Where Is Mazda Headed Next?

dougal said:
This is being reported for a car with a base price of $20,000. That is not luxury. If they offer a 3 with a nice interior, a perky engine, 40 MPG and a torsion beam rear suspension for a base price of $20,000, I would consider that a win.
Click to expand...
You make a good point, but I'm speaking from the perspective that Mazda is moving upmarket and selling "luxury/premium" cars in the future. No luxury brand sells a car with a torsion beam setup in the rear. It just doesn't make sense to me to move upmarket, then move backwards with their rear suspension choice by going back to torsion beam setups. Even the article that was linked regarding the torsion beam setup also mentioned that it is a step backward. Like I said I understand that they are going that route to improve on NVH, but I was hoping they could stay with a multi-link rear suspension setup and improve NVH.

Sidenote, when I was a noob and buying my first car, it was between a Kia Forte and Mazda3. I chose the Mazda3 because it had a multi-link rear setup. Every review I read on this mentioned that handling wise, this was better than a torsion beam setup.
 
Natey said:
2016 Mazda 3 does .84Gs on the skidpad according to Car And Driver

2016 Mazda CX-5 does .82 on the same skidpad according to the same magazine.

The 3 goes from 70-0 in 175 feet, the CX-5 takes 184.

Also, there's no Mazdaspeed anymore. It's now called Mazda Motorsports.

https://www.mazdamotorsports.com/
Click to expand...
GJ-Molestor said:
All of them have different OEM tires. That is only a fair test if you use the same tires on all the cars
Click to expand...
But that's the whole point. OEM. The way Mazda released the units. It's a very fair comparison. Why would you want to test the units with different brands of tires? Car & Driver wants the test using the best parameters, OEM.
 
ColoradoDriver said:
I thought the CX-5 was more based off the 3.
Click to expand...

no, the chassis size is closer to that of the 6 and the interiors of the cx-5 and mazda 6 (2014-2015) look identical.

Natey said:
Yes, completely stock, from the factory like Mazda intended, a CX-5 is slower than a 3. We can put different tires on them and they'll BOTH do better.

It doesn't take a mathematician to see that the lighter sleeker car will be quicker.


The point of having a 7 speed transmission is because the powerband is tiny. A '68 corvette has a 4 speed, but it also has ton of torque down low so it's still quick. Not so much with the turbocharged 4 banger in the CX-5.
Click to expand...

of course the smaller and lighter car will be faster, I'm not sure what i said that made you believe I thought otherwise. It is common logic.

Honestly, I think an 8 speed would be optimal for what Mazda wants. (I'm looking at BMW's brilliantly engineered ZF 8 speed)

i12drivemyMP5 said:
Whatever direction the car in the first post is going looks like a damn fine direction to me...................
Click to expand...

Hell yea!

Nelson de Leon said:
But that's the whole point. OEM. The way Mazda released the units. It's a very fair comparison. Why would you want to test the units with different brands of tires? Car & Driver wants the test using the best parameters, OEM.
Click to expand...

you mis understood what I intended to say. the 3, 6 , CX-5 etc all have completely different "OEM" tire brands and tire choices. the fairest comparo would be to take one tire and use it across the whole line-up of their cars, which would truly be a fair test of how ride height and chassis weight affects skidpad grip.

on stock cars like this, the grip level of your tires is the one thing that dictates how much skidpad grip you have.
 
dougal said:
In that link, they state the CX-3 has a torsion link design. Honestly, that cars handles just as well, if not better than the current Mazda 3.
Click to expand...

It will all depend on tuning the torsion beam for the next gen 3. If they get it right then (yippy). Otherwise (gah)
 
finch204 said:
You make a good point, but I'm speaking from the perspective that Mazda is moving upmarket and selling "luxury/premium" cars in the future. No luxury brand sells a car with a torsion beam setup in the rear. It just doesn't make sense to me to move upmarket, then move backwards with their rear suspension choice by going back to torsion beam setups.
Click to expand...


I agree with this. You can't call your vehicles 'premium' if you're not going to deliver the kind of power that premium vehicles deliver(NX200 has 240 HP for example). Premium vehicles also use transmissions that have more gears and not garden variety 6 speeds. They also tend to offer features you don't find in commuter vehicles like cooled seats, wireless charging, etc...The new CX-5 has a nice interior sure, but that doesn't make it somehow premium. Hell 50% of the people here don't even like the exterior design as much as the previous generation.
 
Natey said:
Yes, completely stock, from the factory like Mazda intended, a CX-5 is slower than a 3. We can put different tires on them and they'll BOTH do better.

It doesn't take a mathematician to see that the lighter sleeker car will be quicker.
Click to expand...

I think his point about skidpad numbers is valid. My wife's minivan with stock Michelin all-seasons did 0.87g around Car & Driver's skidpad in their long term test. Does that mean our minivan is faster than a Mazda3? I don't look at it that way. Seems more likely that Chrysler picked some good OEM rubber while Mazda did not.

piotrek91 said:
I really don't think the price was the primary concern here.

The Mazda 3 is a small lightweight car, but Mazda is trying to make it be as quiet as a Lexus.
That requires compromise.

In a CX-5 they have more room to mount the multi-link suspension in a way that limits noise.. not so easy to do in a compact car.
Click to expand...

That might be true, but to me it's an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
piotrek91 said:
Back when the CX-5 was released with the 2.0L Mazda bragged about how the new CX-5 is faster around Laguna Seca than the 2013 Mazda 3 equipped with the same engine was.



The current skyactiv already has a very large operational area of good fuel economy.
The skyactiv X takes that to another level

C&D said this:
Click to expand...

Correct, shorter gearing can be used (which typically hurts fuel economy) to the engineers advantage and kill two birds with one stone by producing an efficient motor that produces great torque for daily driving while also being efficient. A 7 or 8 speed would be perfect for this application because of the small ratios
 
piotrek91 said:
Back when the CX-5 was released with the 2.0L Mazda bragged about how the new CX-5 is faster around Laguna Seca than the 2013 Mazda 3 equipped with the same engine was.



The current skyactiv already has a very large operational area of good fuel economy.
The skyactiv X takes that to another level
Click to expand...

They will be judging by what their targets are
 
finch204 said:
You make a good point, but I'm speaking from the perspective that Mazda is moving upmarket and selling "luxury/premium" cars in the future. No luxury brand sells a car with a torsion beam setup in the rear. It just doesn't make sense to me to move upmarket, then move backwards with their rear suspension choice by going back to torsion beam setups. Even the article that was linked regarding the torsion beam setup also mentioned that it is a step backward. Like I said I understand that they are going that route to improve on NVH, but I was hoping they could stay with a multi-link rear suspension setup and improve NVH.

Sidenote, when I was a noob and buying my first car, it was between a Kia Forte and Mazda3. I chose the Mazda3 because it had a multi-link rear setup. Every review I read on this mentioned that handling wise, this was better than a torsion beam setup.
Click to expand...

But I think Mazda has learned, the hard way, that most people don't care. They want cheap and the feeling of luxury. Handling and driving feel, are desired by only few. Hopefully Mazda will keep us in mind when they grow!
 
GJ-Molestor said:
no, the chassis size is closer to that of the 6 and the interiors of the cx-5 and mazda 6 (2014-2015) look identical.
Click to expand...

No, the CX-5 and Mazda3 share the same chassis. They share the same wheel base as at 106.3 in.

The SKYACTIV chassis is multifunctional and fits all current SKYACTIV models.
 
Aviboy97 said:
No, the CX-5 and Mazda3 share the same chassis. They share the same wheel base as at 106.3 in.

The SKYACTIV chassis is multifunctional and fits all current SKYACTIV models.
Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake then. Thats very deceiving!

By my comment about ditching the kodo line, i meant the flowing line that would go over the front wheel wells which was replaced with a straight line for the front haunches, and quite a few people on here prefer the 2016.5 model instead. I guess I can see the point with the front haunches being omitted but the new shape suits the overall design better and is far better looking then the pre-facelift.
 
dougal said:
But I think Mazda has learned, the hard way, that most people don't care. They want cheap and the feeling of luxury. Handling and driving feel, are desired by only few. Hopefully Mazda will keep us in mind when they grow!
Click to expand...

This is why they have a problem with brand loyalty.

Over the last decade, Mazda has done a pretty good job of cultivating their brand image. The focused on a small lineup of vehicles sharing a common design philosophy, common technologies, and common styling. They seemed to be positioning themselves as sort of a poor man's BMW, with a focus on driving experience and upscale interiors. They have some loyal customers now, and they're profitable.

Mazda tried chasing the mass market in the 1970s and again in the 1990s. In both cases they got into a financial crisis and needed bailing out by Ford. I hope they're not having delusions of grandeur again.
 
dougal said:
But I think Mazda has learned, the hard way, that most people don't care. They want cheap and the feeling of luxury. Handling and driving feel, are desired by only few. Hopefully Mazda will keep us in mind when they grow!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is true, most of the general population don't care as much about handling and driving feel. Just like most entry level BMW buyers who cannot distinguish between RWD and FWD. Anyway, the article seemed to indicate that Mazda is looking to improve on the torsion beam design. Who knows maybe they have something up their sleeves. We'll find out in a few years.
 
finch204 said:
Unfortunately that is true, most of the general population don't care as much about handling and driving feel.
Click to expand...

I think most people that buy cars in this price range and just looking for a commuter type car that is reliable and practical. And if that's what people care about, why buy a Mazda when you can buy a Honda, Toyota or Nissan for the same price? People don't care about handling when all they're doing is driving to the supermarket or dropping off their kids. Mazda just doesn't have any advantages over these bigger companies to get any kind of traction. They will also get heavily outspent in R&D.

We can now see the shift they're trying to make from one niche(fun driving cars) to another niche(luxury). I personally don't think it's going to work because you need more than a nice interior to make a car premium/luxury.
 
You think you know everything, that's your problem. :D

Top ten reasons people buy the cars they do:
#1 Reliability (you had one right)
#2 Exterior Styling (#2! And sorry, but Mazda > Honda here soundly)
#3 Previous Experience
#4 Review / Brand Reputation
(still looking for "practical")
#5 Ride and Handling. (Wait! What? #5!)
#6 Price
#7 & #8 TIE Safety & Fuel Economy
#9 Quality of workmanship
#10 AWD
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/bu...ns-people-buy-specific-cars-article-1.2552707

Fun to drive over Fuel Economy? Shut up...

I don't understand your inability to comprehend why Mazda appeals to some people... or why it bothers you so much?
 
Last edited:
7eregrine said:
You think you know everything, that's your problem. :D

Top ten reasons people buy the cars they do:
#1 Reliability (you had one right)
#2 Exterior Styling (#2! And sorry, but Mazda > Honda here soundly)
#3 Previous Experience
#4 Review / Brand Reputation
(still looking for "practical")
#5 Ride and Handling. (Wait! What? #5!)
#6 Price
#7 TIE Safety & Fuel Economy
#9 Quality of workmanship
#10 AWD
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/bu...ns-people-buy-specific-cars-article-1.2552707

Fun to drive over Fuel Economy? Shut up...

I don't understand your inability to comprehend why Mazda appeals to some people... or why it bothers you so much?
Click to expand...

He'll retort with "why doesn't Mazda have more share then?" but the truth is your general consumer out there doesn't know good handling. They think mushy/floaty handling is good. "Nice and smooth". Why doesn't Mazda have more of the market? Because the general populace is dumb and just goes with what they know. Or they are Honda/Toyota/Nissan fanboys like our fruit man over there.
 
7eregrine said:
You think you know everything, that's your problem. :D

Top ten reasons people buy the cars they do:
#1 Reliability (you had one right)
#2 Exterior Styling (#2! And sorry, but Mazda > Honda here soundly)
#3 Previous Experience
#4 Review / Brand Reputation
(still looking for "practical")
#5 Ride and Handling. (Wait! What? #5!)
#6 Price
#7 TIE Safety & Fuel Economy
#9 Quality of workmanship
#10 AWD
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/bu...ns-people-buy-specific-cars-article-1.2552707

Fun to drive over Fuel Economy? Shut up...

I don't understand your inability to comprehend why Mazda appeals to some people... or why it bothers you so much?
Click to expand...

ColoradoDriver said:
He'll retort with "why doesn't Mazda have more share then?" but the truth is your general consumer out there doesn't know good handling. They think mushy/floaty handling is good. "Nice and smooth". Why doesn't Mazda have more of the market? Because the general populace is dumb and just goes with what they know. Or they are Honda/Toyota/Nissan fanboys like our fruit man over there.
Click to expand...

The reason why mazdas sales are lacking is because their brand image is still low.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Next Gen CX-5
2 3
Replies
55
Views
9K
RedBaron
RedBaron
G
2021 CX-5 Touring end of lease questions
Replies
1
Views
532
CX5Nut
C
ceric
    • Love
    • Like
    • Wow
There will be a new CX-5 in 2 years...Mazda said
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
murky
M

Latest posts

Back