Mazda Impressions and Review

I don't know what you guys are talking about. The 2017 model looks perfectly fine to me and far more upscale then whatever it replaced. I would choose the 2017 model for the interior alone anyways.

Too much chrome as stated before. No side swoop which was really part of the CX-5 "look" in my opinion.

And for me personally, I don't want an "upscale" CX-5. I want a sporty looking CX-5 because it's a Mazda.
 
I don't know what you guys are talking about. The 2017 model looks perfectly fine to me and far more upscale then whatever it replaced. I would choose the 2017 model for the interior alone anyways.

It looks ok - particularly with the front chrome blacked out but there's also new side chrome, no more side swoop (hey CD!) and the back is meh for me.. Steering was perfect the way it was now its still good but super light/artificial feel at low speeds- probably get used to it. Seats were great now while still pretty good they're a little soft for my liking ditto the suspension. It is however a more upscale and inviting cabin- especially so for rear occupants. Is it a better vehicle than my '14- probably but for me, right now, I'm good. Has it lost a bit of its edge/gone a bit soft- sadly/understandably yes and therefore I believe its time for a 2.5T sport variant (and diesel) asap:)
 
Last edited:
Too much chrome as stated before. No side swoop which was really part of the CX-5 "look" in my opinion.

And for me personally, I don't want an "upscale" CX-5. I want a sporty looking CX-5 because it's a Mazda.

The amount of chrome used is still tasteful and manageable to resolve. The new Civic's huge fake grilles on the front and rear bumpers. Honda just screws up their designs on otherwise great cars.
 
Too much chrome as stated before. No side swoop which was really part of the CX-5 "look" in my opinion.

And for me personally, I don't want an "upscale" CX-5. I want a sporty looking CX-5 because it's a Mazda.

The previous cuz-5 looked cheap ugly and childish. The new one looks far more mature and upscale but still plenty sport as well. You get a sense of what sort of chassis lays underneath by taking one look at the car. It's the type of design that is going to sell which is what Mazda needs.

I agree that it's a shame they removed the Kodo design front shoulders, but whatever they did to replace it looks good to me.

The amount of chrome used is still tasteful and manageable to resolve. The new Civic's huge fake grilles on the front and rear bumpers. Honda just screws up their designs on otherwise great cars.

Couldn't agree more. Honda in a nutshell for you.
 
Mazda is coming after Honda with skyactiv 2 though :)


LOL Honda already has the new 2.0T which produces over 300 HP and is out on roads today. Guarantee you whatever new engine Mazda release's it won't come anything close to that in power. Will be getting used in the new Accord as well. Also a new 10 speed automatic transmission developed in-house.

All we ever hear about from Mazda is 'SkyActive2 is coming', 'SkyActive-X is coming', 'Apple CarPlay/AA support is coming' LOL. I don't blame them honestly, I too would be saying the same stuff so my customers don't leave for another brand like Honda who actually has this technology out on in vehicles today. They seem to be more focused on saving customers a few bucks at the pump it seems with all of the 'efficiency' talk in their press releases lately.
 
I would love to see Mazda take it to the next step by offering luxury and sport suspensions. hopefully they will also figure out how to improve the ride without sacrificing body roll. The car seems to feel very firm and responsive when you corner it within its limits, but the soft suspension and open differential because apparent when you start to push it. The chassis itself has some serious potential with those two setbacks sorted out so I'm still optimistic about some sort of performance model.

I heard they are offering a signature trim level with their new cars once skyactiv 2 is released. I'm looking forward to see if the new engine will have the power many of us have been wanting.

Lastly, I feel like an 8 speed transmission would do wonders for the current Mazda engines given the nature of their torque delivery.

I'm with you on preferring a stiffer suspension. However, I think they should be able to design the chassis to resist body roll without necessarily making the suspension too stiff. They could equip it with better tires too.

Speak for yourself (just as I speak for myself only).

New CX-5 loses original Kodo design, front end is a chicken wire grill with a weird overhang of the hood, and the side profile is boring due to lack of swoop.

I am seeing more and more 2017's out on the road now, and the more I see them, the more I dislike the exterior design. It's not unique anymore. Looks like every other freaking CUV now to me. And don't get me started on the added chrome (hate it).

Interestingly, it is the Gen 1 that looks more like other CUVs to me, like the Tuscon, Escape, latest 2017.5 Rogue, Cherokee. Of course, the Tuscon, Escape, and Rogue have all been recently redesigned and seem to be inspired by the CX-5.
 
The previous cuz-5 looked cheap ugly and childish. The new one looks far more mature and upscale but still plenty sport as well. You get a sense of what sort of chassis lays underneath by taking one look at the car. It's the type of design that is going to sell which is what Mazda needs.

I agree that it's a shame they removed the Kodo design front shoulders, but whatever they did to replace it looks good to me.

Did you just call the old CX-5 childish and ugly? Thems fightin' words! ;)

But seriously, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't find the new one sporty looking at all. In fact I'd call several design points outright fuckups of the original.

Example 1: Side profile completely lost the Kodo design. It is not evolved and more mature. Kodo was literally "soul in motion". Swoop added that look of "motion" to the side profile. Without it, it is downright boring as hell.

Example 2: Too much freaking chrome which I associate with cars trying to be "fancier", not sporty. Not only did they add it under the windows, but they made the front chrome trim way bigger and more pronounced than it used to be. The Gen1 CX-5 chrome was tasteful.

Example 3: The rear spoiler thing over the rear windshield just looks plain weird on the Gen2 vs original.

Example 4: What the hell is up with the chicken wire grill with emblem protruding out the middle with the hood hanging over it and a plastic piece covering the emblem. Just looks odd.

Kodo design is alive... it's now evolved, more mature (wink)

See above ;)

Anyway, if you're all for the "move upmarket", then 2017 is great. Coming in the 2018 CX-5.....wood trim! (lol2)
 
Interestingly, it is the Gen 1 that looks more like other CUVs to me, like the Tuscon, Escape, latest 2017.5 Rogue, Cherokee. Of course, the Tuscon, Escape, and Rogue have all been recently redesigned and seem to be inspired by the CX-5.

Fair enough, but they all look far worse than the CX-5 and the CX-5 as you say was probably 1st.

I guess for me, the original is just a unique design that I didn't see in any other CUV's at the time (2013).
 
Example 1 - side profile no longer has "squished look" of 1st gen
Example 2 - if can't beat them..... everyone is doing it plus Mazda is trying to move up a class, tackling low end BMW's/Lexus etc. Hence the added chrome
Example 3 - each to their own
Example 4 - I don't mind the grill. Remember very first Gen 1 had something similar

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If it looked that wrong, it wouldn't continue to be the best selling SUV here in Oz land! :D
 
Fair enough. As I said before, different strokes for different folks.

As for the grill, I really don't think they look similar. Mine looks like a honeycomb.

I'll be keeping my gen 1 for a very long time :D
 
I'm talking about their 1.5L T that makes more power, and gets much better mileage on the highway, and similar in town. Say what you want about the CVT, this is a vehicle about utility, efficiency, etc. The sales numbers show us this time and time again. If you're buying it because it's engaging, you're an outlier.

My 2015 Type S ///R Mazdaspeed CX5 has no chrome. It's a racecar. (you won't get the reference unless you search from 2015 threads)

Check your facts. The 1.5T does not make more power nor torque than the Mazda NA 2.5 engine.
 
Check your facts. The 1.5T does not make more power nor torque than the Mazda NA 2.5 engine.

Maybe you should check yours? The 1.5T in the Civic SI puts out 205 HP and 192 lb-ft of torque. Same engine that's in the CRV. There's also a tune out for the CRV that bumps power up to 215 HP.
 
Check your facts. The 1.5T does not make more power nor torque than the Mazda NA 2.5 engine.

True, they are almost exactly the same.

CRV 184 peak at 6400 RPM
CX5 187 peak at 6000 RPM

CRV 180 ft/lb at 3900 RPM
CX5 185 ft/lb at 3250 RPM

I wouldn't really say it gets much better fuel mileage either. And it's butt-ugly all over.
 
Maybe you should check yours? The 1.5T in the Civic SI puts out 205 HP and 192 lb-ft of torque. Same engine that's in the CRV. There's also a tune out for the CRV that bumps power up to 215 HP.

You're an idiot. Clearly we are talking about the CRV v. the CX5 here. Fact.
 
True, they are almost exactly the same.

CRV 184 peak at 6400 RPM
CX5 187 peak at 6000 RPM

CRV 180 ft/lb at 3900 RPM
CX5 185 ft/lb at 3250 RPM

I wouldn't really say it gets much better fuel mileage either. And it's butt-ugly all over.

Over here one CRV has been tested as being slower from 0-100 (9.9 seconds) than the CX-5.

One test had the CX-5 doing 0-100 in 9.3 seconds. If memory serves, there has been slightly quicker time in other publications.

At any rate, this is a CX-5 thread so I will refrain from making comments about CRV.
 
Over here one CRV has been tested as being slower from 0-100 (9.9 seconds) than the CX-5.

One test had the CX-5 doing 0-100 in 9.3 seconds. If memory serves, there has been slightly quicker time in other publications.

At any rate, this is a CX-5 thread so I will refrain from making comments about CRV.

Correct. Once we see more reviews and comparisons over here we'll see that the differences between the two will be marginal with performance and mileage figures contrary of those in the US.
 
Maybe you should check yours? The 1.5T in the Civic SI puts out 205 HP and 192 lb-ft of torque. Same engine that's in the CRV. There's also a tune out for the CRV that bumps power up to 215 HP.

Mango our favorite joke of a troll, who, when he isn't spending way too many of his hours awake nut humping all over the overrated boring appliance known as the CRV, he is embarrassing himself with nonsensical statements like this...
 
Back