2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017

Oh wait, but the 16 does that better as well. My comments from the black 16 vs black 17 thread is spot on. One look at them and you can clearly tell the 16 is more planted to the ground and ready for more aggressive driving. Yes, I've driven both, and this was clear from the start.

Well, looks don't tell the whole story, the suspension on the 2017 has a lot more "give" in it (liquid-filled bushings, etc.). To combat this, they mounted the steering linkage more solidly to give better steering feed-back and "hide" how soft they had made the suspension, along with the GVectoring deal to hide some of the "squirm" on turn-in.

In short, Mazda has gone after sales by "maturing" the platform, getting rid of the notion that people buy CUV's "because racecar", and made it much better to live with. I suspect sales will benefit from it, and the Mazda faithful on this forum will have to re-tune their story to match the new philosophy expressed in the vehicle.

I personally would like the changes in my own CX5, but it's obviously not worth trading in a 2 YM old vehicle on it, and it is rather easy to console myself with the fact that at least my car could go head to head with a new CR-V on the backroads while the new CX-5 would get left behind.
 
Last edited:
Well, looks don't tell the whole story, the suspension on the 2017 has a lot more "give" in it. To combat this, they mounted the steering linkage more solidly to give better steering feed-back and "hide" how soft they had made the suspension, along with the GVectoring deal to hide some of the "squirm" on turn-in.

In short, Mazda has gone after sales by "maturing" the platform, getting rid of the notion that people buy CUV's "because racecar", and made it much better to live with. I suspect sales will benefit from it, and the Mazda faithful on this forum will have to re-tune their story to match the new philosophy expressed in the vehicle.

I personally would like the changes in my own CX5, but it's obviously not worth trading in a 2 YM old vehicle on it, and it is rather easy to console myself with the fact that at least my car could go head to head with a new CR-V on the backroads while the new CX-5 would get left behind.

Well, no crap...

But, half the fun is carving corners, but a skid pad test doesn't matter. Lol

I spend some time at the BMW Performance Driving Center here. I wanna test the cx-5 myself for the helluvit. The dealer here is a big racer of Mazdas. Would be really cool if he allowed a 17 to be tested with my 16. ;)
 
Well, no crap...

But, half the fun is carving corners, but a skid pad test doesn't matter. Lol

I spend some time at the BMW Performance Driving Center here. I wanna test the cx-5 myself for the helluvit. The dealer here is a big racer of Mazdas. Would be really cool if he allowed a 17 to be tested with my 16. ;)

The "Figure 8" test is much more revealing, as it involves not only maximum adhesion levels, but also weight transition, steering, etc. That is mostly what I am referring to when I compare the CX5 to something else, as yes, skidpad alone is a very "1 dimensional" test.
 
Its pretty simple for me 17 is a far more family oriented vehicle. Sound deadening in itself is a big perk. It has AC vents in rear, auto hatch for those that wanted it.
Std. DRLs on all trims which is nice. But it gives up on performance.

Overall - again its hard to decide which one is better. If I were buying today - 17s looks would disqualify it. But if looks were acceptable, maybe I would seriously consider 17. A quiet cabin in a family car benefits all - sleeping toddler, talking partner, music etc.
Interior is more premium as well. If you wanted more performance over utility - not sure why you would not have gone for 2.5L Mazda 3 sedan or Hatch. You got a CX-5 primarily for utility and that is similar.

On top of that 17 Highway mpgs would be >> 16s. Atleast FWD models. (Not counting those that regularly run 38 psi or up)
 
The "Figure 8" test is much more revealing, as it involves not only maximum adhesion levels, but also weight transition, steering, etc. That is mostly what I am referring to when I compare the CX5 to something else, as yes, skidpad alone is a very "1 dimensional" test.

Well, again, no crap...

I get paid to show up to track/driving events and tune suspensions and tires. We test it all here at the driving center as stated before...
 
Its pretty simple for me 17 is a far more family oriented vehicle. Sound deadening in itself is a big perk. It has AC vents in rear, auto hatch for those that wanted it.
Std. DRLs on all trims which is nice. But it gives up on performance.

Overall - again its hard to decide which one is better. If I were buying today - 17s looks would disqualify it. But if looks were acceptable, maybe I would seriously consider 17. A quiet cabin in a family car benefits all - sleeping toddler, talking partner, music etc.
Interior is more premium as well. If you wanted more performance over utility - not sure why you would not have gone for 2.5L Mazda 3 sedan or Hatch. You got a CX-5 primarily for utility and that is similar.

On top of that 17 Highway mpgs would be >> 16s. Atleast FWD models. (Not counting those that regularly run 38 psi or up)

Hey man, I'm not a hater, just labeled as one...I totally agree!
 
Well, again, no crap...

I get paid to show up to track/driving events and tune suspensions and tires. We test it all here at the driving center as stated before...

Good to know. I do not know you, you knowledge or skill-set, or anything. Thank-you for providing a clearer picture. I would be VERY interested in seeing a lap-time comparison between the 17 and the older model, if "lap times" are a possible thing at the facility? My only experience is with GM's testing at Spring Mountain.
 
I test drove the CR-V and while according to tests it does go faster, it feels like it's going to fall apart when it does.
Transmission and engine are noisy if you dip it 1/2 throttle or more. It also doesn't feel as connected to the road when you drive. Definitely louder on highway ride.

My CX-5 is for commuting 90% of the time and has 2 child seats in the back 100% of the time. It's perfect for my needs at this time and feels very well put together. I never find that I NEEEEED more power, it's fast enough in Atlanta metro traffic.

As a note in 2013 I test drove the CX-5 then and ended up not getting it because my non-car enthusiast wife noticed how friggin loud it was inside the car when driving on the expressway. And this is coming from owning a 2006 Mazda3.

I think if the focus was 0-60 and driving dynamics then there are better cars than a CX-5. My personal take is that the additional sound deadening and rear a/c vents were definitely worth it for me. If I wanted a sportier car and I wanted to canyon carve or stoplight drag race I would have picked a used SQ5 or something along that range.
 
Last edited:
I test drove the CR-V and while according to tests it does go faster, it feels like it's going to fall apart when it does.
Transmission and engine are noisy if you dip it 1/2 throttle or more. It also doesn't feel as connected to the road when you drive. Definitely louder on highway ride.

My CX-5 is for commuting 90% of the time and has 2 child seats in the back 100% of the time. It's perfect for my needs at this time and feels very well put together. I never find that I NEEEEED more power, it's fast enough in Atlanta metro traffic.

As a note in 2013 I test drove the CX-5 then and ended up not getting it because my non-car enthusiast wife noticed how friggin loud it was inside the car when driving on the expressway. And this is coming from owning a 2006 Mazda3.

I think if the focus was 0-60 and driving dynamics then there are better cars than a CX-5. My personal take is that the additional sound deadening and rear a/c vents were definitely worth it for me. If I wanted a sportier car and I wanted to canyon carve or stoplight drag race I would have picked a used SQ5 or something along that range.

THIS x 1000!!!

But that is not what this forum has been saying for years, as a way to justify the CX-5's shortcomings in nearly every other area vs. its competitors until just lately.
 
Good to know. I do not know you, you knowledge or skill-set, or anything. Thank-you for providing a clearer picture. I would be VERY interested in seeing a lap-time comparison between the 17 and the older model, if "lap times" are a possible thing at the facility? My only experience is with GM's testing at Spring Mountain.

It's possible. And, I'm just making convo. I agree with most of what you post here. I get flames too as a hater. It's all good. Hey, I own a Mazda, but sorry I'm not a fanboy, and never will be. This may be my one and only Mazda ever. I mean the little Miatas are cool and all, but I'll never own one. Ole girl likes the BMW Z cars and Minis, so if I bought a street legal go kart, that would be it, even though I'm not really a fan of either, but they're hella fun to drive...

Speaking of go karts, that's actually the most fun to me to test. Kart with a Honda CRF450 strapped to it is insane...Yes, I probably should be dead by now...

Planning a trip to Return of the Dragon/Deals Gap soon. I hope my girl wants to have some fun in the CX-5. Zoom Zoom...lol
 
It's possible. And, I'm just making convo. I agree with most of what you post here. I get flames too as a hater. It's all good. Hey, I own a Mazda, but sorry I'm not a fanboy, and never will be. This may be my one and only Mazda ever. I mean the little Miatas are cool and all, but I'll never own one. Ole girl likes the BMW Z cars and Minis, so if I bought a street legal go kart, that would be it, even though I'm not really a fan of either, but they're hella fun to drive...

Speaking of go karts, that's actually the most fun to me to test. Kart with a Honda CRF450 strapped to it is insane...Yes, I probably should be dead by now...

Planning a trip to Return of the Dragon/Deals Gap soon. I hope my girl wants to have some fun in the CX-5. Zoom Zoom...lol

My CX5 was a purchase in response to an unreliable vehicle, and a need for a reliable one that was good on gas, AWD, and CUV or larger. I literally bought the geographically closest option per Autotrader that fit the bill. It's a coffee-maker to me.

Re: Miata, I love the look of the new hardtop one, but the one I rode in has TONS of body-roll. If I wanted a slower sports car, I'd go FR-S or whatever Toyota calls it now. Not that the Miata is "bad", I just prefer different dynamics.
 
I would take the new CR-V over the new CX-5 in a heartbeat.

You could surely add me to the list if it were a free choice, but I would never spend "new car money" on an appliance car, so I'm in my 2015 "for life" (its, or mine).
 
You could surely add me to the list if it were a free choice, but I would never spend "new car money" on an appliance car, so I'm in my 2015 "for life" (its, or mine).

Yeah. i'm thinking about lowering mine a tad bit now and adding an exhaust at least.
 
My CX5 was a purchase in response to an unreliable vehicle, and a need for a reliable one that was good on gas, AWD, and CUV or larger. I literally bought the geographically closest option per Autotrader that fit the bill. It's a coffee-maker to me.

Re: Miata, I love the look of the new hardtop one, but the one I rode in has TONS of body-roll. If I wanted a slower sports car, I'd go FR-S or whatever Toyota calls it now. Not that the Miata is "bad", I just prefer different dynamics.

Agree on everything. The CX-5 is here because the girl wanted it. I was a little surprised with her not really digging the rougher ride of the Evo, but I was glad to see it. Just hope she last because she likes to keep her cars for double digit years...Of course, I was dying for something with a little more power, but she reminded me, we have plenty of those. I'm about to clean out the shop actually. Thinking about building a Nissan 240 with some LS power...
 
Me too, flame on...

Nothing wrong with either car. If they were both the same money it would have been a very tough call!

Around here the CR-V's were running about 1000 to 2000 more than a CX-5 and to me the CX-5 FELT better driving even tho on paper the CR-V was better. There really is nothing wrong with a CR-V and we were back and forth deciding but $$$ pushed it to CX-5 and interior quality and noise as well. When the toddlers get older I will get my fun car back.... (previously owned a FD3S, a Soarer, and a B5 S4 Stg 2+ and AutoX'd all of them!)
 
Back