An Interesting Opportunity to Compare

[finch204]

I don't really think of Mazda as a trail blazer.

I'm old enough to remember Mazda's B2000 commercials in the 80s, "Sakes alive! Only Mazda's got a truck for just $5795..." Their mini-pickup was just like everyone else's except cheaper. The 323, 626, and 929 were Universal Japanese Sedans (tm), just like the Toyota Corolla/Camry/Cressida, Nissan Sentra/Stanza/Maxima, Honda Civic/Accord. The RX-7 was something different, and the MX-5 too I suppose. But other than those two vehicles, Mazda have mostly just plugged their offerings into tried and true market segments. That's how we got the CX-5.

Agreed...

Maybe "trail-blazer" is too strong of a term, maybe "maverick is more appropriate. As far as I know, no one else has been able to sell sports cars with rotary engines other than Mazda. No one else sells a fun to drive car like the MX-5. Of course not every car in their lineup from the 1960s to the present time are unique to their segment like the rotaries and MX-5, but they have been following their own path since a long time ago. This insistence of going their own way has nearly bankrupt them in the past and is why they will probably always be a niche company.

If I'm not mistaken, they even sold a pickup with a rotary engine in the past, why would they even think of doing that? They also created that crazy Autozam car that was well, pretty crazy. Anyone remember the butterfly doors on an RX-8? I thought it was awesome for a daily driver and family friendly too, but most everyone hated it. When everyone else has been downsizing their engines and turbocharging them, Mazda kept working on NA engines and came out with pretty good engines. Who else can sell a car without a glove box in 2017? Only Mazda. And then they created almost a new thing with the Miata RF (surely they could have just followed NC hardtop design). Now they're trying to sell diesel engines in the North America right after the VW diesel scandal. They're also working on HCCI engines and is spending resources trying to solve the emissions problem with rotary engines. Lots of people think these are a waste of resources. The point I'm trying to make is, they follow their own path.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Geeze, can this please not turn into another CX-5 vs the world thread?

It was meant as an opinion and extended comparison between gen 1 and 2, and to a further extent my Mazda3.

Isn't there a CX-5 vs CRV thread already that those preachers can hang out in? I have no interest in that fight, my money has already been (well) spent.

Hey Studum,

Are you able to measure noise levels [phone app perhaps (scratch)] between the 16 & 17 models please on say the same piece of road and post the results here?

I know the 17 is more quiet but would be interesting to see how much more so.

Thank you

 

[justdeb__]

On the other cars mentioned that have the buttonless entry, how does the driver tell the car it wants to unlock all 4 doors or just unlock the driver door?

(iagree)

 

[justdeb__]

A few things. First off, Studum: Really? You couldn't open the screen door to take a proper pic? That's a fail.
You made up for it in your second post:

Seconded. I'm thinking some of you should have bought a CRV or something more expensive.
Of course, Mango shows up to bash. How does he find every thread with even the most minuscule nitpick, but fails to see the post where we are full on teasing him? The Amazing Mango. It's like he has 'negative comment radar'.



Seriously? This must be a joke? And Nelson agreed? and Lowin agreed, too? This is nitpicky to the nth degree. Yes, lowin, the button...is on the handle...of the handle you need to open the car. I have this pull to open on my Volvo AND a button (is that 2X the attention to detail?!? ) ... it's really not all that much extra work for my thumb to find a button on the Mazda.
Plenty of cars in this class DON'T have 'pull to open'. So, if you don't have auto-lock enabled, how do you lock your car? Well, on my Mazda (and my Volvo) I just push the button on the handle.

You guys are too much....



It doesn't. You would have to open your door and then unlock the others. or use the fob.

(headbang)

I like you

 

[Monterra]

Comparing the 17 to the 14, I found a huge difference. My 14 feels lazy from the start and really requires some peddle mashing to get it to move fast. The 17 feels much better in this regard. Much more responsive.

Noticed this also I think i like the less touchy throttle of my 14 but I can definitely see both sides of that coin..also depends on typical driving conditions.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Noticed this also I think i like the less touchy throttle of my 14 but I can definitely see both sides of that coin..also depends on typical driving conditions.

14's throttle was tied in to their mantra of better fuel economy first and foremost followed by performance.

Seems to have reversed a bit for the 17

 

[justdeb__]

I am not surprised that you disagree, being that you just dropped a bunch of money on one. No surprise there lol But lets be real, compared to the 17 CRV(sorry to bring up the CRV but that is one of its closest competitors), the 17 CX5 is inferior in just about every way except styling interior and out. Objectively speaking, fuel economy, power, braking, cargo space, features, etc. The CX5 trails the CRV. You can't disagree with objective data. Doesn't mean those matter to you and also doesn't make the CRV better either. Cause I would still probably pick the CX5. But I think its important to acknowledge the weaknesses that still exist so the necessary improvements can hopefully be made.

Why don't you just trade in your CX5 and hop on the CRV bandwagon already? I've owned several Hondas in the past 15+ years before jumping ship. I don't miss driving a Honda one bit. It's boring, it's predictable, and everyone and their mom owns one. You keep stating all the points that make the CX5 inferior to the CRV, so what swayed your decision in purchasing one in the first place?

All these CRV fanboys driving a CX5 and whining about how it's inferior to the competition...... (confused)

 

[jhu8]

Why don't you just trade in your CX5 and hop on the CRV bandwagon already? I've owned several Hondas in the past 15+ years before jumping ship. I don't miss driving a Honda one bit. It's boring, it's predictable, and everyone and their mom owns one. You keep stating all the points that make the CX5 inferior to the CRV, so what swayed your decision in purchasing one in the first place?

All these CRV fanboys driving a CX5 and whining about how it's inferior to the competition...... (confused)

What are you talking about? Lol I'm stating facts. The 16 cx5 was the best CUV at my time of purchase. So that's what I bought. I still think the cx5 is but I'm not such a fanboy to ignore the competition.

 

[mangoconchile]

Why don't you just trade in your CX5 and hop on the CRV bandwagon already? I've owned several Hondas in the past 15+ years before jumping ship. I don't miss driving a Honda one bit. It's boring, it's predictable, and everyone and their mom owns one. You keep stating all the points that make the CX5 inferior to the CRV, so what swayed your decision in purchasing one in the first place?

All these CRV fanboys driving a CX5 and whining about how it's inferior to the competition...... (confused)

It's called being objective. And yes the CX-5 is inferior to the competition in fuel economy, power, cargo space, residual value, etc...since when are stating facts a bad thing? It's much better than being a fanboy and pretending there aren't better options out there.

 

[NelsonLewis]

What are you talking about? Lol I'm stating facts. The 16 cx5 was the best CUV at my time of purchase. So that's what I bought. I still think the cx5 is but I'm not such a fanboy to ignore the competition.

Correct.

 

[Studum]

Thank you to those who have ignored the banter and tried to keep this on topic.

LOL at the nitpicking complaints. Good entertainment.

Question for the OP. How does the fuel mileage differ between the 2016 and 2017 CX-5?

Btw, OP might be the 2nd or 3rd person to mention how Mazda has improved the throttle sensitivity on the 2017 CX-5. That's a good improvement. I shouldn't have to press so much of the gas pedal to get a reaction from the engine/transmission.

Fuel economy is damn near identical. In my mostly HWY driving pattern I'm averaging 8.2 L/100km in the Gen1 since the day I filled it up when I got it as a rental. Our Gen 2 seems to have levelled out at 8.4L/100km. However that car sees a greater mix of around town than my nearly pure hwy miles.

For the sake of comparison, my '17 Mazda3 GT has been getting 6.8 L/100km like clockwork in the same driving pattern that I'm giving the Gen1 rental right now. To further the sake of comparison, before my 2010 Gen 2 2.5L Mazda3 got written off it was averaging 8-8.3L / 100km in the same driving pattern.

No matter how you slice it, you can colour me impressed - especially when comparing to my last "3" which I thought was good.

And regarding improved responsiveness - to me it is very noticeable. It's like a halfway point between sport mode and standard on my Mazda3, which although is technically faster feels less rsponsive to throttle inputs than the Gen 2 CX-5. Not sure if that makes sense to you or not, but it is what it is. As previously mentioned I think its the bias towards fuel efficient tuning on the 3. It still scoots, you just have to deliberately stab at the throttle a little more.

Hey Studum,

Are you able to measure noise levels [phone app perhaps (scratch)] between the 16 & 17 models please on say the same piece of road and post the results here?

I know the 17 is more quiet but would be interesting to see how much more so.

Thank you

Sorry, I can't. I don't have the equipment to make a meaningful measurement nor can I produce a controlled environment to repeat the test reliably. All I can say is that it's evident enough that my wife said something about how much quieter the new one is when we were doing the initial test drives of the two back to back. For me its not so much how loud the Gen1 / Mazda3 are, it's how quiet the Gen 2 CX-5 is.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Sorry, I can't. I don't have the equipment to make a meaningful measurement nor can I produce a controlled environment to repeat the test reliably. All I can say is that it's evident enough that my wife said something about how much quieter the new one is when we were doing the initial test drives of the two back to back. For me its not so much how loud the Gen1 / Mazda3 are, it's how quiet the Gen 2 CX-5 is.

No worries. Thanks anyway

 

[Monterra]

It's called being objective. And yes the CX-5 is inferior to the competition in fuel economy, power, cargo space, residual value, etc...since when are stating facts a bad thing? It's much better than being a fanboy and pretending there aren't better options out there.

The redesigned crv did catch and narrowly surpass the cx5 in a few dynamic areas that it very much lacked...it always had and likely always will have better cargo and residuals. Whilst the Mazda is probably always going to be more more engaging, more driver focused, and just more fun to chuck. I won't touch on interior or exterior design as those are subjective although still matter (alot to most buyers.) For me driving attributes and the cars ability to entertain me is what defines better in this and every category of vehicle. I am surprised that a 335i driver chose the crv over the better driving mazda..was it the 2 mpg or the 3 hp that did it for ya?

 

[ColoradoDriver]

It's called being objective. And yes the CX-5 is inferior to the competition in fuel economy, power, cargo space, residual value, etc...since when are stating facts a bad thing? It's much better than being a fanboy and pretending there aren't better options out there.

Seriously, stop Mango. This horse died a long time ago. While that stuff mattered to you and thus you got a CR-V, none of those points mattered to me, and I am fine with a slightly lesser cargo capacity to not have that hideous CR-V back end.

(deadhorse

Back to OP. Really interesting to hear about how the 17 throttle response seems faster. I never really had a complaint about my 14, it always seemed pretty instantaneous to me, but maybe on steep hills it took half a second.

Anyway, really interesting comparison.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[7eregrine]

@Yrwei

https://youtu.be/JoOIaWlLRYs


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[jhu8]

Curious about the sport mode. I know when the 16 came out, a lot of reviewers knocked it for it's too aggressive sport mode. Personally, I love it. Don't use it much but when I do, it's great and help imo. Wonder if it's the same sensitivity or did they tame it back.

 

[mangoconchile]

I am surprised that a 335i driver chose the crv over the better driving mazda..was it the 2 mpg or the 3 hp that did it for ya?

Depends on what your opinion of 'better driving' is. The CRV is faster, lighter, has better braking performance, and faster around a track than a CX-5. Does that make it a 'better driving' vehicle? One could argue on this points alone and say YES. But if you're asking 'what did it for me', it was a combination of the Turbo engine, CarPlay, cargo space, rear leg room, safety ratings, residual value, reliability, safety ratings, and technology.

And it's pretty funny watching people here debating crap like 0-60 times. As if that matters in these types of vehicles? Remember guys, you're CX-5 is nothing more than the Mazda3 on stilts, and the CRV is nothing more than a Civic on stilts. These aren't performance cars. They're not AMGs or M cars. They're basically commuter cars with extra cargo capacity. That's it. Watching people here debate stuff like this is like watching Prius/Volt owners talk about 0-60 times. It's completely pointless.

 

[cburrell]

Wow, I haven't read so much anal retentive griping about petty features on this forum until I bought a cx-5 and started visiting the CX-5 section...its very clear to me that the difference in those who buy and visit the cx-5 vs the other forums on here is that by and large the cx-5 section is filled with a bunch of people who care not for the intangible things that make for a fun driving car. They remind me of mini-van and large SUV buyers who care more about how much of the latest tech their vehicle has, or how many cup holders, cubby holes, or onboard vacuum cleaners their vehicle has. They drive in mostly straight lines on express ways, sit in stop and go traffic, and putt around suburbia. They care not nor do they get or understand the essence of a driver's car vs an appliance on wheels. When pushed hard, the CX-5 in any model year or generation is the best drivers CUV in the segment. Hence why since its inception in 2012, the consensus among most of the auto magazines and sites is that it is atop its segment in driving dynamics...for those of us who actually love to drive our cars and have fun while doing it, who could careless about how we unlocked our doors to get into our car, there is really no other option than the CX-5 in this segment...and no the boring, lifeless, bland appliance on wheels with its gutless CVT transmission, and turbo laggy 2.0 engine, that drives like a boat in comparison to the CX-5 doesn't come close in comparison to the CX-5 in the driving dynamics department.

 

[bigtex]

Hey Studum,

Are you able to measure noise levels [phone app perhaps (scratch)] between the 16 & 17 models please on say the same piece of road and post the results here?

I know the 17 is more quiet but would be interesting to see how much more so.

Thank you

"At highway speeds, Mazdas efforts to silence the CX-5 with a thicker windshield and additional sound insulation have paid dividends. In our test, the sound level at 70 mph dropped from the previous models 69-decibel reading to a luxury-car-like 65 decibels."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review

 

[yrwei52]

@Yrwei

https://youtu.be/JoOIaWlLRYs

Looks like the handle does have a touch sensor ⋯ Thanks for the link.