Mazda Impressions and Review

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.

I am sure I won't because the only car I truly have on my mind is a mustang gt(yeah, I wanna go back). When I finally get my next house and more settled with life, that will be my next vehicle purchase. Just gotta stay focused lol
 
Can't wait! My CX5 is suppose to be my daily for "forever" but this new engine may be too enticing.
By the time it comes to the next CX-5 which should be circa 2020/2021/2022, the engine should have any issues ironed out as you would have been out for about 2 to 4 years
 
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.
Numbers on spec comparison speak for themselves! It's true 2017 CX-5 is heavier, slower, gets worse fuel economy, less cargo space than the 2016(.5). Loosing almost 10% of cargo space is a big one!

Noticeable differences are 187 hp @ 6,000 rpm vs. 184 hp @ 5,700 rpm; and the maximum torque 185 lb-ft for 2017 CX-5 AWD is occurred at higher RPM than FWD.

MAZDA CX-5
SkyActiv-G 2.5L
20172016
Horsepower SAE (hp)187 @ 6,000 rpm184 @ 5,700 rpm
Torque SAE (lb-ft)185 @ 3,250 rpm - FWD
185 @ 4,000 rpm - AWD
185 @ 3,250 rpm
Gear Ratios AT :)1)3.552/2.022/1.452/1.000/0.708/0.5993.552/2.022/1.452/1.000/0.708/0.599
Reverse :)1)3.8933.893
Final Drive :)1)4.325 - FWD
4.624 - AWD
4.325 - FWD
4.624 - AWD
Wheelbase (in)106.2106.3
Overall L/W/H (in)179.1 / 72.5 / 66.1178.7 / 72.4 / 67.3
Track F/R (in)62.8 / 62.862.4 / 62.5
Turning Circle (ft)36.036.7
Ground Clearance (in)7.68.5
Towing Capacity (lb)2,0002,000
Total Curb Weight (lb)3,527 - FWD
3,655 - AWD
3,433 - FWD
3,589 - AWD
EPA-estimated MPG
(combined/city/hwy)
27 / 24 / 31 - FWD
26 / 23 / 29 - AWD
29 / 26 / 33 - FWD
26 / 24 / 30 - AWD
Headroom F/R (in)39.7 / 39.0
39.3 / 39.0 - w/Moonroof
40.1 / 39.0
39.0 / 39.0 - w/Moonroof
Legroom F/R (in)41.0 / 39.641.0 / 39.3
Shoulder Room F/R (in)57.1 / 54.857.5 / 55.5
Hip Room F/R (in)55.2 / 55.355.2 / 53.7
Cargo Volume (cu ft)30.9 - 2nd-row Seatback Up
59.6 - 2nd-row Seatback Down
34.1 - 2nd-row Seatback Up
65.4 - 2nd-row Seatback Down

And I totally agree with ColoradoDriver on design:

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.
 
Anyone that thinks the 17 bis better looking is a 17 owner homer. I'd pass on the 17. Everything they changed made it look worse.

They would say the same about you if they actually cared enough about your unnecessary jibes.
 
Fuel consumption is only marginally worse here:

Screenshot_2017-08-18-19-07-35.png
 
"For 2017, it only got a little worse...trade your '16 in, now!"

What a sales pitch!
If you go by that alone then no but the 17 is quieter, interior is better, more features, smoother ride to name a few. For some 16 owners that is more than enough to trade up.

All I am saying is feul economy here for the 17 isn't that much worse than generation 1
 
If you go by that alone then no but the 17 is quieter, interior is better, more features, smoother ride to name a few. For some 16 owners that is more than enough to trade up.

All I am saying is feul economy here for the 17 isn't that much worse than generation 1

I thought lighter, stiffer suspension, and so forth was the reason people bought these?
 
Funny I love the stiffness of the CX5 suspension. My wife hates it feeling like she is getting beat up bouncing around all the time. Neighbors wife said the same, I wonder if this is a female complaint in general and that is why they softened up the 17?
 
^My hunch is yes..power tailgate, heated wheel, softer seats too...yes. They certainly didn't ruin it but for me the enhancements don't outweigh the cpl small steps backward it took both dynamically and functionally- (cargo.) Women buy these things in droves so it makes sense but now I'll pine for a sport variant that probably won't come but sky-x would certainly help sway me if the diesel fails to.
 
Last edited:
They changed to rigid steering mounts, stiffened the body, and made some other suspension tweaks to preserve the handling while softening the ride.

My hunch is that Mazda would have liked to make the CX-5 go head to head with the BMW X1. There are many design similarities, and some outright rip-offs like the infotainment. But Mazda sells about 5 times more CX-5s than BMW sells X1s, so there are concessions made to the non-enthusiast masses such as a softer ride.
 
I thought lighter, stiffer suspension, and so forth was the reason people bought these?

Sure there are some people who wants a stiff noisy ride, but there are many more out there who like the cx5 but prefer it to be smoother and quieter, which road noise being one of the main complaints from many reviews I've seen. This goes for other Mazda models too. On the 2017, the improved throttle response helps make the few hundred extra pounds less noticeable and the 0.3 or whatever seconds slower than the previous gen is isn't really noticeable in real life driving. I think Mazda did a great job honestly, I just wish we get more power in this car but no car is perfect, hopefully when it's time for my next car they'll have a better engine for this car.
 
If you go by that alone then no but the 17 is quieter, interior is better, more features, smoother ride to name a few. For some 16 owners that is more than enough to trade up.

All I am saying is feul economy here for the 17 isn't that much worse than generation 1

Honestly, if you have a 2013 or 2014 CX-5 and you test drive a 2017 CX-5, the improvements will feel major. The whole experience is dramatically improved. And yes, the car feels faster and more responsive (even if it not). I have spent probably 10 hours in 2017 and would upgrade in a heartbeat (but am waiting for the diesel!).
 
If you parked the 16s and 17s and asked random people which one looked expensive?
I bet majority will say 2017.

Yes its a bit slower - i think its .2 to .3 seconds in real life - no big deal. But how many of you can get your 16s or older ones and make it as quiet as 17 with even a budget of 2 thousdands US dollars? Sure some dynamat fanboi will come along saying it will cost less than that - but he will be stripping the car himself and unless he is a jobless wilderbeast - he needs to add man hours as well.
On top of that - add the fact it has standard collision avoidance, in a single incident it can pay the owners a couple of thousands, standard LEDs wow.
Another huge advantage of the 2017 is that you can be very very well equipped with touring without having to buy the bose / moon roof garbage compulsorily. I would have fought my wife tooth and nail if options were like 2017 and got something useful instead of plonking a grand for that. And I have not even started on features everyone wanted - memory seats / auto lift gate etc.

17s a winner even if i do not like its looks. The cargo space loss is in height - it wont be that noticeable, plus FWD owners will actually hit better than EPA on the highway since its not god damn 8.5 inches off ground. This is supposed to be for light snow / offroad conditions and would never need this much clearance. 17s is better in every * damn * aspect. Looks are subjective, but you would be very emotional to your current CX5 if overall you think 17 is bad.

Mazda has kept the drivetrain same - still the sales are great without doing what toyota is doing now (12% off MSRP - thus generating sales). That in itself if kudos for 17.
Only downside for 17 is that - in a year or two the 18/19 will come and it hopefully has an upgraded engine which might be too good. But as things stand 17 >>>>>> 16 or older.
 
Last edited:
If you parked the 16s and 17s and asked random people which one looked expensive?
I bet majority will say 2017.

That the chrome talking? ;)

Yes its a bit slower - i think its .2 to .3 seconds in real life - no big deal. But how many of you can get your 16s or older ones and make it as quiet as 17 with even a budget of 2 thousdands US dollars? Sure some dynamat fanboi will come along saying it will cost less than that - but he will be stripping the car himself and unless he is a jobless wilderbeast - he needs to add man hours as well.

Clearly a win for the 2017 is the noise reduction.

On top of that - add the fact it has standard collision avoidance, in a single incident it can pay the owners a couple of thousands, standard LEDs wow.
Another huge advantage of the 2017 is that you can be very very well equipped with touring without having to buy the bose / moon roof garbage compulsorily. I would have fought my wife tooth and nail if options were like 2017 and got something useful instead of plonking a grand for that. And I have not even started on features everyone wanted - memory seats / auto lift gate etc.

Another fair point and win for the 2017 feature wise. But negligible to me. I have a barebones, no packages 2014 Touring which is probably equivalent to a 2017 Sport. I don't really care about most of those features listed. Maybe memory seats would be nice.

17s a winner even if i do not like its looks.

Adendum. 2017 is a winner if you care about having all the fancy gadgets and features. As I do not, and I find it worse looking, I cannot agree.

The cargo space loss is in height - it wont be that noticeable, plus FWD owners will actually hit better than EPA on the highway since its not god damn 8.5 inches off ground. This is supposed to be for light snow / offroad conditions and would never need this much clearance. 17s is better in every * damn * aspect. Looks are subjective, but you would be very emotional to your current CX5 if overall you think 17 is bad.

Agreed on cargo space. Day to day functionality, the loss of cargo space shouldn't really matter at all.

To your second point, the clearance height was actually a major selling point to me. I lived in the mountains at the time and my driveway in the winter was a such that clearance was a very good thing.

To your last point, yes it is better feature wise, it is better with what you get at each trim. Does that make it the better car? For me, no.

Yes, looks are subjective.

Mazda has kept the drivetrain same - still the sales are great without doing what toyota is doing now (12% off MSRP - thus generating sales). That in itself if kudos for 17.
Only downside for 17 is that - in a year or two the 18/19 will come and it hopefully has an upgraded engine which might be too good. But as things stand 17 >>>>>> 16 or older.

I hope when the next gen CX-5 comes around they go back to Kodo design in a true evolution of Gen 1.
 
Last edited:
You're an idiot. Clearly we are talking about the CRV v. the CX5 here. Fact.

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...

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 :D

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.


can you guys please stop quoting this guy mango? not only does he spew s*** all over the forums, but now he is ruining my thread which was off to a start.

he is some arrogant fool that prioritizes numbers and sales figures as a tool to dictate which car he should buy, rather then the overall driving experience and how the vehicle makes you feel.

I dont care if the honda is faster, or more efficient, or better built, or sells more or WHATEVER. they are ugly and just dont involve the driver anywhere near as much as a Honda does. he want's us to understand his opinions yet fails to understand ours and keeps pushing his ******* honda's like some sort of god awful saleman. STOP tagging him please! it doesnt construct to the conversation in any sort of beneficial matter at all.
 
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.

strongly agree. Volkswagen and Honda/Acura is very good at doing this. I'm sure Mazda can figure out.

the OEM tires that come on the Mazda 6 were very good, some of the best OEM tires i've ever seen on a new car. I cant say the same for the cx5.

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.

Anyway, if you're all for the "move upmarket", then 2017 is great. Coming in the 2018 CX-5.....wood trim! (lol2)

I certainly respect your opinion and can see where you are coming from with the tacky chrome on the car, but I am just trying to understand why you dont like how the car is moving upscale without sacrificing overall driver enjoyment. thats not a bad thing at all? now imagine a gray, white or black 2017 model with all the chrome painted gloss black. it would look dope as hell!

Mazda has become a more mature brand, and their new styling shows it. I am seriously thinking that you dont like the new design because you have become accustomed to how the older one looks. when I see the facelifted mazda 6 with the flashier chrome compared to my 2015, I am not the biggest fan either. but when i see the newer cx-5 and compare it to the old one, I love it.
 
Last edited:
can you guys please stop quoting this guy mango? not only does he spew s*** all over the forums, but now he is ruining my thread which was off to a start.

he is some arrogant fool that prioritizes numbers and sales figures as a tool to dictate which car he should buy, rather then the overall driving experience and how the vehicle makes you feel.

I dont care if the honda is faster, or more efficient, or better built, or sells more or WHATEVER. they are ugly and just dont involve the driver anywhere near as much as a Honda does. he want's us to understand his opinions yet fails to understand ours and keeps pushing his ******* honda's like some sort of god awful saleman. STOP tagging him please! it doesnt construct to the conversation in any sort of beneficial matter at all.


*asks others to stop quoting Mango*


*Proceeds to make a post dedicated to Mango*


Great job there, maybe try following you're own advice? Just sayin :)
 
@KAPS- where does it say CX5s are only meant for light snow?? My AWD CX5 with 8.5" & 4 winter tires has certainly proven otherwise I promise Texan;)
 
I certainly respect your opinion and can see where you are coming from with the tacky chrome on the car, but I am just trying to understand why you dont like how the car is moving upscale without sacrificing overall driver enjoyment. thats not a bad thing at all? now imagine a gray, white or black 2017 model with all the chrome painted gloss black. it would look dope as hell!

Mazda has become a more mature brand, and their new styling shows it. I am seriously thinking that you dont like the new design because you have become accustomed to how the older one looks. when I see the facelifted mazda 6 with the flashier chrome compared to my 2015, I am not the biggest fan either. but when i see the newer cx-5 and compare it to the old one, I love it.

And your assessment is correct.

I liked my CX-5 because it didn't feel like an upmarket CUV for the soccer mom/family crowd. I'm 26 now, was 22 when I bought my CX-5. It appealed to me when none of the other CUV's did. Sitting in the 2017, I don't know how to explain it, but it just didn't give me the same feeling sitting in my 2014 does.

Is the 2017 a better CX-5 on the feature/gadget game, and materials used inside? For sure it is, but the upmarket doesn't really appeal to me, so as a direction the new design just doesn't appeal, and from a stylistic perspective, the 2017 loses it's charm to me.

I'm simply speaking for myself, I realize that I am probably the outlier on this front. Different strokes, different folks and all that jazz. :)

@KAPS- where does it say CX5s are only meant for light snow?? My AWD CX5 with 8.5" & 4 winter tires has certainly proven otherwise I promise Texan;)

Agreed. The ground clearance was seriously one of the top selling points of the CX-5 when I bought mine.
 
Last edited:
Back