve the sales volume?

Mazda looks to next-gen CX-5 for a lift
Mazda's interim goal is bringing more customers back to buy another Mazda.

Mazda's U.S. retention rate is a lackluster 37 percent. While that is up from around 26 percent in 2011, Kogai concedes "it's not that great." He wants it to top 60 percent in five years. "In Japan, the retention rate is more than 50 percent," he said. "We want the U.S. rate to catch up."
 
Ture. But sometimes it depends on how you define a "good car". People do buy "good cars"! Apparently at least in the US, most people think a "good car" should be very reliable, fuel efficient, and have the most amenities. They don't really think the best handling car is a "good car" if you don't have the previous virtues mentioned. Even in your country down south is the same. That's why Toyota vehicles and Camry have always been the best sellers in Australia because most people there think Toyota's and Camry's are good cars!

Another example is new 2nd-gen Mazda CX-9. The reviews are good as mentioned in previous posts. But the sales so far is very disappointing.

Mazda dealers look to recover from a rough 2016


I was always wondering why some people believe Mazda wants to be small, and Mazda doesn't want to sell more vehicles and becomes one of the larger car manufactures like Honda has done.
If that's the case, why Mazda Motor Corp. CEO Masamichi Kogai wants to bring up its US customer retention rate to improve the sales volume?

Mazda looks to next-gen CX-5 for a lift

For the same reason people say they like making less money (I hear this all the time at work "If you work more than 1 extra shift, but less than 3, you lost money", to which I respond "Yeah, that's why PA's make so much less than RN's, because on equivalent hours, they are adding what amounts to only about 2 extra shifts more. It's the cross they bare, losing all that money compared to the RN, right?" which is usually met with stares that say stuff such as "my god he's right...but he can't be...but I was told...I'm so lost adulting"). Yet they never seem to want to make ANY LESS by donating a few bucks to anyone else. WTF man? WTF. I just want to make them a dollar or two per hour happier...
 
The issue is gearing, though. The AWD has a steeper final drive. It's not the AWD system itself screwing the rating, it's the deeper gearing in part, as well. To me, the acceleration and grunt going up hills is well worth it. To others, it may not be and it may well annoy the hell out of them. That's a choice Mazda made that will have its fans (me) and those who are not fans (you). No real "right or wrong" way about it though, imo
I agree it's the choice Mazda made with deeper gearing making bigger EPA rating gap between AWD and FWD. But some how I still feel Mazda could have done better to improve its efficiency on i-Activ AWD without sacrificing AWD's performance. Subaru has one of the best AWD system, Symmetrical All Wheel Drive. Its 2.5L Forester has 28/26/32 Combined/City/Highway mpg. Comparing to our CX-5 2.5L AWD's 26/24/29 mpg Subaru apparently has done much better job in its AWD system for fuel efficiency AND performance!

Like I said, Mazda knows it and did some software changes to improve CX-5's real-world gas mileage for MY 2016. Then again put a new ball-bearing in rear differential for "less friction, better efficiency and greater strength" for new 2nd-gen 2017 CX-5.
 
I think your scenario is lost in translation. I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

I see you live in the UK, so some things might be different. I do shift work. 12 hours per shift. I have a 4 year degree, and the national average for my income hovers around $60K USD. A PA has a 6 year degree and makes on average, $90K USD per year. This is a 30-ish% increase. Roughly equivalent to pulling 2 extra shifts per pay-period for someone making the national average income with MY degree.

However, in the US, we are taxed on a sliding scale (it caps out well above the incomes discussed). However, it is EXPRESSED in "brackets". It is not functionally a "bracket" system, but rather an infinite sliding scale with lower and upper limits (just like a CVT transmission).

Yet people who do not understand how this works know that working 1 extra shift at my average annual income per pay period is not enough to "bump you up a bracket", but 2 shifts "bumps you up a bracket", and 3 shifts "won't bump to the NEXT bracket".

So they say "Pull 1, or 3, but NOT 2 extra shifts a pay-period. Because they are absolutely ignorant about how taxes actually work, and think that they are "bracket" based functionally, and not a sliding scale.

So when I say "Is that why PA's make less than us working the same hours?" and they look at like all clueless and crap. Because they have such a poor understanding of how taxes work. Because school now days doesn't teach common life skills, and you have to go out and FIND those tidbits of knowledge on your own.


I was correlating their "but you don't want to make too much money of you'll earn less!" ignorance to the statement that Mazda somehow enjoys being one of the least financially successful automakers in the world.
 
Last edited:
I agree it's the choice Mazda made with deeper gearing making bigger EPA rating gap between AWD and FWD. But some how I still feel Mazda could have done better to improve its efficiency on i-Activ AWD without sacrificing AWD's performance. Subaru has one of the best AWD system, Symmetrical All Wheel Drive. Its 2.5L Forester has 28/26/32 Combined/City/Highway mpg. Comparing to our CX-5 2.5L AWD's 26/24/29 mpg Subaru apparently has done much better job in its AWD system for fuel efficiency AND performance!

Like I said, Mazda knows it and did some software changes to improve CX-5's real-world gas mileage for MY 2016. Then again put a new ball-bearing in rear differential for "less friction, better efficiency and greater strength" for new 2nd-gen 2017 CX-5.

Has it, though? Check out the Forester's gearing.
It's a 3.7 final drive with the CVT, which has a functional "highest gear" of 0.611 = 2.2607
The CX5 2.5 on the other hand has a final drive of 4.62 and a "highest gear" of 0.6 = 2.772

A total difference of approximately 20%!
 
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.

LOL. There is no way to respond to such a post without seeming insulting so I think I will just not say anything.
 
Has it, though? Check out the Forester's gearing.
It's a 3.7 final drive with the CVT, which has a functional "highest gear" of 0.611 = 2.2607
The CX5 2.5 on the other hand has a final drive of 4.62 and a "highest gear" of 0.6 = 2.772

A total difference of approximately 20%!
Based on your data Subaru uses taller final gear for better fuel efficiency and still makes its AWD performance as good as advertised. Yeah Subaru uses CVT for fuel efficiency which may gain 1~2 mpg advantage, but remember using CVT is also hurting the performance! I feel Mazda should have room to improve the efficiency and still keeping the performance for CX-5 with AWD. Making the final gear ratio taller or better adding more gears in it's automatic transmission should be considered.
 
Back