Mazda Impressions and Review
- Thread starter GJ-Molestor
- Start date
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Nope, your quote was:
No where was there a mention here of a CRV in your post. Speaking of the CRV is is irrelevant to this thread so not sure why you're bringing it up, but since you did, it has 190 HP compared to the 185/187 HP in the CX-5s. Again who is wrong here? Thought so, check those facts bro. Furthermore you can tune it to 215 HP/204-lb ft if you want to with a Hondata tune.
Hilarious to see how people love to bring up the CRV out of nowhere. Insecure much?
I remember when the 3rd gen mazda 3 came out, a lot of 2nd gen owners hated on the look lol Seems to go with a lot of other cars, not just mazda. When I had the 2nd gen pontiac vibe, a lot of 1 gen vibe owners hated the look lol It's just human nature. On the civic forums, a lot of current gen owners hated the newer gens haha When I had the 2014 mazda3, I hated the refreshed 2017 mazda3 look. It's just human nature to like and be loyal with what you have. I'll probably hate on the next gen cx-5 when it comes out haha
As for mazda, this is the only brand that I've bought twice. I love the direction mazda is heading, I'm sure there'll be much more great looking cars to come here
As for mazda, this is the only brand that I've bought twice. I love the direction mazda is heading, I'm sure there'll be much more great looking cars to come here
I won't bother. I know the facts. I don't know why you're bringing up tuning.
While the 2016 CX-5 aged very well and continued to be a class leader, especially among those who prioritize a responsive driving experience, the new version outdoes it in every way apart from fuel economy. And even then, it's not like it's now inefficient. The 2017 Mazda CX-5 is quieter, more comfortable, sharper to drive, more luxurious, better-equipped and better-looking. It's certainly hard to argue with that.
I didn't write that, but I did type it.
And the price didn't change.
Insecure? Seriously? We're bragging about which soccer mom car has bigger balls? lol I knew I'll see you post, anything with the word Honda or CRV will ring your bell
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Insecure? Seriously? We're bragging about which soccer mom car has bigger balls? lol I knew I'll see you post, anything with the word Honda or CRV will ring your bell
LOL I didn't bring it up bro, someone else did. Not sure why? CRV has nothing to do with this thread so lets keep it out of it.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
It is heavier, slower, gets worse fuel economy, less cargo space than the 2016.5 and it's suspension has been softened to make it less sporty. Add in the squinty lights, chicken wire grill and pizza slice rims and you can see why there are others who would disagree it is a better vehicle.
Not only that but seeing as how its using the same engine, transmission and platform from the 2013 CX-5, I think most people just don't think it is worth the price considering you're not getting much other than some styling updates, a few extra features and some improvements to NVH. If I wanted a CX-5 there's no doubt I would pick up a used 2016 CX-5 which is a much better value when all things are considered.
Last edited:
Your first 3 items heavier, slower, fuel economy are true, although we are talking about very minuscule differences here, and they are all related to improvements made to make the cabin extremely quiet.
Cargo space seems the same to me, and I know the floor folds much flatter, but you could be right. Seems very functional to me.
The suspension is not any less "sporty" whatever that means in a CUV. It does have a 16% stiffer body and some hydraulic bushings and other tweaks along with the rack now mounted directly to the subframe to enhance steering response. It's better, find a review that says it's worse.
Your comments about the looks are stupid. You drive a CRV on purpose.
I don't generally agree with mango, but he's right about the 16/17 cx5. The 16 has the 17 beat in many areas that are important in a vehicle. "It is heavier, slower, gets worse fuel economy, less cargo space than the 2016.5 and it's suspension has been softened to make it less sporty". That is very true about the 17. I think many like yourself are so caught up in the "luxury and gadgets" aspects, that you lose sight of the other purely objective areas that the 17 just loses compared to the 16.
Cargo space is a big one. Losing space is a big negative for me. Ground clearance. If you ever drive in snow, you really appreciate the 16 cx5 ground clearance. Same old 2.5L that offers nothing new.
The 17 did a lot of things right but also took a step backwards in many areas that it shouldn't have. Good news I don't think the 17 is truly the new model Mazda has in mind. It was a refinement of the cx5 in the areas it was struggling in. Turns out, they went backwards in others. So in my eyes, they still have work to do. I look forward to seeing what Mazda does next.
I'm not caught up on the luxury or gadgets at all. I just can't believe Mazda was able to improve so much and add so much and still keep the price the same as the previous year model. It's pretty amazing.
Could you please explain a little?
What percentage worse fuel economy does it get?
What percentage slower is it?
What percentage smaller is the cargo area, and is that with the rear seats reclined or not?
Please explain some of the purely objective areas that the 17 "just loses" if you can.
Ground clearance, you are really stretching now. 8.5 "vs 7.6". You really going to appreciate that .9" in your next blizzard? Probably not as much as you would appreciate those "gadgets" on the '17 like heated rear seats, heating steering wheel, wiper deicer.
Same old motor makes the '17 a loser? Wouldn't that make the '16 you bought a loser?
You're like Mango Jr.
I own a 16 touring. If i could swap it for a 17 sport trim.. i wouldn't think twice. 16 is great... But 17s a different league. Standard led/collision avoidance/3-5 dB better sound deadening. I already drive it in its sweet range speed wise. So i would still do 27 combined. Not bad trade.
Car companies always add in new features every year and yet the prices always remain about the same. So that is nothing special. Just the way it works.
I quote the fuel economy piece from mango so I actually don't agree with that. I think the two years will be about the same. Why shouldn't they?
You want objective data, here.
16 - 7.8 seconds. 17 - 8.4 seconds(MT)
Cargo space - 16 - 34.1ft/65.4ft 17 - 30.9ft/59.6ft(google)
So yeah, in certain areas the 16 is objectively better. Much better? No. My point is that these are areas they shouldn't be going backwards in. I think the 17 is a hell of a car and yeah I would buy it. I just wish mazda didn't decline in these areas.
Yeah, clearly you haven't driven in snow. Every little bit counts. But again, you wanted pure objective points and I am pointing them out. So yeah, there you go.
Nope, the 2.5L is a peppy little engine. I have no problem with it. I certainly wouldn't trade up to it though from any of the other years. Unless I got a great deal. But I understand you want to justify your upgrade. Totally get that.
Mango Jr? lol you're so funny. I have called that guy out so many times for his trolling. Go back and do some light reading. It's just a car and I am pointing out areas I notice that got slightly worse. That is all. If I was buying today, I would 100% buy a 17 even if it looks worse than the 16. Because I know it is the most refined version of the CX5. I just want mazda to keep pushing forward. Not fall backwards.
Last edited:
I don't believe it is an issue. Just getting stale. But still fine enough to do the job and that's all we can ask for. But I do expect improvements rather than regression. No matter how small. That's why I think in the the next couple of years, the cx5 will be even more of a hit. Including this year refinements with a better engine(hopefully?). Should be pretty nice.
Last edited:
(iagree) - SkyActiv X should help it immensely!
Can't wait! My CX5 is suppose to be my daily for "forever" but this new engine may be too enticing.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I thought about it, but nope. The quick loss of value CX5's have precludes me trading it in unless it becomes unreliable, and then you add time/convenience cost , which will tip the scales.
