2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring Long-Term Verdict Review (Motor Trend)

[MikeM.]

That's a pretty darn huge gap between how people normally drive, and the EPA numbers (which I did match, doing 5 under, and pissing everyone on the freeway off as I coasted up hills and gently accelerated down them).

There isn't a vehicle out there that can match EPA numbers when driving 75-80 mph. Which isn't surprising to those who know the EPA hwy test cycle has an average speed of 48.3 mph and a top speed of 60 mph. I'm not sure why this surprises you as the shape of a utility vehicle is not known for it's good aerodynamics.

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/hwfet.php

How fast does traffic cruise on the highway where you are talking about?

Even a Tesla Model S isn't going to have it's stated 265 mile range if your cruising at 80 mph (closer to 225 miles).

 

[Unobtanium]

There isn't a vehicle out there that can match EPA numbers when driving 75-80 mph. Which isn't surprising to those who know the EPA hwy test cycle has an average speed of 48.3 mph and a top speed of 60 mph. I'm not sure why this surprises you as the shape of a utility vehicle is not known for it's good aerodynamics.

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/hwfet.php

How fast does traffic cruise on the highway where you are talking about?

Even a Tesla Model S isn't going to have it's stated 265 mile range if your cruising at 80 mph (closer to 225 miles).

70 to 75. All of my vehicles in the past managed somehow...

 

[MikeM.]

70 to 75. All of my vehicles in the past managed somehow...

I call BS (or selective memory) on that. Car's don't get's their EPA hwy ratings when cruising 70-75 mph because the testing is done with a maximum speed of 60 mph. And certainly not a Jeep.


You must think we are stoopid. (freak)

 

[littlebear]

I call BS (or selective memory) on that. Car's don't get's their EPA hwy ratings when cruising 70-75 mph because the testing is done with a maximum speed of 60 mph. And certainly not a Jeep.

That is correct. EPA highway MPG tests are done at 60-65mph MAX. The ONLY vehicle that I owned that got good MPG over 70MPH was a newer model Corvette. Those cars are so low and aerodynamic that doing 70-75MPH got the best MPG. Although once you hit 80MPH+ then it began to drop.

I have a MAZDA3 and the MPG drops once you go above 65MPH. At 60-65MPH I can get 40mpg but once I hit 65-70MPH then it drops to 35mpg. If you do 80mph then it plummets to around 30mpg.

 

[xtrailman]

Not sure why you would say larger tires would make a vehicle smoother knowing that on the CX5 the 17" have a 65 profile and the 19" have a 50. Obviously if the aspect was the same the large tire would be smoother, but that's not the case here.

Hence I would expect a slightly rougher ride on the 19"s. It's hard to tell and not really that important to me as the roads here are very smooth, I got the 19" just for the looks.

My 19" wheels have 55 profile.

The ride borders on being hard, but its acceptable to me.
What isn't is the harsh rebound that occurs over some speed humps, so perhaps that's one aspect that has been improved.

I have no issues with the seats.

 

[Dr_Watson]

Mine are 55 too, just noticed my mistake this evening. Managed to find a rough road his evening, it was a little harsher actually but still very refined considering the wheel size. Could never have these wheels where I used to live in scotland, too many pot holes and general quality of the surface was terrible.

 

[DBLXX]

I will tell you this....

I traded in a brand new 2015 Mercedes GLA250 4Matic with 1,200 miles on it for the CX-5 and there is absolutely no question the luxury factor in the CX-5 is 2X greater than the Mercedes if not MORE.

Overall IMO the CX-5 trashes the Mercedes in ALL aspects except power.

No question.

 

[littlebear]

I will tell you this....

I traded in a brand new 2015 Mercedes GLA250 4Matic with 1,200 miles on it for the CX-5 and there is absolutely no question the luxury factor in the CX-5 is 2X greater than the Mercedes if not MORE.

Overall IMO the CX-5 trashes the Mercedes in ALL aspects except power.

No question.

I've driven a 2015 BMW X5 (330HP) and the CX-5 does rival the BMW in all areas EXCEPT power. The BMW is faster and before you know it you can be doing 90MPH. It has tons of power. The X5 is around $70k (wow) and it only gets 23mpg on the highway.

The CX-5 quality is very good for a $30k vehicle.

 

[littlebear]

I will tell you this....

I traded in a brand new 2015 Mercedes GLA250 4Matic with 1,200 miles on it for the CX-5 and there is absolutely no question the luxury factor in the CX-5 is 2X greater than the Mercedes if not MORE.

Overall IMO the CX-5 trashes the Mercedes in ALL aspects except power.

No question.

I've driven a 2015 BMW X5 (330HP) and the CX-5 does rival the BMW in all areas EXCEPT power. The BMW is faster and before you know it you can be doing 90MPH. It has tons of power. The X5 is around $70k (wow) and it only gets 23mpg on the highway.

The CX-5 quality is very good for a $30k vehicle. It handles and drives like a high-end luxury vehicle.

 

[yrwei52]

I will tell you this....

I traded in a brand new 2015 Mercedes GLA250 4Matic with 1,200 miles on it for the CX-5 and there is absolutely no question the luxury factor in the CX-5 is 2X greater than the Mercedes if not MORE.

Overall IMO the CX-5 trashes the Mercedes in ALL aspects except power.

No question.

I thought Mercedes GLA should have more "luxury" feeling than CX-5. At least it has a couple of more selections for interior color and trim instead of "sea of black" CX-5 interior. Not to mention memory seat and rear AC vents. But then again, it'll cost around $40K!

 

[DBLXX]

$40K? Not even close. Try almost $48K with options.

That's with fake leather seats too. MBtex.

I paid $38K. That's with NO sunroof and NO gps and fake leather seats.

No blind spot warning, no blinkers in the side mirrors, no LED or adaptive headlights, and about a dozen other luxuries the CX-5 has

The car sucked.

 

[yrwei52]

$40K? Not even close. Try almost $48K with options.
That's with fake leather seats too. MBtex.
I paid $38K. That's with NO sunroof and NO gps and fake leather seats.
No blind spot warning, no blinkers in the side mirrors, no LED or adaptive headlights, and about a dozen other luxuries the CX-5 has
The car sucked.

The three-pointed-star Mercedes emblem on front grill costs at least $5,000 extra! (whistle)

 

[littlebear]

At least it has a couple of more selections for interior color and trim instead of "sea of black" CX-5 interior. Not to mention memory seat and rear AC vents.

The parchment white interior does break the "sea of black" interior.

 

[xtrailman]

My son in law works for Mercedes UK. I've found to get a proper Merk you need to spend a lot of money, the lower end is very ordinary.

In the UK the sport version has had memory seats for sometime now, I would have liked radar CC as standard as the 175ps diesel auto has a list over 30K uk now.
The radar CC is a staggering 800 UK extra.

 

[DBLXX]

The three-pointed-star Mercedes emblem on front grill costs at least $5,000 extra! (whistle)

You make a joke....but you are right. If I would have ordered the LED lit Mercedes STAR on the front grill - $800 extra.

 

[Unobtanium]

I call BS (or selective memory) on that. Car's don't get's their EPA hwy ratings when cruising 70-75 mph because the testing is done with a maximum speed of 60 mph. And certainly not a Jeep.


You must think we are stoopid. (freak)

My Jeep averaged around 19mpg all the way from New Orleans up to Shreveport. It was rated at 18 Highway. I drove 70-90 (I49 has multiple long areas of 85mph speed limits. I drove 5 over). After I put new tires on it, it would normally run 17.5-18.5, depending on the phase of the moon, on road trips. I typically drove 70-80 on most road trips.

Same for all my other vehicles. Sure, if I pushed them they would get a few mpg less than EPA rating, but normally, cruise-control on, doing 75ish, they matched EPA highway, or got within 1mpg or so of it. Not all the time of course, but often enough that I stopped caring and attributed poor mileage to a fluke (or rain. One time in a very hard rain storm, my Jeep only got 15.5mpg on the way back from Dallas. About 2.5mpg less than rated.).

 

[Unobtanium]

That is correct. EPA highway MPG tests are done at 60-65mph MAX. The ONLY vehicle that I owned that got good MPG over 70MPH was a newer model Corvette. Those cars are so low and aerodynamic that doing 70-75MPH got the best MPG. Although once you hit 80MPH+ then it began to drop.

I have a MAZDA3 and the MPG drops once you go above 65MPH. At 60-65MPH I can get 40mpg but once I hit 65-70MPH then it drops to 35mpg. If you do 80mph then it plummets to around 30mpg.

Weird. One of my friends just bought a Subaru Forester 2.0XT. He gets at, or over EPA rating doing 80 on road trips.
Another friend also bought one, I am waiting to hear back from him.

Of course, I also have all the vehicles I've owned as well, as comparison.

 

[SK77X]

Oh my,... the looks of the GLA are bad enough. I would have stopped right there.

 

[Rarebit]

Weird. One of my friends just bought a Subaru Forester 2.0XT. He gets at, or over EPA rating doing 80 on road trips.
Another friend also bought one, I am waiting to hear back from him.

Of course, I also have all the vehicles I've owned as well, as comparison.

Here's 21 2015 Subaru Foresters getting an average getting a combined Avg MPG of 22.25. EPA combined rating for the Turbo is 25 MPG.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/subaru/forester/2015?engineconfig_id=&bodystyleconfig_id=&submodel_id=

Here's 2016 Mazda CX-5 2.5 AWD. Fully shows it a combined 25.4 mpg - closer to the EPA rating (26 mpg) than the Subaru is to its rating.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5/2016?engineconfig_id=53&bodystyleconfig_id=3&submodel_id=

My conclusion is that you either got a dog or your combination of driving conditions and habits causes you to get poorer mileage than average. I suspect the latter, as I'm in much the same boat. I'm getting a combined 23.8 because I live in hilly country with heavy traffic congestion. I drive more like a hyper-miler than a hot rodder. I got 22.8 mpg combined on my 2010 Mazda 3 GT 2.5 Auto. That compares to 17.68 combined on my 1995 Volvo Turbo auto. I'm a happy camper to have better mileage on a CX-5 than a Mazda 3, and it's light years better than my Volvo Turbo.

 

[DBLXX]

Oh my,... the looks of the GLA are bad enough. I would have stopped right there.

I gotta tell ya....I really liked the look. The AMG 45 is very good looking IMO but $60+K

Without the sport package with AMG wheels and lowered suspension - yes, it was cheezy looking.