2016 CX-5 AWD or FWD vs. 2016 Mazda3 5-door s GT
- Thread starter olliedawg
- Start date
Or maybe a clue about what "honest" car salesmen tell customers about resale value. Not that any car salesman would lie for an upsell. ;-)
perhaps, although it is in the dealers financial interest to sell me an AWD model. I told my salesman i would buy it for the price of a FWD, but he wasn't interested.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
It sounds like it's in their financial interest to blow you out their door and get a real customer, lol! I wouldn't burn my time on you when I was in auto sales unless we had your car on the lot, because dealer trades take time and money, and you're the kind of person who will have to SEE the invoice, I will make $1-200, and that's if we HAVE the vehicle. If we don't, you're going to ask where it's coming from, Google it, call that dealer, and double-negotiate with them, and...basically no. I wouldn't give you my time. I would take your name, info, and smile and promise to call you if we get the car you're looking for on the lot, and that's about the extent of it unless you wanted to burn my internet manager's time.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
No manual option kills it for me.
As to the Q60, I had a 370Z. I have no desire to own another car on that platform. None.
So far the WRX STi, or the EVO seem the only cars in that segment, and they are both a bit "lesser" than I'd want. Keep in mind, I have 3-5 years to figure it out, I'm just musing. Although, if a new car came out today, I'd consider it then, because I like "mature" platforms (not first-year).
Business is a gamble of give and take. I get the impression that you were focused on the short term gains. It sounds like I would have rejected your offer of taking my information, as I could tell from the first line in your post that you weren’t going to be sincere. Since this dealership did work with me I’ve already spent about 500 in parts and accessories from them and have given my sales person’s name to a friend who plans to go for a test drive.
Dr. Awkward
Member
- :
- 2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E
We have a CX 5 w/front WD and leather. Our college kid drives a 2014 3 Touring w/ cloth.
CX 5 is way more comfortable (6' 225 lbs.) for me.
If you see a lot of snow you may want different tires; the Toyos are average in snow/ice.
I use my '95 Toyota PU during the rare snow events we see.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
"I'm sorry, sir, we don't have that model on the lot, nor do we have an allocation to order one because foreign manufacturers "build on their own time-line" (well, Nissan does, dunno if Mazda does). However, we should get one in with the features you want in the next few weeks. Can I get your number and I will call you."
---If you would turn that down, then I really wouldn't feel the loss.
Although, you are right. Car sales was not a career for me, nor was it ever intended to be. If it were, I likely would have "taken the hit" to deal with you, in light of you coming back 5 years later and me taking your head off that go around (usually what happens).
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Easy peasy...there's at least two on every lot within 250 miles of me. Last year and the year before, not so much, but now they're everywhere...
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Way over priced...
End to this story...We went with a CX-3 GT AWD automatic with i-ActiveSense package, Titanium Flash, black leather. We got a pretty darned good deal on our 2012 VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI (was only $300 upside down, which is totally fair in our minds). Plus, we can't say enough good things about Jim Salvie @ Berkshire Mazda. He treated us fair and square, a minimum of BS, and a pretty transaction. Thanks to all for your comments and help.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
CX-3 is a better vehicle than CX-5 if the space in the rear is not an issue. It has improved AWD system. Even the 7-speaker Bose system with tweeters and sub-woofer sounds better! Congrats!
Don't get me wrong... I like the CX-3 but it does have some deficiencies IMO... (these might not be deficiencies to some...just my opinion.)
Not sure I would consider a beam rear axle superior....
Also looking at CX-3 owners manual it appears in North America that there is a no trailer warning.
Page 3-46
Ground clearance 6.1" versus 8.5" with the CX-5.
Just something to factor in... when someone is caught choosing between a CX-3 and a CX-5
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
If you can get a good deal on a used gen 3 mazda 3 you can used the savings to grab the turbo kit coming out.
CX-3 is a nice vehicle but the AWD is not better in any way that's going to make one iota of difference in the real world. If you don't believe this you put far too much credence in press releases from the Mazda Marketing Department. And the CX-5 will perform in a superior manner when the going get's rough due to it's fully independent suspension, longer travel, more ground clearance and longer wheelbase.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Well, since it got cold and my Mazda's AWD broke and now it's just a FWD, I have gotten to experience the car with FWD only. Total suck. Would not own this in FWD. Sure, it works great on granny take-offs on clean streets, but dirty side streets with gravel in the ditch due to rain on a cold day pulling out into traffic? No. It's called "Fail Wheel Drive" for a reason.
Your AWD with the AWD clutch uncoupled does not make it a nimble FWD. It's a FWD handicapped by a bunch of heavy drivelines and gears and a draggy, fluid-filled clutch that must be spun up to speed every time you accelerate using only the traction of the rear tires on the pavement. The power to do this must be transmitted through the engine, tranny and, yes, the traction of the front tires. All the drag of the AWD components subtracts from the traction of your front tires. AWD with AWD disabled does not equal FWD!
As a lifelong off-roader/adventurer, I can tell you there is a very good reason all part-time 4WD vehicles have front hubs that can be locked or unlocked. Sure, you can drive around in 2WD with the front hubs locked but the extra drag and loss of rear tire traction under acceleration is as obvious and as unacceptable as a inexperienced snow driver caught in his second snow storm.
I've never heard FWD referred to as "Fail Wheel Drive". This is new to me because, where I live we have to deal with a lot of slippery driving surfaces from wet pavement (often covered with wet leaves in the fall), wet grass, wet clay, snow/ice, etc. Anyone with a lot of experience driving in inclement weather knows that FWD kicks ass on RWD and rear wheel drive is the system that fails under inclement conditions. The only exception to this rule is rear engine cars with RWD like Porsche and old-school VW's. This is common knowledge around here. In fact, 4WD was popularized because of how badly RWD sucks. FWD was a big improvement in real world driving performance both on and off paved roads. And vehicles capable of AWD all the time (even on bare, dry pavement) have become far more popular than 4WD because of the serious limitations of 4WD. Namely, the need to disengage the front wheels when driving on surfaces with good traction. Because then you're stuck driving a cripple, a RWD.
Make no mistake, your AWD, without the rear wheels powered, will not give you the acceleration performance, not even close, of a true FWD vehicle.
