Super dissatisfied with the CX-5 2.5 Turbo Part 2

joeca said:
I see you have a 2014, how reliable for you?
Click to expand...

I have not had any major issues but some small ones. For example, early on I could not get text messages to be read by the head unit but that was fixed by an update during an oil change. My original tires only lasted about 25-30K miles, which was lower than expected. Other than that, not much to talk about. I have ~120K miles on it now (purchased in December of 2013) so I drove it a lot. I originally lived in SE Pennsylvania but have moved to South Carolina. When I lived in PA, I had no issues with snow or ice. The seat heaters I think did a poor job on 10 degree mornings but otherwise, the car was a winter champ. There are lots of little things that are just wacky with the car as well, such as the absolutely useless voice command system and the fact that the door ajar light won't tell you what door is still open (non tech package).

My mileage has been tracked for over 115K miles and I get roughly the expected MPG (26.4 MPG). This is mostly typical "suburban" driving. Overall, very happy with the car. It was also surprisingly cheap to maintain.

I was a Honda guy through and through. Had Subarus but they all had major reliability issues (WRX and Outback). Tried a Toyota Sienna mini van and that was a disaster. Right now, we have gone from a house with all Hondas to a house with only 1 Honda left.
 
CD: You said you will tune your Gen1? I think OV Tune will stop new tunes for Mazda vehicles and focus on toyota suv / trucks from Jan 2019.
So it has to be other option to tune it.

On resale value - I think it makes very little difference beyond 120-150K miles whether you have any of the Japanese imports. With regards to unob's argument on resale - its pretty easy to blow his theory.
He bought a used 15 rental CX5 AWD Touring in 2016 for 22K (too costly). When told that it was too costly - he said he did it because they gave him an above avg. resale on his Jeep GC. So they Jeep GC resale is tied to the whole deal. In an ideal world his Jeep GC is not fetching him 17.5K USD unless he is spending more on the 'other' car. The CX5 he bought should have been 20K tops. And its possible that his neck of the woods Mazda resale sucks. Subaru resale sucks in DFW as well since no one cares for AWD here.
 
Kaps said:
CD: You said you will tune your Gen1? I think OV Tune will stop new tunes for Mazda vehicles and focus on toyota suv / trucks from Jan 2019.
So it has to be other option to tune it.

On resale value - I think it makes very little difference beyond 120-150K miles whether you have any of the Japanese imports. With regards to unob's argument on resale - its pretty easy to blow his theory.
He bought a used 15 rental CX5 AWD Touring in 2016 for 22K (too costly). When told that it was too costly - he said he did it because they gave him an above avg. resale on his Jeep GC. So they Jeep GC resale is tied to the whole deal. In an ideal world his Jeep GC is not fetching him 17.5K USD unless he is spending more on the 'other' car. The CX5 he bought should have been 20K tops. And its possible that his neck of the woods Mazda resale sucks. Subaru resale sucks in DFW as well since no one cares for AWD here.
Click to expand...

Yup you have to look at the whole deal. The dealer can jack up your trade and charge too much for theirs or low ball you on trade but give you a more fair price on theirs. Or worse you got worst of both. Always research and negotiate each parameter independently.

Sounds like bad negotiating to me.
 
dougal said:
Agree. sm1ke, have you done any paint protection stuff for your Signature?
Click to expand...

Yep, I had PPF thrown into the deal for free and it was applied by the dealer before it left the lot. It basically covers the entire front 1/4 of the car (minus headlights and grille), and the side mirror caps. Besides that, I clay barred, polished, and waxed the entire car once in the fall.
 
dougal said:
I have not had any major issues but some small ones. For example, early on I could not get text messages to be read by the head unit but that was fixed by an update during an oil change. My original tires only lasted about 25-30K miles, which was lower than expected. Other than that, not much to talk about. I have ~120K miles on it now (purchased in December of 2013) so I drove it a lot. I originally lived in SE Pennsylvania but have moved to South Carolina. When I lived in PA, I had no issues with snow or ice. The seat heaters I think did a poor job on 10 degree mornings but otherwise, the car was a winter champ. There are lots of little things that are just wacky with the car as well, such as the absolutely useless voice command system and the fact that the door ajar light won't tell you what door is still open (non tech package).

My mileage has been tracked for over 115K miles and I get roughly the expected MPG (26.4 MPG). This is mostly typical "suburban" driving. Overall, very happy with the car. It was also surprisingly cheap to maintain.

I was a Honda guy through and through. Had Subarus but they all had major reliability issues (WRX and Outback). Tried a Toyota Sienna mini van and that was a disaster. Right now, we have gone from a house with all Hondas to a house with only 1 Honda left.
Click to expand...

I feel like Subaru is another one that gets put on a pedestal but in reality has its fair share of issues.
 
sm1ke said:
Yep, I had PPF thrown into the deal for free and it was applied by the dealer before it left the lot. It basically covers the entire front 1/4 of the car (minus headlights and grille), and the side mirror caps. Besides that, I clay barred, polished, and waxed the entire car once in the fall.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did not think of that. I am going to get that done in the end of the month. Got a quote for $1500 for the full front end and $1200 for a 5 year ceramic coating.
 
ourlee said:
Well I drove the turbo a few days ago and the engine behaves exactly like it does in the 9. It is so neutered, no fun to be found anywhere in the power band.
Click to expand...

From what I saw, some reviewers of the Mazada6 Turbo said basically the same thing. It wasn't that the car performed badly, it just didn't give the "seat of the pants" feel one might expect given the engine's power numbers. If I had to guess, I would say Mazda is doing something with engine management to protect the drivetrain from getting the full force of that 310 lb ft of torque all at once.

I am not saying that I think the drivetrain is weak or under built. Just that maybe Mazda is being extra cautious to ensure long term (100K + miles) reliability.

-kp
 
kpluck said:
From what I saw, some reviewers of the Mazada6 Turbo said basically the same thing. It wasn't that the car performed badly, it just didn't give the "seat of the pants" feel one might expect given the engine's power numbers. If I had to guess, I would say Mazda is doing something with engine management to protect the drivetrain from getting the full force of that 310 lb ft of torque all at once.

I am not saying that I think the drivetrain is weak or under built. Just that maybe Mazda is being extra cautious to ensure long term (100K + miles) reliability.

-kp
Click to expand...

So if they are in fact holding back and the turbo does not provide the expected upgrade in performance, then what's the point other than to try to compete in the "turbo" segment?
 
STE92VE said:
So if they are in fact holding back and the turbo does not provide the expected upgrade in performance, then what's the point other than to try to compete in the "turbo" segment?
Click to expand...

"The expected upgrade in performance" will vary from person to person.

I don't speak for Mazda, but it is my opinion that since Mazda is moving towards the luxury segment, the turbo was added and tuned to provide linear, predictable power. I'd say it's more "refined" than tuning the engine to make peak power later in the rev range, thus making the torque feel more punchy (and less usable). People hear the word turbo and immediately associate it with the whiplash feeling you get when the turbo spools. That's not how this engine was designed and that was made clear when it debuted in the G2 CX-9.
 
Last edited:
jmhumr said:
Seems to be a lot of misinformation about resale values in this thread. The deviation between Japanese SUVs is not significant. Rather than relying on anecdotes, just check for yourself on a site like KBB, Edmunds, etc. (as above)
Click to expand...

Yea, let's put this to bed right now:
2013 Mazda CX5 GT 81,000 miles: KBB Fair Price from a dealer: $13,128 - $15,203
vs.
2013 Honda CRV 81,000 miles: KBB Fair Price from a dealer: $14,201 - $17,175
(I already closed the browser window but it was the top trim of this too, forgot already what it's called)

For a difference of: $1,073 - $1,972

Far cry from your "3-4 thousand".
BOTH cars selling today for about half of what they were new.
Factor in 1 more thing: The CRV was a grand more when new and that difference shrinks even more.
Of course this is my zip code. Maybe CRV's are worth more in Missouri or wherever he lives.

I don't think he's talking about resale value... he means trade in value. The dealer will only give him $10... that's what he's upset about. That's how dealers work bro. They low ball you to make a profit when they sell yours.
 
Trade in at a dealer is total lowball. There's no way the car is worth only 3500.

Mine still shows 8500 - 10500 on all these websites. 2014 Touring. Probably lower for trade in for sure, but not 3500 lol.
 
I was a bit skeptical of the reports of dramatically different resale values for the CX-5 vs. Rav4, but for kicks I went to KBB and looked up average trade for a 2015 CX-5 and a 2015 Rav4, both with 100K miles, mid-level trims, and everything else being the same. I was surprised to get back $8.4K for the CX-5 and $12.2K for the Rav4. I have no dog in this debate, but I was surprised by the difference.

- Mark
 
Last edited:
markjenn said:
I was a bit skeptical of the reports of dramatically different resale values for the CX-5 vs. Rav4, but for kicks I went to KBB and looked up average trade for a 2015 CX-5 and a 2015 Rav4, both with 100K miles, mid-level trims, and everything else being the same. I was surprised to get back $8.4K for the CX-5 and $12.2K for the Rav4. I have no dog in this debate, but I was surprised by the difference.

- Mark
Click to expand...


The lesson is buy either one a year old CPO CX5 or buy a new Rav 4, and its a wash after 5 years in terms of net depreciation, if that's your concern
 
Last edited:
markjenn said:
I was a bit skeptical of the reports of dramatically different resale values for the CX-5 vs. Rav4, but for kicks I went to KBB and looked up average trade for a 2015 CX-5 and a 2015 Rav4, both with 100K miles, mid-level trims, and everything else being the same. I was surprised to get back $8.4K for the CX-5 and $12.2K for the Rav4. I have no dog in this debate, but I was surprised by the difference.

- Mark
Click to expand...

Autotrader App - Dallas FTW.
Filters
< $13000
Model year 2015
Mazda CX5, Honda CRV and Toyota Rav4
Within 200 miles of Dallas Downtown

14 results : Observation, CX5 is close to Rav4. Sometimes CX5 is listed more than Rav4, sometimes its opposite. But both are within 400-500 dollars. outlier is CRV, the price for 2015 Rav4 with 100K miles is same price for 170K miles CRV. So CRV is a lot better in resale than both Rav4 / CX-5

Between the Mazda and Toyota - its mostly same or difference of 400 or 500 dollars.

Now, Gen2 - Autotrader filter few months ago [Under $20,000] : USA wide for 2017 or newer CX5 vs Rav4 - the Gen2 CX5 murders the Rav4 is resale. I saw 200+ Rav4s under 20K, whereas saw only 2 CX5s. CX5 sellls less than Rav4 but the ratio is not 100:1.
Gen2 resale is due to the fact its a premium vehicle compared to Rav4 in terms of quietness and design language. But my dreams of scoring a used cheap Gen2 are pretty much ended.
 
7eregrine said:
Yea, let's put this to bed right now:
2013 Mazda CX5 GT 81,000 miles: KBB Fair Price from a dealer: $13,128 - $15,203
vs.
2013 Honda CRV 81,000 miles: KBB Fair Price from a dealer: $14,201 - $17,175
(I already closed the browser window but it was the top trim of this too, forgot already what it's called)

For a difference of: $1,073 - $1,972

Far cry from your "3-4 thousand".
BOTH cars selling today for about half of what they were new.
Factor in 1 more thing: The CRV was a grand more when new and that difference shrinks even more.
Of course this is my zip code. Maybe CRV's are worth more in Missouri or wherever he lives.

I don't think he's talking about resale value... he means trade in value. The dealer will only give him $10... that's what he's upset about. That's how dealers work bro. They low ball you to make a profit when they sell yours.
Click to expand...

And they usually start at the low end of the KBB trade in value no matter the condition.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
CX-5 Engine Cover Turbo Badges
Replies
10
Views
823
chickdr
C
I
  • Question
Pre-purchase help 2020 CX-5 Turbo?
Replies
10
Views
676
Impatient
I
GTXT23
    • Haha
    • Wow
Should you buy a Turbo CX-5?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
12K
Odrapnew
O

Latest posts

Back