NHTSA Safety Ratings on 2017 Mazda CX-5
- Thread starter yrwei52
- Start date
I'd buy a Genesis CUV, if they ever decided to make one. Mazda should take some hints from the Korean car companies (Hyundai and Kia). RIP Daewoo though.
Drove a SantaFe when I was trying out the 2013 CX-5. That drove like a boat, had 0 feedback on steering, and had about a +/- 5 degree or so dead spot on center. If they are going to Genisis(ise) it they better start from the ground up.
After testing CX-5, SantaFe, Q5, and RDX we ended up with the RDX.
After testing CX-5, SantaFe, Q5, and RDX we ended up with the RDX.
Yrwei(Ray): Expose reporter extraordinaire!
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
I actually preferred the RDX, but the ole lady didn't want to spend $10k more, fuel cost for premium, and I actually wish it still had a Turbo 4 (like that V6 too, but I had hidden intentions. Lol). So, we put the extra money in our pocket, and I hope to secure some more land soon. Simply put, the Honda/Acura platform is just an overall better car and company than Mazda. Flame me all you want, guys...Just hoping the CX-5 suits us well, and I believe it will, but I won't hesitate to let it slide if it becomes trouble...
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
RDX is probably my second choice to the QX70 at this point. But it's a distant 2nd for now.
RDX recommends premium but you can run regular btw. It's the exact same engine as the previous gen Accord (same engine code, same power, same torque at same rpm).
Yeah 10k is quite a bit. Is the RDX worth 30% more? In 2013 it was because the CX-5 was just not as refined. Now it's closer but I'm still not sure I would do a 10k jump. Maybe 5-6k for me would be a tipping point.
Yeah 10k is quite a bit. Is the RDX worth 30% more? In 2013 it was because the CX-5 was just not as refined. Now it's closer but I'm still not sure I would do a 10k jump. Maybe 5-6k for me would be a tipping point.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Yea, I started to put that in parentheses. I'd Hondata/reflash it anyways. Lol
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
My buddy has a 70, nice ride, and my MIL just bought an 2018 Equinox last week (she didn't shop around though and already had a Chevy).
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
Can't see myself buying anything domestic... ever. Sorry Trump. Lol.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
Most modern engines can adjust for 87 octane. Even my 3000 GT VR4 was cool with it, but I mostly stuck with premium.
One big negative is the RDX is too similar to the GFs 2015 CRV.
Last edited:
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Me either! Never have, never will. My family is quite the opposite. Dummies! I kid, I kid....
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Whew, not my Evo. I never made that mistake, fortunately, even when she was stock. Seen it happen though. She's tuned for 93 + methanol injection.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
Way back when I was in high school, one buddy had a US union dad thru and thru. He wouldn't allow foreign cars to park in his driveway. Needless to say, anytime he had friends over the road was lined with foreign autos while the driveway was empty. Lol
I asked this question in another thread:
Has NHSTA changed their testing methods or their assessment ratings/measurements? This could be why last the rating was higher but this year it is not (uhm)
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
For me, it's simple, Japanese cars are more appealing to me, and simply overall better.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
No this's definitely not the case for Mazda CX-5 as NHTSA hasn't changed any testing method or assessment ratings in recent years. Besides, other competitors such as 2017 Honda CR-V and 2017 Toyota RAV4 haven't shown any ratings getting downgraded than last MYs.
Sometimes a brand new model may suffer some minor downgrades on safety ratings but the manufactures usually can quickly fix the flaws for next year based on NHTSA's crash results. For 2016 CX-5, the huge sudden downgrade from 5 to 3 stars on 2016 MY's passenger side frontal crash was a big surprise. The downgrades to 4 stars on front passenger side and combined rear seat from side crash for 2017 CX-5 this time is a big surprise to me too, as most "safer" vehicles have been getting all 5 stars in every category from NHTSA's side crash for years. Mazda should be well prepared getting the best crash ratings from NHTSA crash test as the testing procedures haven't been changed for many years!
Another safety rating from NHTSA for 2017 CX-5 surprises me a bit. With lower and wider design plus G-Vectoring Control, 2017 CX-5 still scored the same as 2016 CX-5 on Rollover Resistance percentage. And it has more tendency to roll over than a 2017 Honda CR-V! (uhm)
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Because "feelings" aren't facts, and it doesn't matter how the 17 "feels". It's a worse handler than the crv or older cx5. My guess is that the softer suspension made it more likely to roll than slide.
Sounds to me like Mazda is unable to plan properly for the NHTSA tests, like other manufacturers, to get the best possible score. This is not the first time this happens to them.
Seems like rollover resistance percentage is really probability of rolling over in a single vehicle crash. The above percentages are all too similar to matter. No SUV/CUV to date was able to get 10 or less, to get 5 stars on rollover. On rollover risk alone, you'd better go with a lower center of gravity vehicle instead.
Re: G-Vectoring, I can't see how this would matter for this test, where a crash is already given. G-Vectoring would help you avoid a crash in the first place, will do practically nothing if a crash is taking place.
The CR-V is a very good vehicle and I am a tad disappointed from the 2017 CX-5 for not getting better fuel economy, for being heavier than the outgoing model and, now, only marginally better safety rating (or worse than the 2015).
Last edited:
