2017 Impressions, Noise Comparison and Our New 2016 GT

You simply must be exxagerating. Who could be OPPOSED to rear vents. Not caring, I can see, but actually opposed to? I think you mistake someone saying "Eh, I'm fine without them, not must have" as being opposed to.

The tune has suddenly changed on memory seats, too? LOL. Please show me one person who said they didn't need it, then said they did. Name names. Are you sure it's just not different people?

As to memory seats? Yea, gotta say...Not must have for us. Had them in my last car. Have them in wife's car. Never gave it much thought but we don't use it. The wife and I don't have hugely different settings. I move back, she moves forward. Just asked wife, she doesn't use it either.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Monterra said:
Yes to silver, I like my liquid and was both happy (less common now) and sad-new one either lighter or much darker:(
Click to expand...

7eregrine said:
I didn't think people actually chose silver. Figured silver sells because it's all that's left on the lot. Hehehe I'm just teasing. Not a fan of silver.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I liked the look of the silver, but my wife did not. Her preference was red, light blue and titanium, dark blue and grey, then silver. White and black were never even considered.
 
Kaps said:
I disagree on a couple of points: touring packing is better in 17. There are features like power memory seats which are not done easily aftermarket. Rear ac vents are good additions. And if you like the upscale look for 17 it's worth it. The only families for which I recommend a 16.5 are ones who would have bought a Kia Hyundai but can now afford a Mazda, families that switch cars every 3 years. But if you plan on keeping it for 7-10 years 17 >>> 16.5
Click to expand...

Compared to our 2016 GT/Tech, the only useful features for us would be driver memory seat (does that include mirrors?) and power lift gate (finally!). Noticed that power folding mirrors are still not offered. <sigh>
Not enough upgrades to consider getting one.
 
yrwei52 said:
Firstly, you don't get memory seat in Touring, you have to go GT with expensive $1,830 GT Premium Package where many features are useless in Texas! Yeah I like rear AC vents a lot. In fact this was the first complaint from one of my friends who took my advice and bought a 2016 CX-5 GT!

It's funny now everybody here support rear AC vents but a year or two ago each time I brought up the rear AC vents, many people opposed to them, even used floor heater vents as an excuse for not needing them!

The same on memory seat. Each time I mentioned a power seat should always come with the memory, people were saying memory is not necessary! Now the tune has suddenly changed here! ;)
Click to expand...
Not sure who was complaining about that, but with a growing family and living in Texas, rear AC vents are a must. My workaround was to use The Noggle to pipe in cold air to my kid in the back, but rear AC vents are much easier to use.

Me and the wife also alternate driving the CX-5 a lot, so driver memory seat settings is a must for me.
 
frenchbiker said:
Compared to our 2016 GT/Tech, the only useful features for us would be driver memory seat (does that include mirrors?) and power lift gate (finally!). Noticed that power folding mirrors are still not offered. <sigh>
Not enough upgrades to consider getting one.
Click to expand...
No, memory function in 2017 CX-5 doesn't include outside mirrors. No power folding outside mirrors for US market either!
 
The folding mirrors would be cool to have.

*Note, I'm not saying Memory seats aren't must have for everyone. I only mean for us. Just reminding we need to stay out of this "Well, everyone wants xx feature" or "everyone complained about x"... mindset.
 
frenchbiker said:
Compared to our 2016 GT/Tech, the only useful features for us would be driver memory seat (does that include mirrors?) and power lift gate (finally!). Noticed that power folding mirrors are still not offered. <sigh>
Not enough upgrades to consider getting one.
Click to expand...

Why the hell would anyone upgrade a 1 year old econobox? A Porsche i can understand.. not a CX-5.
 
I just got back from my own test drive of a 2017 CX-5 Touring (in Eternal Blue). Here are my thoughts. Keep in mind I'm single, no kids, and I'm more leaning toward a 2016.5 Touring (no packages) as a happy median between buying a used CX-5 (pre-2016s the seats aren't as comfortable to me) or a new car (which I hate the idea of depreciation).

Anyway...here we go!

1) Overall the 2017 feels more substantial to me. The thunk of the door, the materials, etc. The car certainly seems heavier (which it is). No real drop off in performance that I could tell.
2) I'm not sure I'm a fan of the new and "improved" steering wheel, it didn't seem as comfortable to me, I think I prefer the 2016's.
3) Seat material in the Touring I was skeptical of going in, but I have to say it's quite nice. Wasn't hot, but it's only in the mid-70s here today in Northern California. Not sure how it would be when it's 110!
4) The center console area (around the shifter) seems much wider now, I think there may be less leg room side to side now.
5) Cargo area is noticeable smaller. The raised the cargo floor for sure (there's a bit more room where the spare tire is now). Another issue, as someone who would like to put a dog in the back, is that the material that now lines the sides of the cargo area will be a HUGE hair magnet.
6) The 2017 seemed lower to the ground to me.
7) The seats actually seemed quite firm to me, I think the 2016s might be a better fit for me. The 2017 are nice, but they seemed a little flatter and the lumber was more pronounced (which I don't care for).

All in all, I got the impression that the new car is a bit more refined and more "car" like. Some of the utility went away for the window dressing. I honestly don't know if it's really going to be worth the extra $3,000 - $5,000 over a run-out deal on a 2016.5.....things to ponder.

On the car color front, I'm really leaning toward red. My current car is silver which does go a long way between washes, but I see SOOOOO many silver, white, grey, and black cars on the road I really don't want to be just another monochromatic SUV on the road. Red and Eternal Blue are really my favorites.
 
Last edited:
A 2 dB change is normally considered at the threshold where most people will notice it. Your typical bass/treble control adjusts by 3 dB. In terms of -power-, 3 dB is half/twice the power, but we hear logarithmically.

A 3 dB change from Mazda is a huge amount to decrease it.
 
yrwei52 said:
Firstly, you don't get memory seat in Touring, you have to go GT with expensive $1,830 GT Premium Package where many features are useless in Texas! Yeah I like rear AC vents a lot. In fact this was the first complaint from one of my friends who took my advice and bought a 2016 CX-5 GT!

It's funny now everybody here support rear AC vents but a year or two ago each time I brought up the rear AC vents, many people opposed to them, even used floor heater vents as an excuse for not needing them!

The same on memory seat. Each time I mentioned a power seat should always come with the memory, people were saying memory is not necessary! Now the tune has suddenly changed here! ;)
Click to expand...

I do know about trim packages on cx5. I said it has features hard to get aftermarket, never said touring has memory seats. This:
Led for all trims
Upscale interior (2016 center gray trim looks black in most light conditions, 17 is an upgrade)
Padded armrest
Rear vents
More std touring features
Better package options (bose and moonroof does not get shoved down your throat like in 2016)
Chassis improvements
G vectoring
Rear armrest feels very premium
Quiet cabin (very hard to get aftermarket)
Seats are seemingly better
Build quality if it's better than that's cool since 16/16.5 is not stellar.

On mpg i never will see 33 on my 16.5 unless i mod the heck out of this car or find a constant 53 mph commute on flat land with no wind/traffic. so 17 in real world is 1 mpg less not much imo.
Overall i would pay more for these features.
 
Dermochelys

Thanks for sharing. (hi)
 
Last edited:
Why ? To sell them simple.
You could question why add more sound proofing?

Kaps said:
Why the hell would anyone upgrade a 1 year old econobox? A Porsche i can understand.. not a CX-5.
Click to expand...
 
Dermochelys said:
I just got back from my own test drive of a 2017 CX-5 Touring (in Eternal Blue). Here are my thoughts. Keep in mind I'm single, no kids, and I'm more leaning toward a 2016.5 Touring (no packages) as a happy median between buying a used CX-5 (pre-2016s the seats aren't as comfortable to me) or a new car (which I hate the idea of depreciation).

Anyway...here we go!

1) Overall the 2017 feels more substantial to me. The thunk of the door, the materials, etc. The car certainly seems heavier (which it is). No real drop off in performance that I could tell.
2) I'm not sure I'm a fan of the new and "improved" steering wheel, it didn't seem as comfortable to me, I think I prefer the 2016's.
3) Seat material in the Touring I was skeptical of going in, but I have to say it's quite nice. Wasn't hot, but it's only in the mid-70s here today in Northern California. Not sure how it would be when it's 110!
4) The center console area (around the shifter) seems much wider now, I think there may be less leg room side to side now.
5) Cargo area is noticeable smaller. The raised the cargo floor for sure (there's a bit more room where the spare tire is now). Another issue, as someone who would like to put a dog in the back, is that the material that now lines the sides of the cargo area will be a HUGE hair magnet.
6) The 2017 seemed lower to the ground to me.
7) The seats actually seemed quite firm to me, I think the 2016s might be a better fit for me. The 2017 are nice, but they seemed a little flatter and the lumber was more pronounced (which I don't care for).

All in all, I got the impression that the new car is a bit more refined and more "car" like. Some of the utility went away for the window dressing. I honestly don't know if it's really going to be worth the extra $3,000 - $5,000 over a run-out deal on a 2016.5.....things to ponder.

On the car color front, I'm really leaning toward red. My current car is silver which does go a long way between washes, but I see SOOOOO many silver, white, grey, and black cars on the road I really don't want to be just another monochromatic SUV on the road. Red and Eternal Blue are really my favorites.
Click to expand...
In your case, single, no kids, I would go for the 2016 model.
 
finch204 said:
In your case, single, no kids, I would go for the 2016 model.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how I'm leaning. To be honest, if I was serious about buying a 2017 I would look more at a Mazda 3. With the reduction cargo space and ground clearance, it seems like the CX-5 is now really just a high seating position 3. I don't know, I'm more "utility" minded, so I'm not as impressed with all of the changes as I thought I would be.
 
xtrailman said:
Why ? To sell them simple.
You could question why add more sound proofing?
Click to expand...
So you buy an economy priced cuv. Known for reliability.
Break engine in
Suffer the max depreciation in its first year, and then instead of enjoying its reliability- upgrade it ?
Are you running a charity?

Buying a Lexus would be cheaper on depreciation over these two years than buying 2 CX-5 s. Would be a step up as well.
 
Kaps means why would anyone trade in the 16 for a 17. Not why did Mazda make changes
I don't consider my car an "econobox".

It would be a little crazy to trade in any car after one year, even a Porsche. But I still wouldn't be so damn judgmental if someone did. Mind your business Kaps. ;)
 
Last edited:
7eregrine said:
You simply must be exxagerating. Who could be OPPOSED to rear vents. Not caring, I can see, but actually opposed to? I think you mistake someone saying "Eh, I'm fine without them, not must have" as being opposed to.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Let me be the one to tell you I'd much much rather NOT!!!! They work perfect for warming my ski boots in my 16.5 the way it is.
 
Yes, but I think the vents are for AC only. Heat is still delivered the way it is in the 16. Someone will, no doubt, correct me if I'm wrong.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Rear AC Vents

The rear AC vents are ducted from front dash vents. The vents under the front seats are still there and are ducted from front foot vents. Actually they're there since 1950's! Those floor vents are used for heating purpose to your cold feet. And hot air goes up and cold air goes down, hence it's more effective heated air is coming from those floor vents.
 
yrwei52 said:
It's funny now everybody here support rear AC vents but a year or two ago each time I brought up the rear AC vents, many people opposed to them, even used floor heater vents as an excuse for not needing them!
Click to expand...

7eregrine said:
You simply must be exxagerating. Who could be OPPOSED to rear vents. Not caring, I can see, but actually opposed to? I think you mistake someone saying "Eh, I'm fine without them, not must have" as being opposed to.

The tune has suddenly changed on memory seats, too? LOL. Please show me one person who said they didn't need it, then said they did. Name names. Are you sure it's just not different people?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually, he's not exaggerating. Mike M, who used to post here a lot up until about a year ago, contributed a ton to the forum, but defended all Mazda decisions to a fault. I remember him insisting that Mazda had rear vents (the floor vents) and even said they're useful with AC because if your feet are cool the rest of your body is cool. He was dead serious.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Looking at buying used 2016 CX-5 Touring
Replies
9
Views
2K
MTBingNinja
M
C
2016 CX-5 Scheduled Maintenance Question
Replies
3
Views
2K
sm1ke
sm1ke
L
    • Like
New CX-5 Owner!
Replies
2
Views
1K
Pitter
Pitter

Latest posts

Back