100K miles, and stuff needs done...here's what!

So you guys are saying just drop a turbo in the '18, and you're no longer "disgusted" ?!

Give a man a CX-5 and and you'd feed him for a day. Drop a turbo in it and he'll slap his own momma since its that good.
 
So you guys are saying just drop a turbo in the '18, and you're no longer "disgusted" ?!

Pretty much. Before that, it was rather "meh". Just another option. Slower than some, faster than others, luxury on par with mid class, many features lacking but driving feel good. Now its just light a few features, but the rest has been bumped to class leading. Just like my 2015 was in 2015.
 
At any rate Mazda is definitely punching above their weight considering how small their R&D budgets are compared to Toyota, Honda, Ford ect.
 
So you guys are saying just drop a turbo in the '18, and you're no longer "disgusted" ?!
For me, no. But I can appreciate whether I like it or not, how Mazda is upping their game to appeal to a higher market. It seems to be working for thrm., though a luxury car is not for me.

'17 and '18 CX-5, vs. Gen 1 though? Gen 1 wins on the performance standpoint and I preferred it's styling. Gen 2 wins on styling and up market stuff...if your into that. With the turbo, they have the performance back for Gen 2..even if it's more expensive, but like I said, thats where they are moving.

Before the turbo, Gen 2 was absolutely yes worse than Gen 1 on performance and not caring about the stylistic changes, why wouldnt I have been disgusted? It was taking a gen 1, making it a worse performer, but prettying it up and sound proofing it. Respectable, but I wasn't interested in a worse car (in that aspect) Turbo now makes them perform. So props to them for that. Gen 2 is actually appealing now even if I don't care for the stylistic stuff.
 
I think I understand where you're coming from CD (even though, as far as I can tell, you've never really driven a gen2, have you?). When I bought my CX 5 last August, I too would have preferred something more rugged - more like the Tribute I was trading in. Unfortunately, the only vehicles like that these days are Jeeps (I don't go off road that much to justify) and the Forerunner (way too big for my garage; also a lot more expensive to justify). And, quite frankly, I was so happy with the durability and low maintenance of my Tribute after 12 years and 210k, AND the really excellent service I received from my local Mazda dealer, that I was hard pressed to go elsewhere (I've had really bad experiences with Subaru). So, based on all that, and the great reviews it was getting, I went with the CX 5 touring, and am quite pleased with it. Could it be more rugged? Sure, but it does all I need it to do, and it does it well - very fun to drive on road - which is where I am 99% of the time.

Having said all that, would I be tempted by a turbo in a few years? You bet, especially if they drop it in that sexy CX 4!!
 
The gen 2 is a little heavier and without more power is marginally slower. Its not worse performance wise in any significant way. We looked at both as they had just released the gen 2 so both were on the lot brand new. I had liked the gen 1 and thats what we initially had looked at. But get into the gen 2 and it just felt like an evolutionary improvement. Most noticeable improvement was noise. And for me personally thats pretty important.

I think for Unob its more about the brand image and maybe how that affects resale.

I get the comment about the ruggedness of the Tribute. I think the situation is more buyers want a car not truck. My sister for example when from a RAV4 to Escape (previous gen that was a twin to the Tribute). They had 0 issues with it but she hated it. I think it was mostly she preferred the more car like RAV4. Now she has a Jeep Cherokee that she likes even though its stranded her (junk 9 speed). Cherokee is basically a dart hatch on stilts.
 
The gen 2 is a little heavier and without more power is marginally slower. Its not worse performance wise in any significant way. We looked at both as they had just released the gen 2 so both were on the lot brand new. I had liked the gen 1 and thats what we initially had looked at. But get into the gen 2 and it just felt like an evolutionary improvement. Most noticeable improvement was noise. And for me personally thats pretty important.

I think for Unob its more about the brand image and maybe how that affects resale.

I get the comment about the ruggedness of the Tribute. I think the situation is more buyers want a car not truck. My sister for example when from a RAV4 to Escape (previous gen that was a twin to the Tribute). They had 0 issues with it but she hated it. I think it was mostly she preferred the more car like RAV4. Now she has a Jeep Cherokee that she likes even though its stranded her (junk 9 speed). Cherokee is basically a dart hatch on stilts.
Makes sense. I grew up with soft top Jeeps so noise was literally not at all on my list.

Anyway...makes sense and I agree with your overall assessment.
 
I think I understand where you're coming from CD (even though, as far as I can tell, you've never really driven a gen2, have you?). When I bought my CX 5 last August, I too would have preferred something more rugged - more like the Tribute I was trading in. Unfortunately, the only vehicles like that these days are Jeeps (I don't go off road that much to justify) and the Forerunner (way too big for my garage; also a lot more expensive to justify). And, quite frankly, I was so happy with the durability and low maintenance of my Tribute after 12 years and 210k, AND the really excellent service I received from my local Mazda dealer, that I was hard pressed to go elsewhere (I've had really bad experiences with Subaru). So, based on all that, and the great reviews it was getting, I went with the CX 5 touring, and am quite pleased with it. Could it be more rugged? Sure, but it does all I need it to do, and it does it well - very fun to drive on road - which is where I am 99% of the time.

Having said all that, would I be tempted by a turbo in a few years? You bet, especially if they drop it in that sexy CX 4!!
I've sat in Gen 2s a few times, but have yet to drive one. I went to test drive one with a turbo, but they told me to come back around end of Jan, beginning of Feb.

Rugged I guess is part of it. I am in the mountains a fair bit. Car is going to get filthy. The gen 1 extra ground clearance comes in very handy, especially navigating the very deep ruts that rain puts in my moms very long and steep dirt driveway every spring and the rough conditions that develop on the dirt roads up there. With the right tires, thing has been a tank in weather. Totally convinced on snow tires now after driving back down the mountains in some pretty rough weather on Monday. And it goes when I punch it on the highway.

Gen 2 is too nice for my use is what it boils down to, and I make good money but am really not interested in spending more than $25-30k for a depreciating asset. Feature wise, sure Gen 2 Touring had more than my Touring, but is a worse performer even if marginal. So was unappealing to me. With the turbo in now though, would love to see how the CX-5 turns out in several years when I am ready to replace current car and if the turbo shows up in lower trims.
 
Last edited:
I've sat in Gen 2s a few times, but have yet to drive one. I went to test drive one with a turbo, but they told me to come back around end of Jan, beginning of Feb.

Rugged I guess is part of it. I am in the mountains a fair bit. Car is going to get filthy. The gen 1 extra ground clearance comes in very handy, especially navigating the very deep ruts that rain puts in my moms very long and steep dirt driveway every spring and the rough conditions that develop on the dirt roads up there. With the right tires, thing has been a tank in weather. Totally convinced on snow tires now after driving back down the mountains in some pretty rough weather on Monday. And it goes when I punch it on the highway.

Gen 2 is too nice for my use is what it boils down to, and I make good money but am really not interested in spending more than $25-30k for a depreciating asset. Feature wise, sure Gen 2 Touring had more than my Touring, but is a worse performer even if marginal. So was unappealing to me. With the turbo in now though, would love to see how the CX-5 turns out in several years when I am ready to replace current car and if the turbo shows up in lower trims.

This too. Once my Gen 1 is paid off, it will bomb out to about 3-5K in trade-in value, and I will get a 1 year (model) old CPO turbo CX5 (if I still want one) for around $25k, and will be up front out of pocket around $20-23K, and hopefully 0% APR can happen at that time.
 
Back