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?
True. FWD went from 26/33 to 24/31 and AWD went from 24/30 to 23/29. This is after 2016 FWD was adjusted up 1 MPG city and hwy over previous FWD. I believe the '14 and '15 numbers were 25/31 and 24/29. So two things happened. First, the EPA adjusted their method for calculating the fuel economy shown on new-car window stickers starting with the 2017 model year https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings.shtml. The exact same vehicle with absolutely no changes from any manufacturer would get a lower city/hwy MPG rating in most cases. And second, to the benefit of noise reduction, some additional weight was added. Here is what fuelly.com is showing today for all the CX5 model years with a 2.5 engine. You have to take into account most of the '17 engines are not broken in yet. The 2012 and 2013 numbers are with the filter set for the 2.0 engine only to show what they average.
2017 25.8 MPG
2016 26.0 MPG
2015 25.5 MPG
2014 26.5 MPG
2013 28.0 MPG
2012 28.3 MPG
Anyway, I expect the '17 to settle in on fuelly somewhere around 26 to 27 once more of the new ones are through the break in period.
You want objective data, here.
16 - 7.8 seconds. 17 - 8.4 seconds(MT)
Last time I'm going over this because it is really just stupid but people keep bringing it up. https://www.0-60specs.com/mazda-cx-5-0-60-times/
'17 FWD has only been actually track tested once, and got 7.8
'17 AWD has been track tested twice and got 8.4 and 8.1
A previous year model FWD has never been tested faster than 7.8, but was tested at 8.1 in '14.
A previous year model AWD has been tested at 7.6 in '14, and 7.7 and 7.8 in '16.
So, '17 FWD is equally as fast or faster than all previous year's FWD, and equal to or 2.5% slower than all previous year's AWD.
'17 AWD is 4-6% slower than previous years AWD.
Cargo space - 16 - 34.1ft/65.4ft 17 - 30.9ft/59.6ft(google)
I explained that in another post. But in case you missed it.
The key measurements that determine everyday usability, width at floor, width between wheel wells, length with rear seats upright are virtually the same. The height to lift something in the cargo area has improved 7/10", which is no big deal, but helps, as well as the completely flat floor when seats are folded. 10% loss is on paper only, unless you frequently use the entire cargo area floor to ceiling.
Measurements 2016, 2017
Height from Floor to Roof (inches) 34.6, 32.4
Length w/ rear seats upright (inches) 38.7, 38
Rear Tailgate Opening Height (inches) 32.6, 30.7
Rear Tailgate Opening Width (inches) 44.4, 44.3
Width at Floor (inches) 57.1, 57
Width between Rear Tire House (inches) 41.3, 41.3
Lift over Height (inches) 29.2, 28.5
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.
So, actual fuel economy may be lower, but I doubt it. 0-6 time is 4-6% slower on AWD vehicles, but FWD is just as fast if not faster, and cargo room has decreased if you need to stack to the roof, but for everyday normal use it is exactly the same but now the floor folds flat and the load height is lower.
Those are your areas you claim it has declined, or is "going backwards". Care to go over the areas it improved?
