Mazda Popularity

Chocolate said:
I put them on the lower outside corners of the mirror. You can still see a decent amount of the regular mirror, to me they are the perfect size. The bigger the mirror, the clearer the picture. I've tested a few different brands and the Grote has the best optical clarity. The other mirrors I tested (Camco and CIPA) are more cheaply made.
Click to expand...

So [obviously] you have enough real estate for those nearly 4" mirrors to still have some uncovered area, huh?

I'll have to check into those. As I said, I've ALWAYS have convex mirrors on my vehicles...it's the first thing I install.
 
Buzzman12 said:
To each their own I guess.
It looks an awful lot like the Pontiac Azteck to me. Maybe Toyota hired the guy from GM that created that monstrosity.
The proportions are all wrong on that Rav4.Wheel arches are too big/high. The ass end lights sticks out too far. There's way too much going on in that design.
Toyota has done the same with all of their lineup too. The new Camry, Corolla, etc. Butt ugly.
Click to expand...



I personally like the looks of it. Looks like a mini 4Runner to me. But if everyone else hates it, it just proves my point that in this category, looks dont matter as much as people think they do. Space, fuel economy, and reliability trump everything else.
 
shadonoz said:
Do you have a reference for that? It seems to me that Mazda doesn't take that into account, and that's why the warnings are often inappropriate.

For example, when you have passed a car and are returning to the right lane, the system doesn't realize that you are pulling away from the target. That warning is at roughly the same distance as a car overtaking you.
Click to expand...
When Mazda developed 2nd-gen "Advanced" BSM a couple of years ago, it's supposed to reduce some false alarms we've seen on previous-gen BSM. Apparently it's still not perfect.
 
Last edited:
Paulson said:
I personally like the looks of it. Looks like a mini 4Runner to me. But if everyone else hates it, it just proves my point that in this category, looks dont matter as much as people think they do. Space, fuel economy, and reliability trump everything else.
Click to expand...
Toyota RAV4 would be my choice if I need a new CUV at this time. But it definitely is not because of the looks. Id choose CX-5 if looks is my no. 1 priority.

I choose RAV4 is because it offers a naturally aspirated engine with the highest thermal efficiency at 40~41%, an 8-speed traditional automatic, the best MPG for the class, and of course the history of the best long-term reliability.
 
Avoidin Deer said:
So [obviously] you have enough real estate for those nearly 4" mirrors to still have some uncovered area, huh?

I'll have to check into those. As I said, I've ALWAYS have convex mirrors on my vehicles...it's the first thing I install.
Click to expand...

I'll take a video and upload it to show you what it looks like. I didn't realize the value of convex mirrors until my last vehicle came with them from the original owner. Now I won't have a vehicle without them.
 
Technology is moving so fast I am less concerned about keeping a car for 150k plus miles. Look how fast the AEB tech has spread across the entire industry. For me, leasing with 15k/year works well, as the money factor is effectively 0 and there will be a lot more high mile 17s and 18s on the market to assess higher mileage reliability by the end of the lease. I'll decide whether to buy the vehicle out of the lease based on the performance. Maybe I'll be disappointed by the overall quality, but I expect not to be. To me the CX has the edge in ride, noise, and handling. CR's reliability survey shows a good standing for the CX-5 since 2013.
 
Avoidin Deer said:
You know, I see on paper that the cargo space difference is substantial. But other than those optics, are there really people out there stuffing so much stuff into the back that they'd not have enough room in a CX-5? Or is this a matter of the paper difference being so stark that it scares some folks away?
Click to expand...

Buzzman12 said:
I understand what you are saying, but you have to realize that 99% of buyers looking for a mid size SUV are not car people, and do not belong on any car sites, like this one.
Click to expand...

It's not that they don't belong on a car site, we have multiple people here who would not be considered enthusiasts, they come for questions or other things. The thing is the average car buyer views their car as an appliance and cares mostly about value and durability. Brands like Honda and Toyota are well established in that regard. Mazda has to shed the past of rusty Mazda3s and association with Ford to people who don't know that anything has changed.

The other issue is the move up market. Yes the interior of the CX-5 is very nice when loaded up with all the stitching and stuff, more so than a RAV4, Equinox, Tiguan, etc, but I think the top end CR-Vs are not bad, the new Forester is nice, and even some top end trims of the Sportage are very nice inside. I sat in a mid level trim of the new Escape and it was also well put together. Things that used to make the CX-5 a stand out only a few years ago like standard LED headlights which were only available on top trims of the competitors are now standard on them, such as a the CR-V, RAV4, and Subaru. When I bought my 2018 I thought it was the best deal in the segment. Navigation, LED headlights, Blind Spot, Leather, Premium Stero, all for about $31k sticker at the time. Now the competitors have caught up on value, an EX-L CR-V is $31k and is faster than the 2.5L NA in the CX-5. The average compact SUV shopper isn't going to want to spend the $40k on a loaded Signature. And while you'll steal some sales from the Lexus/Acura crowd, a lot of the people shopping the premium brands want a premium badge. It's the same conundrum for Genesis or those fancy Kia K900s. Yes they are loaded up just as nice as an S class or A8, but at the end of the day they are not a premium brand.

And when the average person who views their car as an appliance cross shops a Mazda the CX-5 loses out on things that matter to them like practicality. The competitors have more storage bin space up front, more usable second row space, and bigger cargo areas with lower lift over heights. Throw in better fuel economy in the competitors, especially when looking at the hybrid variants, and it makes Mazda the emotional choice. And most consumers don't buy their cars purely on emotion.
 
Seminole said:
It's not that they don't belong on a car site, we have multiple people here who would not be considered enthusiasts, they come for questions or other things. The thing is the average car buyer views their car as an appliance and cares mostly about value and durability. Brands like Honda and Toyota are well established in that regard. Mazda has to shed the past of rusty Mazda3s and association with Ford to people who don't know that anything has changed.

The other issue is the move up market. Yes the interior of the CX-5 is very nice when loaded up with all the stitching and stuff, more so than a RAV4, Equinox, Tiguan, etc, but I think the top end CR-Vs are not bad, the new Forester is nice, and even some top end trims of the Sportage are very nice inside. I sat in a mid level trim of the new Escape and it was also well put together. Things that used to make the CX-5 a stand out only a few years ago like standard LED headlights which were only available on top trims of the competitors are now standard on them, such as a the CR-V, RAV4, and Subaru. When I bought my 2018 I thought it was the best deal in the segment. Navigation, LED headlights, Blind Spot, Leather, Premium Stero, all for about $31k sticker at the time. Now the competitors have caught up on value, an EX-L CR-V is $31k and is faster than the 2.5L NA in the CX-5. The average compact SUV shopper isn't going to want to spend the $40k on a loaded Signature. And while you'll steal some sales from the Lexus/Acura crowd, a lot of the people shopping the premium brands want a premium badge. It's the same conundrum for Genesis or those fancy Kia K900s. Yes they are loaded up just as nice as an S class or A8, but at the end of the day they are not a premium brand.

And when the average person who views their car as an appliance cross shops a Mazda the CX-5 loses out on things that matter to them like practicality. The competitors have more storage bin space up front, more usable second row space, and bigger cargo areas with lower lift over heights. Throw in better fuel economy in the competitors, especially when looking at the hybrid variants, and it makes Mazda the emotional choice. And most consumers don't buy their cars purely on emotion.
Click to expand...

Most of the others have cheaper reflector LEDs, not projector LEDs. Other than that, standard or available features are pretty close these days between brands. Every brand offers the features you listed. It's the details that separate them.

I'd say Mazda competes more with the mainstream brands than Lexus/BMW/Mercedes. Sure they'd rather sell all CX-5 Signatures, but they are a volume, mainstream brand, #15 Global Auto manufacturer by size (Subaru does not make top 20).

Now if you want a hybrid, choose the elegant, sophisticated looking Rav4 hybrid.
 
Chocolate said:
Most of the others have cheaper reflector LEDs, not projector LEDs. Other than that, standard or available features are pretty close these days between brands. Every brand offers the features you listed. It's the details that separate them.

I'd say Mazda competes more with the mainstream brands than Lexus/BMW/Mercedes. Sure they'd rather sell all CX-5 Signatures, but they are a volume, mainstream brand, #15 Global Auto manufacturer by size (Subaru does not make top 20).

Now if you want a hybrid, choose the elegant, sophisticated looking Rav4 hybrid.
Click to expand...
Actually almost all LED headlights are with projector. Its Mazdas Adaptive Front-lighting System (AFS) which is lacking of by others.

I love AFS but the longevity of AFS is questionable as it has too many mechanical moving parts. The similar auto-leveling headlights on my 2000 BMW 528i has lasted about 8 years.
 
There's only so much you can put in a car and leave a profit, even for $35K, apparently. So, as near as I can tell, crossovers are all combinations of good and bad. Want a car that's faster, give up MPG. Want less noise, give up MPG. Want MPG, get a longer stopping distance and more noise.

The cX-5 sacrifices on the edge in the interior (center console, storage), cheaper tech (backup camera and infotainment) and so on.

The RAV4's (hybrid) big sacrifice is noise. They probably worked like hell to get it over 40 MPG and tossed every bit of noise insulation they could. Wonder what kind of MPG hit a sound deadening project on one would cause?

I, commute, on noisy roads, so the 20Kish miles/year I drive makes a CX-5 hard to buy. But, the roads I drive make the RAV4 hard to buy too. I keep coming back t the Outback / Forester but they've got things too, start/stop, reliability and two engine choices I don't like. The new Escape is interesting but that interior screams cheap, and it's a Ford, so that interior will fall apart in two years. Still waiting for the new CR-V hybrid because it's the same engine on the Accord hybrid and it's been great, but they have an old infotainment system in that car.

Try as I might I haven't been able to Goldilocks a crossover.
 
yrwei52 said:
Toyota RAV4 would be my choice if I need a new CUV at this time. But it definitely is not because of the looks. Id choose CX-5 if looks is my no. 1 priority.

I choose RAV4 is because it offers a naturally aspirated engine with the highest thermal efficiency at 40~41%, an 8-speed traditional automatic, the best MPG for the class, and of course the history of the best long-term reliability.
Click to expand...

"It offers a naturally aspirated engine..." and one of the noisiest and raspy ones at that.
If you like an unrefined drive-train, an 8 speed transmission that can't make up it's mind, and mind numbing handling, then this is for you.
As for that best long term reliability claim, check again. That's history now.

Personally, the Rav4 may be more practical than a CX-5 in terms of size and payload, but I still wouldn't own a car that I can't stand the site of, or loath driving.

BTW, the Rav4 only gets an average of 3.2 stars out of 5.0 owner rating on Edmunds. The Mazda is 4.3. (CR-V gets an average 4.0 user grade).

The new Rav4 is piling up the complaints, less than a year after it was introduced as the next great thing in SUV's.

Ultimately it's what the buying public thinks of their vehicles after they buy one that really counts.
 
Chocolate said:
Most of the others have cheaper reflector LEDs, not projector LEDs. Other than that, standard or available features are pretty close these days between brands. Every brand offers the features you listed. It's the details that separate them.

I'd say Mazda competes more with the mainstream brands than Lexus/BMW/Mercedes. Sure they'd rather sell all CX-5 Signatures, but they are a volume, mainstream brand, #15 Global Auto manufacturer by size (Subaru does not make top 20).

Now if you want a hybrid, choose the elegant, sophisticated looking Rav4 hybrid.
Click to expand...

The type of headlight has no bearing on its performance. There are many headlights that are reflector based that earn a good rating from the IIHS. And top trims of the RAV4 have projectors, the Escape and Forester both use projectors too.

And the whole point of this thread is how Mazda is not competing against the main stream brands in the US. Subaru sold 15k Foresters in October compared to 10k CX-5s. YTD its up over 23k units compared to the CX-5. The RAV sold 37k units in October 10k of which were the hybrid, so that one powertrain alone sells as much as all CX-5s. YTD they e sold 362k RAVs. And worldwide Suzuki is a bigger brand than Mazda. And I mentioned up level brands because its been said over and over from Mazda themselves they want to move the brand up market and away from the Toyotas and Hondas. Not to a Benz or Audi level but to an Acura/Infiniti sort of near luxury level. The problem is the brands perception is not there and probably never will be.

And for the Hybrids the RAV isnt the only game in town. Honda is brining the CR-V hybrid in a few months and Ford has both a regular and plug in version of the Escape. Any of those trounce the CX-5 in gas mileage by a large margin. The industry is moving in that direction and the CX-5 has nothing to compete against those models.
 
dyingquail said:
Still waiting for the new CR-V hybrid because it's the same engine on the Accord hybrid and it's been great, but they have an old infotainment system in that car.
Click to expand...

I have the Accord Hybrid and yes while its dumb they dont put the infotainment from that into the CR-V, I pretty much never use the Honda software. I use Apple CarPlay for everything. The CR-Vs software should me more than sufficient and it should be quieter than the RAV4 as well. Not sure if the old software has some of the nice features the Accord does have though like when listening to satellite radio it will rewind to the beginning of whatever song is currently playing when you change the channel.

The CR-V is quiet in its gas versions while the RAV4 has gotten complaints in the gas version too, so likely just a general design problem of not enough acoustic material.
 
On the 4Runner/Tacoma club, if your truck goes 500K then dies, you got a lemon. There are literally dozens of people on that site with million mile trucks.
All those consumer reports type sites take all issues into their database, so it's hard to tell what car is the most reliable by only looking at those numbers. "These two cars had 1 issue apiece per 1000 buyers." We wont mention that one had an ashtray light go out and the other needs a new transmission.

We all know a Toyota goes longer than a Subaru or Mazda, there's no denying that. BUT..maybe that's not the only good reason to buy a car. I knew full well my new Golf R wont go 300k miles with no problems, but I didn't buy it for reliability only. I bought it because it's quick, fun to drive and has a 6 year warranty.
 
Last edited:
Chocolate said:
Technology is moving so fast I am less concerned about keeping a car for 150k plus miles. Look how fast the AEB tech has spread across the entire industry. For me, leasing with 15k/year works well, as the money factor is effectively 0 and there will be a lot more high mile 17s and 18s on the market to assess higher mileage reliability by the end of the lease. I'll decide whether to buy the vehicle out of the lease based on the performance. Maybe I'll be disappointed by the overall quality, but I expect not to be. To me the CX has the edge in ride, noise, and handling. CR's reliability survey shows a good standing for the CX-5 since 2013.
Click to expand...

That is precisely why I leased my 17, figuring something compelling would come along to make me want to upgrade. So far, I haven't seen anything like that. The 17 has everything... except more power and a good 360 camera. At this point, it looks like I may be buying out my lease next year.

Chocolate and I were fortunate to have an almost zero money factor for our leases, but don't assume every lease is like that. Some are ridiculously expensive, and everything in between.
 
yrwei52 said:
I love AFS but the longevity of AFS is questionable as it has too many mechanical moving parts. The similar auto-leveling headlights on my 2000 BMW 528i has lasted about 8 years.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I'm counting on them failing in the straight ahead direction. Could be wishful thinking. My CX-5 has AFS and auto-leveling. Double trouble? I doubt the auto-leveling functions very often.
 
Regarding the headlights. I used to have a custom D2S quad projector setup (upgraded from the standard D2R reflector HIDs) in my ES 330. So it's something I notice, it's either not offered or only on the top trims on many competitors, because it's cheaper to use a simple reflector rather than a glass projector lens. Projectors are used in nearly all high end automobiles because they focus the light on the road better, and more evenly without dark spots. There's a styling aspect as well, but that's not as important.

toyo4.jpg
 
Buzzman12 said:
"It offers a naturally aspirated engine..." and one of the noisiest and raspy ones at that.
If you like an unrefined drive-train, an 8 speed transmission that can't make up it's mind, and mind numbing handling, then this is for you.
As for that best long term reliability claim, check again. That's history now.

Personally, the Rav4 may be more practical than a CX-5 in terms of size and payload, but I still wouldn't own a car that I can't stand the site of, or loath driving.

BTW, the Rav4 only gets an average of 3.2 stars out of 5.0 owner rating on Edmunds. The Mazda is 4.3. (CR-V gets an average 4.0 user grade).

The new Rav4 is piling up the complaints, less than a year after it was introduced as the next great thing in SUV's.

Ultimately it's what the buying public thinks of their vehicles after they buy one that really counts.
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty telling. Anyone can buy good reviews or good press, but the user reviews count for something too.

I agree 100% on the looks. For the same price, I want a car that looks good. There is quite a difference.

https://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/rav4/
 
I've said it before, but while the Gen 2 CX-5 styling isn't my cup of tea, the new RAV4 looks like a damn Tonka toy or something.
 
The tech package, interior space and gas mileage won us over on the RAV4 vs other brands and styles. We needed a roomier trunk for the dog and luggage for weekend trips. We also liked the rear legroom for the kids. Safety sense stuff seemed to fit our driving styles better than the current CX-5 system. AWD for state parks and stuff on the weekends were a necessity and thanks to the popularity of the RAV4 hybrid you can purchase a gas only version for way below MSRP.

CX-5 or a Mazda 6 would have been the winner though if it werent for hauling the kids, dog or weekend outings to local outdoors stuff.

Were still quite pleased with our 13 CX-5 and still have it. We traded in our Odyssey for the RAV4 prior to the lease ending and it was really tough figuring out what to do!
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mazdiod2
    • Like
Mazda CX-5 passed the 20K units per month
Replies
3
Views
1K
yrwei52
yrwei52
Pitter
    • Like
Honda CR-V 4WD? Nit Pick Question
Replies
11
Views
2K
Natey
Natey
Pitter
    • Like
Old Car vs Year Old CX-5
Replies
7
Views
3K
CarpeDiem
CarpeDiem

Latest posts

Back