Consider the size of the company.
Nissan is eight times larger than Mazda.
Kia-Hyundai is seven times larger than Mazda.
Chevrolet is ten times larger than Mazda.
Higher sales do not indicate a better vehicle.
How does Mazda CX5 GT 2016 compare with Nissan Rogue 2016 SL?
- Thread starter sra
- Start date
Consider the size of the company.
Nissan is eight times larger than Mazda.
Kia-Hyundai is seven times larger than Mazda.
Chevrolet is ten times larger than Mazda.
Higher sales do not indicate a better vehicle.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
True. But Mazda is in a business of making money. The more CX-5s they sell, the more money they make. We have to at least look at the percentage increase of the Nissan Rouge. 22.39% and 44.17% sales increase since the redesign, from 162,751 units in 2013 to 287,190 units in 2015, that would be any car companies' dream no matter what! Nissan did something right on Rogue even though the public perception of poorer quality and reliability than Toyota and Honda which are always their sales obstacles. Mazda would be thrilled if their sales percentage increase were 22.39% and 44.17% instead of 24.61% and 12.44% on CX-5 for past two years. Especially the merely 12.44% increase for facelifted 2016 CX-5 is a disappointment.
Have you seen the previous Rouge? The new one is worlds better looking. Not surprised with the sales bump. I am impressed by the amount though. But the CX-5 has remained just about the same style since it's release in 13. The 16 upgrade wasn't that big to expect a huge increase in sales.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
BTW, among Japanese automakers, Mazda is less than half the size of Suzuki. Only Subaru and Isuzu are smaller than Mazda. But Subaru is gaining rapidly and outsells Mazda two to one in the U.S. The sales number on Subaru Forester shows. This is an example that although Subaru is smaller than Mazda, but for 2015 Subaru sold 175,192 Foresters in the U.S. which is 57% more than just facelifted CX-5 which sold 111,450 units.
When the CX-5 /w skyactive came out in 2014, it got a huge boost in sales, far more than Mazda anticipated. Because Mazda is a small company, don't expect total redo as often as big makers. Mazda has to pay for NRE (non-recurring engineering cost) every time there is a redo.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Why are we looking at sales numbers? I'd love to see that argument on the Porsche forum. "But mustangs sell so well!!!"
Well, because they cost less. And so does the Rogue.
Well, because they cost less. And so does the Rogue.
I never seriously considered the Rogue. The new one looks pretty good from the outside and, on paper, this is a great car.
It has a nice cabin with "Zero Gravity" seats, optional 3rd row seats, plenty of cargo space without it. The cargo area can be configured in multiple ways, including sliding the 2nd row seat, which is very useful for families. There are also air vents for the 2nd row.
On top of this, EPA fuel economy is best in class and it is a Top Safety Pick Plus. Pricing seems to be a tad lower than a comparable CR-V or RAV-4.
So, a practical vehicle from a well known brand, looks nice, potentially good front seats, lots of cargo utility, cost less and has best fuel economy and Top Safety Pick+. On paper, it is an excellent vehicle.
In practice, however, it is a combination of heavy + bit lower power + CVT + comfortable suspension that makes its handling below average. Nissan's CVT and reliability in general are below that of Honda/Toyota/Mazda. Actual fuel economy also comes in at 25 MPG, 3 below the expected EPA average. So, in practice, not very appealing.
It has a nice cabin with "Zero Gravity" seats, optional 3rd row seats, plenty of cargo space without it. The cargo area can be configured in multiple ways, including sliding the 2nd row seat, which is very useful for families. There are also air vents for the 2nd row.
On top of this, EPA fuel economy is best in class and it is a Top Safety Pick Plus. Pricing seems to be a tad lower than a comparable CR-V or RAV-4.
So, a practical vehicle from a well known brand, looks nice, potentially good front seats, lots of cargo utility, cost less and has best fuel economy and Top Safety Pick+. On paper, it is an excellent vehicle.
In practice, however, it is a combination of heavy + bit lower power + CVT + comfortable suspension that makes its handling below average. Nissan's CVT and reliability in general are below that of Honda/Toyota/Mazda. Actual fuel economy also comes in at 25 MPG, 3 below the expected EPA average. So, in practice, not very appealing.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Ford (Mustang) and Mazda are considered as volume sellers but Porsche is not. Sale price on Rogue is compatible to our CX-5 with similar equipment.
Low price would have helped the sales number with an attractive product. You won't see 44.17% annual sales jump if the product is mediocre even with low price.
Rogue:
1. Their Active Ride Control is actually quite good. Something not available in CX-5.
2. The Power Liftgate feature is useful to some, especially families.
3. Their infotainment system is light years ahead of Mazda's. Tight integration with Sirius XM, advanced features is really good. The best is tight integration with Siri@iPhone. Apple Carplay is definitely in their road map in the nearest future. The infotainment alone is a big, big selling point.
4. They also have Bose, but it sounds much, much better - good full-range bass and crisp mids with good hi.
5. Have you seen their Around View Monitor. It's a blessing in tight urban areas.
I can easily sacrifice 2, has really no value for me. 5 is good to have when I am in Jersey City/Hoboken/New York - YMMV. If there's something which would cause me to think of buying: their infotainment and audio system.
But why I went with CX-5? Rogue handling: not good, period. Now - you've got to understand consumer mentality. Bottom-line: its a family SUV. So, feature wise: its richer. Folks can easily sacrifice a little bit of handling in favor of advanced features. At the end of the day - Nissan is NOT an unknown company, it's a well renowned Japanese company. All things said and done: it's a good car, all depends on the buyer's perception of value: advanced features or JOY of driving.
Now comes the question of reliability. It's very debatable, Mazda also suffered terribly. Till today folks ask me why did you, for Goodness sake buy a Ford left-over, etc., etc.? Once again: perception, historical data drives a lot of decisions. Nissan is suffering from CVT issues but they are DRASTICALLY improving also. I, for one - if forced to might buy the Rogue and get than $100 yearly Geico warranty insurance and be covered for 7 years/100,000 miles. Risk: mitigated.
1. Their Active Ride Control is actually quite good. Something not available in CX-5.
2. The Power Liftgate feature is useful to some, especially families.
3. Their infotainment system is light years ahead of Mazda's. Tight integration with Sirius XM, advanced features is really good. The best is tight integration with Siri@iPhone. Apple Carplay is definitely in their road map in the nearest future. The infotainment alone is a big, big selling point.
4. They also have Bose, but it sounds much, much better - good full-range bass and crisp mids with good hi.
5. Have you seen their Around View Monitor. It's a blessing in tight urban areas.
I can easily sacrifice 2, has really no value for me. 5 is good to have when I am in Jersey City/Hoboken/New York - YMMV. If there's something which would cause me to think of buying: their infotainment and audio system.
But why I went with CX-5? Rogue handling: not good, period. Now - you've got to understand consumer mentality. Bottom-line: its a family SUV. So, feature wise: its richer. Folks can easily sacrifice a little bit of handling in favor of advanced features. At the end of the day - Nissan is NOT an unknown company, it's a well renowned Japanese company. All things said and done: it's a good car, all depends on the buyer's perception of value: advanced features or JOY of driving.
Now comes the question of reliability. It's very debatable, Mazda also suffered terribly. Till today folks ask me why did you, for Goodness sake buy a Ford left-over, etc., etc.? Once again: perception, historical data drives a lot of decisions. Nissan is suffering from CVT issues but they are DRASTICALLY improving also. I, for one - if forced to might buy the Rogue and get than $100 yearly Geico warranty insurance and be covered for 7 years/100,000 miles. Risk: mitigated.
Blose?! The Nissan Blose system the x had sucked as bad as the one my GT has.
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
1. There are almost no specific mods for the new gen Rogue right now.
2. It's larger so unless you actually need a 3rd row seat (or that extra bit of internal volume) that's more weight, more moment and longer wheel base to throw around (lesser handling). But plenty of people drive vehicles with more seating/towing than they ever use.
3. Styling is pretty mediocre (imo). The back does not match the front. At least it is not butt ugly (I use this loosely, some butts are pretty nice(butt)) like the previous gen.
4. How useful is a power lift gate, really (is it worth the cost?)? Depends on how often you hands are too full to close it I suppose.
5. Performance would be better if it was not port injected. And you can lock the rear diff.. but only below 25mph
2. It's larger so unless you actually need a 3rd row seat (or that extra bit of internal volume) that's more weight, more moment and longer wheel base to throw around (lesser handling). But plenty of people drive vehicles with more seating/towing than they ever use.
3. Styling is pretty mediocre (imo). The back does not match the front. At least it is not butt ugly (I use this loosely, some butts are pretty nice(butt)) like the previous gen.
4. How useful is a power lift gate, really (is it worth the cost?)? Depends on how often you hands are too full to close it I suppose.
5. Performance would be better if it was not port injected. And you can lock the rear diff.. but only below 25mph
My three main contenders 2 years ago while looking for a new car were - Nissan Rogue, Jeep Cherokee, and the CX-5. The Rogue had most of the things on my "check-list", but the CVT was a BIG disappointment! I ended up buying the Jeep Cherokee because of the V-6 and over-all value. BIG MISTAKE!!!!! If over-all value means trips to the stealership every 3-4 weeks with minor/major problems, then no thank you. Ended up trading it in for the 2016 Mazda CX-5. If the 2016 CX-5 had been available when I was originally looking, it would have been a no-brainer w/ the infotainment upgrade/controls, seats, etc. The more I drive it, the more I appreciate the handling and nimble feel of this CUV.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
2016 Nissan Rogue
Engine:
QR25DE 2.5-liter DOHC 16-valve 4-cylinder
Horsepower 170 hp @ 6,000 rpm
Torque 175 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm
Nissan Direct Ignition System (NDIS) with double platinum-tipped spark plugs
Fuel Economy:
Front-wheel Drive Xtronic CVT 33 Highway 26 City
All-wheel Drive Xtronic CVT 32 Highway 25 City
Nissan has the back,
curbside and front camera, which helps in parking. The CVT transmission was the number reason why I didn't buy that car. Other than that, I thought the Nissan was actually more car for the money, but that damn CVT. (I think Nissan actually is one of two manufacturers of the CVT for all the other car makers.)
curbside and front camera, which helps in parking. The CVT transmission was the number reason why I didn't buy that car. Other than that, I thought the Nissan was actually more car for the money, but that damn CVT. (I think Nissan actually is one of two manufacturers of the CVT for all the other car makers.)
AFAIK, US Rogues (and Altimas) have the QR25DE which does not have direct injection. See also in Edmunds.
Real-world Fuelly economy is 25 MPG.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Nissan Rogue's Bose "premium" sound system has 9 speakers, including 2 woofers which is very similar to our CX-5's Bose speaker setup. But without AudioPilot and Centerpoint technology, it actually could be a better sound system for music listening. Cheaper 7-speaker Bose system on CX-3 definitely is a better sound system among three mentioned as it has tweeters and sub-woofer, both are missing from our CX-5 Bose "premium" sound system!
Yeah.. NDIS is just coils on spark plugs like everyone else.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yeah, Nissan's QR25DE 2.5L is definitely port injected otherwise the horsepower should be up to 180's. IMO, cars with CVT and turbo are easier to be programmed more fuel efficient under EPA test circle.
Our SA-G 2.5L fuel economy is performed not much better according to Fuelly, which has 25.9 MPG for 2016 CX-5. Also according to U.S. Department of Energy, real-world gas mileage for 2015 Nissan Rouge is 28.5 for FWD and 27.0 for AWD whereas 2016 Mazda CX-5 has 27.3 for FWD and insufficient data for AWD.
From my personal experience the highway gas mileage on CX-5 AWD is a lot worse than EPA estimate which is already suffered 3 MPGs comparing to FWD CX-5 while other compact CUVs are paying only 1 MPG penalty. I could never get 30 MPG at any constant speed while driving on the interstate highway according to instant MPG readout.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Nissan is pushing CVT even harder than Audi, making nothing but Xtronic CVTs for their most lineups! Now {stupid} Honda is following suit, making CVT available on every popular model they have, Accords, CR-Vs, etc.
Last edited:
