CX-5 back seat legroom

J

Juliusceasar

:
Mazda CX5
Hi guys, new to the forum. I currently have a Mazda3 2017, but planning next year on getting either a CX5, Volvo XC40 or Subaru Crosstrek, since we welcomed our first baby a couple of months ago, I want something a little bit bigger, but not by much. Now, backseat legroom is important to me, and judging by the official numbers the CX5 back legroom is a lot more than the Volvo and Subaru, but its not really by what I have seen. I sat in a Crosstrek and legroom is surprisingly excellent for such a small car. By the videos Ive seen of the Volvo the legroom is on par or even better than the Subaru. Then by what Ive seen of the CX5 the back legroom looks actually just a bit more than my Mazda3, a little cramped, and actually with less legroom than the other 2 cars I mentioned. Officially, the CX5 is around 39 inches, the Crosstrek and the Volvo around 36 inches or so. What do you guys think? Are the CX5 numbers for back seat legroom a little off than what they seem in real world? Thanks.
 
Juliusceasar said:
Hi guys, new to the forum. I currently have a Mazda3 2017, but planning next year on getting either a CX5, Volvo XC40 or Subaru Crosstrek, since we welcomed our first baby a couple of months ago, I want something a little bit bigger, but not by much. Now, backseat legroom is important to me, and judging by the official numbers the CX5 back legroom is a lot more than the Volvo and Subaru, but it’s not really by what I have seen. I sat in a Crosstrek and legroom is surprisingly excellent for such a small car. By the videos I’ve seen of the Volvo the legroom is on par or even better than the Subaru. Then by what I’ve seen of the CX5 the back legroom looks actually just a bit more than my Mazda3, a little cramped, and actually with less legroom than the other 2 cars I mentioned. Officially, the CX5 is around 39 inches, the Crosstrek and the Volvo around 36 inches or so. What do you guys think? Are the CX5 numbers for back seat legroom a little off than what they seem in real world? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Really depends on who you are putting back there. If you are filling the car up with people over 6ft you're gonna have a bad time. I drive my friends around and they never have issues with the leg room.

Stuck shove some charging cables in the back and they won't care anyway since they'll be on their phone.
 
My first question would be how are they measuring legroom? And secondly, your first concern is actually which one will fit a rear facing car seat better. My advice would be to take the car seat to a dealer and see for yourself. My 2014 is nice, but with the youngest in a rear facing car seat for two more months, my passenger seat is very, very far forward. My wife can still sit comfortably, but a taller person might have an issue getting in my passenger seat. I would probably be more annoyed if it meant another year of it, so in your position it would give me more pause. This will also be dependent on the type of car seat. Mine seems to be less upright than the one in my wife's car.

Again, this is on my 2014. I briefly drove a 2017 loaner, but did not try to put the rear facing seat in the rear. Nothing seemed to indicate it would be much different, though.
 
Thanks for reply. Thats definitely my question, how each car manufacturer is measuring legroom, headroom etc. I think Mazdas measurements are a little off from real world usable space. Ill definitely try the car seat in a CX5 on my next scheduled maintenance. We use ours in the middle of the backseat rear facing, of course, without much issue on my Mazda3, tight but manageable.
 
The thing that these rear seat legroom numbers don't take into consideration is the configuration of the rear door aperture. Mazda seems to have a difficult time getting this right and that's why it's difficult getting into and out of the CX-5 and your 3. It's also why they increased the degree of door opening on the 2017 CX-5 to a full 90 degrees. But that doesn't really address the problem of the C pillar being located too far back. Subaru always seems to get this right. A couple of years ago they moved the A pillar forward for better ingress/egress to the front seat and I noticed recently, when I rented a Crosstrek for a vacation in Mexico, that the rear seat was much easier to get into and out of than my gen I CX-5. However, that said, once you get into the back of a CX-5, there is adequate leg room for just about anyone. BTW, I'm hoping Mazda gets this relationship a little better on the next gen 3 as I am looking to downsize in the coming year. I'm not holding my breath though as Mazda always seems to compromise functionality for drop-dead gorgeous styling on this model.
 
paris1 said:
The thing that these rear seat legroom numbers don't take into consideration is the configuration of the rear door aperture. Mazda seems to have a difficult time getting this right and that's why it's difficult getting into and out of the CX-5 and your 3. It's also why they increased the degree of door opening on the 2017 CX-5 to a full 90 degrees. But that doesn't really address the problem of the C pillar being located too far back. Subaru always seems to get this right. A couple of years ago they moved the A pillar forward for better ingress/egress to the front seat and I noticed recently, when I rented a Crosstrek for a vacation in Mexico, that the rear seat was much easier to get into and out of than my gen I CX-5. However, that said, once you get into the back of a CX-5, there is adequate leg room for just about anyone. BTW, I'm hoping Mazda gets this relationship a little better on the next gen 3 as I am looking to downsize in the coming year. I'm not holding my breath though as Mazda always seems to compromise functionality for drop-dead gorgeous styling on this model.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I actually think that the rear legroom of the Mazda3 isnt that bad. Its actually on par or even better than many of its competitors. But other things contribute to it feeling a bit claustrophobic back there.
 
Juliusceasar said:
Hi guys, new to the forum. I currently have a Mazda3 2017, but planning next year on getting either a CX5, Volvo XC40 or Subaru Crosstrek, since we welcomed our first baby a couple of months ago, I want something a little bit bigger, but not by much. Now, backseat legroom is important to me, and judging by the official numbers the CX5 back legroom is a lot more than the Volvo and Subaru, but it’s not really by what I have seen. I sat in a Crosstrek and legroom is surprisingly excellent for such a small car. By the videos I’ve seen of the Volvo the legroom is on par or even better than the Subaru. Then by what I’ve seen of the CX5 the back legroom looks actually just a bit more than my Mazda3, a little cramped, and actually with less legroom than the other 2 cars I mentioned. Officially, the CX5 is around 39 inches, the Crosstrek and the Volvo around 36 inches or so. What do you guys think? Are the CX5 numbers for back seat legroom a little off than what they seem in real world? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Those are three widely varying cars, in both style and cost. The XC40 is on the top end and could come out close to 40K, while the CX-5 might be 32 and the Crosstrek a little lower. If you can live with something a little bigger than the 3, the CX-5 might be a good choice. I would buy it over the Crosstrek in a heartbeat. The rear leg room in a CX5 is fine and as there is tons of font leg room, my seat is never all the way back (I am 6'1") and thus, people behind me have lots of room.

The XC40 is very intriguing but the price hits 40K real fast.
 
Last edited:
I'm a big fan of the XC40 but, as stated, not a big fan of the price tag. Add in the options I would want and we're nearing mid 40s'. I test drove the Xtrek and I just didn't like that smaller engine.

I got my Cx-5 after the car seat stage so I can't really comment on that. But it's certainly bigger then the 3's and if your almost ok with that. My 7 year old is really tall and wife and I are both tall and backseat room with him in a booster is perfect.
 
Definitely more than my old Mazda3.

We have an RDX and the RDX has a little more combined leg room front and back but the CX-5 is wider. I have a Chicco rear facing on passenger side and a Britax front facing behind driver. The passenger side will be tight for someone to sit in front seat if they are a 6 footer. I can take my friends who are about 5' 6" no problem on front seat.
 
Juliusceasar said:
Thanks for reply. That’s definitely my question, how each car manufacturer is measuring legroom, headroom etc. I think Mazda’s measurements are a little off from real world usable space. I’ll definitely try the car seat in a CX5 on my next scheduled maintenance. We use ours in the middle of the backseat rear facing, of course, without much issue on my Mazda3, tight but manageable.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, good point. I have an almost 6 year old as well, so that's why the carseat has to go behind at least one of us. Something to think about if you plan on another bundle of joy in the future. Congratulations, by the way!
 
Thanks to all of you guys. Really helpful. As of right now the CX5 is my favorite choice, I mean, come on, I love, love my Mazda3. Interestingly, in none of the 5 or 6 dealers located within 50 miles of where I live Subaru has a Crosstrek Limited trim barebones without any packages. They all include their Eyesight safety package which is over $2000 and makes the price close to $30000 which makes it get really close price wise with a CX5 GT whichs is in my opinion at that point a much much better value, not even counting the anemic engine in the Crosstrek which is my main complaint of it. I have just been inside a Crosstrek not driving, but I did drove the Impreza months ago, and that one was really sluggish, I can imagine this one with the same engine and 200 extra pounds. With the Volvo, well, its pricier and worrisome that maintaining it will be a lot more expensive. I just really liked it inside and out.
 
Juliusceasar said:
Thanks to all of you guys. Really helpful. As of right now the CX5 is my favorite choice, I mean, come on, I love, love my Mazda3. Interestingly, in none of the 5 or 6 dealers located within 50 miles of where I live Subaru has a Crosstrek Limited trim barebones without any packages. They all include their Eyesight safety package which is over $2000 and makes the price close to $30000 which makes it get really close price wise with a CX5 GT which’s is in my opinion at that point a much much better value, not even counting the anemic engine in the Crosstrek which is my main complaint of it. I have just been inside a Crosstrek not driving, but I did drove the Impreza months ago, and that one was really sluggish, I can imagine this one with the same engine and 200 extra pounds. With the Volvo, well, it’s pricier and worrisome that maintaining it will be a lot more expensive. I just really liked it inside and out.
Click to expand...
Correct; same drivetrain with higher CG and more weight. Both are performance disappointments. If the Imprezza had 50 more hp, it would be near the top of my short list for a five door hatch replacement for my CX-5 next year. It's a terrific car in every other respect (yes, I could even live with the CVT!) Subaru is really missing the boat not doing something about the power on these two, but I guess they're selling pretty much all they can produce with 152 hp. Deal-killer for me though and MANY others who share the same opinion about their anemic engines.
 
I've found that comparing the combined F+R legroom gives me a better idea of what to expect than just the rear legroom. However, when it comes to fitting a rear facing car seat, it's best to bring your seat along when car shopping and check the fit. Depending on the shape of the front seat back and where the top of the car seat meets it, some combinations will require more space than others, so legroom isn't a great measure. With some cars, the back of the front seats will be more contoured in an S shape, with more cutout/relief for the rear passenger's knees. Those cars will have more rear seat legroom but won't have more space for a rear-facing car seat.

I did try a rear facing car seat in the CX-5, both on the driver and passenger side. When it was installed behind the driver's seat, I had to sit a little closer to the wheel than I prefer, but it wasn't too uncomfortable. My wife had no complaints when it was installed behind her.

I haven't sat in the back seat of a Crosstrek, but the 40 and 60 series Volvos seem tighter than average to me.
 
I should admit that I was beyond disappointed with the middle "seat". Notice "seat" is in quotes. I was looking forward to putting my son in the middle seat for safety and so we can reach each other easily and he'd have a better view.
It. Sucks. It's about 18 inches wide. I can get him in there by pushing the seat around to get access...but he has a very hard time. So he only sits there for longer trips.
It's not comfortable for an adult.
 
7eregrine said:
I should admit that I was beyond disappointed with the middle "seat". Notice "seat" is in quotes. I was looking forward to putting my son in the middle seat for safety and so we can reach each other easily and he'd have a better view.
It. Sucks. It's about 18 inches wide. I can get him in there by pushing the seat around to get access...but he has a very hard time. So he only sits there for longer trips.
It's not comfortable for an adult.
Click to expand...

CX-5 is probably more of a 4 seater for most occasions, 5 for short trips. If you want decent 5 seater, CX-9 fits the bill (yes I know it's a 7 seater)
 
Xeler8ing said:
CX-5 is probably more of a 4 seater for most occasions, 5 for short trips. If you want decent 5 seater, CX-9 fits the bill (yes I know it's a 7 seater)
Click to expand...
Really depends on the size of your people.
Tall skinny me, fat father in law in the front seat, skinny wife, skinny mother in law and 7 year old fit great in my car.

You're right, though for 5 adults, it's tight. Not just a CX-5 thing. Cherokee = same way.
 
7eregrine said:
Really depends on the size of your people.
Tall skinny me, fat father in law in the front seat, skinny wife, skinny mother in law and 7 year old fit great in my car.

You're right, though for 5 adults, it's tight. Not just a CX-5 thing. Cherokee = same way.
Click to expand...

Most similar sized ones are the same i.e tight
 
paris1 said:
Correct; same drivetrain with higher CG and more weight. Both are performance disappointments. If the Imprezza had 50 more hp, it would be near the top of my short list for a five door hatch replacement for my CX-5 next year. It's a terrific car in every other respect (yes, I could even live with the CVT!) Subaru is really missing the boat not doing something about the power on these two, but I guess they're selling pretty much all they can produce with 152 hp. Deal-killer for me though and MANY others who share the same opinion about their anemic engines.
Click to expand...

Mazda is getting a lot of Subaru prospects for just that reason. Me included. And it would be so easy to throw the Forester's turbo into the Impreza and Crosstrek. Or even better, the WRX's. They're ready to go. What's the problem, Subaru?

But then you'd still have the handling issues. Come to think of it, Thanks, Subaru! I love my CX-5.
 
shadonoz said:
Mazda is getting a lot of Subaru prospects for just that reason. Me included. And it would be so easy to throw the Forester's turbo into the Impreza and Crosstrek. Or even better, the WRX's. They're ready to go. What's the problem, Subaru?

But then you'd still have the handling issues. Come to think of it, Thanks, Subaru! I love my CX-5.
Click to expand...
Or even the naturally aspirated 2 litre from the BRZ, although that engine is a little light on torque. There's nothing wrong with the handling of the Imprezza (especially the Sport). It's a well-balanced car. Problem comes when you jack up the suspension 3 inches to make it a Crosstrek. But that's the same with any crossover. One of the reasons I'm done with them (after having to lower my CX-5 an inch and a half to get it to where I wanted it and having to put up with the resulting overly stiff ride).
 
what...no KIA Soul ! (the one w/the turbo) on our list?

If you want good ingress/egress and a spacious backseat, the Soul offers a lot of good passenger space for less than the three vehicles mentioned. The one thing the Soul can't do is AWD, which seems to be a feature on the three you listed.

What are the real features that you are really interested in and MUST have or CAN'T live without? There will be compromises in everything.
- Safety?
- Infotainment?
- Lux Features?
- All WX capes?
- Good MPGs?
- Fast/zippy?
- Seat color?

Also, why give up the '3 in the first place? Sedan or Hatchemback, it will haul a good deal of things, but you will have to pack smart and find strollers, travel cribs, and other do-dads that can fold up compactly. With the first kid, you probably want everything under the moon and others want you to have everything under the moon for your first kid, but the best thing to do is to learn how to be (effectively) a smart, efficient minimalist.

The best thing to do, like others have said, is to go to the dealer, and literally put your car seat in EVERY car you are interested in; and then sit in the car and adjust the seats to where YOU need them. Also, bring the stuff, like strollers, bags, travel cribs, etc that you thing you will haul around with you. If you are going to TEST the car, then TEST the car.

That is what we did with our 4yo's (at the time) Britax seat. Some cars had lower roofs than others. Some cars put the seat at an odd angle making the bottom part of the seat stick out further and put it closer to the front passenger seat.

We chose the CX-5 for its driving manners [CVTs be dammed] and interior/exterior color combos; but here is a list of the cars we looked at, and looked at A LOT (all auto trans):
- KIA Soul+ (Honesty our #2)
- Subaru Forester 2.5i Base/Premium
- Nissan Rouge S
- Honda CR-V
- Honda HR-V (sooo slooow)
- Jeep Cherokee
- Jeep Renegade
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Mazda CX-5…Our last resort?
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
mariet
M
S
Can't see trailer when backing up CX-5
Replies
5
Views
1K
skid00skid0
S
K
  • Question
Seat moving back when I open the door (2019 CX-5)
Replies
14
Views
10K
GTXT23
GTXT23

Latest posts

Back