I Hate My CX-5

I doubt that the Mazda5 outclasses the CX-5 in handling and acceleration but unless a professional reviewer does a side by side comparison on the same track, we do not really know for sure. In any case, neither the Mazda5 nor the CX-5 are rocket ships and slight handling differences hardly make a difference for typical driving on public roads. Naturally, when it comes to utility, they are different vehicles and when maximum interior volume is the goal, the Mazda5 wins.

One reason why we bought a CX-5 for our teenage kids is its excellent crash rating: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-5-4-door-suv

In contrast, the Mazda5 has one of the worst small overlap crash results: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/5-4-door-wagon/2015
 
You dont need to be a pro driver to feel the difference between the 5 and CX5. I had both vehicles for a year and have 25 years without an accident, meaning never (knock on metal).
 
metalfab said:
Mazda 5 2012+ over a CX-5 GT any day. The 5 has better acceleration...
Click to expand...

Handling can be subjective but acceleration can be measured objectively through a number of different metrics, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are the most common. And all gas versions of the CX-5 are quicker than the 2012 Mazda 5 in both 0-60 tests and quarter mile times (even the entry level 2.0L CX-5 Sport beats the Mazda 5).

So I don't know what you are talking about.
 
metalfab said:
Skyactiv is just another marketing term. Just like CUV, etc.

Just like the gas mileage ratings on the window are exaggerated from All car makers. I had the 2012 5 for a year and the CX5 for about the same. Gas mileage is very similar.

You can compare drive, handling, acceleration, etc very easily. Just drive both and youll see the 5 outclasses the CX5.

Soccermom label is unfortunate, lol, however, there is more utility in a minivan or in this case, a wagon, over a CUV. A true minivan generally has more cargo area than most SUVs. The "utility" name is definately misused.
Click to expand...

Man, there is this sweet mz5 but I can't find it. It's Silve with wheels, a kit, and a turbo, koni's etc. Not that you want to do it, but looks cool
 
MikeM. said:
Handling can be subjective but acceleration can be measured objectively through a number of different metrics, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are the most common. And all gas versions of the CX-5 are quicker than the 2012 Mazda 5 in both 0-60 tests and quarter mile times (even the entry level 2.0L CX-5 Sport beats the Mazda 5).

So I don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Obviosly not.

Drive a CX5 for a bit, then drive a 5, you'll know what I've been saying.
 
metalfab said:
Obviosly not.

Drive a CX5 for a bit, then drive a 5, you'll know what I've been saying.
Click to expand...

Please link to professional reviews showing that the 5 outperforms the CX-5 in acceleration and handling.
 
metalfab said:
I had both vehicles for a year and have 25 years without an accident, meaning never (knock on metal).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, being an excellent driver does not protect one from mistakes by others which is the reason why I will not buy cars with terrible crash performance.
 
yrwei52 said:
Mazda 5 is based on older technology hence the 2.5L engine, which has the same displacement as CX-5 SkyActiv 2.5L, has only 157 hp. Not to mention the old 5-speed automatic which is less efficient than SkyActiv-Drive 6-speed automatic. The EPA fuel economy is lagging behind at 21 city /28 highway mpg than CX-5's 26 city /33 highway mpg for a FWD.
Click to expand...

I would have considered the Mazda5, if it had skyactiv 2.5L. Adds 5mpg and 30hp. Wonder what Mazda has in store for the outdated Mazda5?
 
I currently own a 2012 Mazda 5 that my wife drives mostly and a 2014 CX5 FWD 2.5. I also previously owned a 2013 FWD CX5 sport With the 2.0. Using my Gtech the 2.0 sport was slightly quicker than the 5 in an all out race but during normal every day Driving the 5 just felt more responsive with its greater low end torque. I also feel that the Mazda 5 feels like it is more nimble and I can definetly pack more stuff into the 5 with the third row seats down. It's too bad that the 5 isn't more popular because it's a brilliant vehicle. As far as gas milage is concerned the skyactiv engines are more efficient but the 5 can still easily exceed its highway rating. Last year I took the family (2 kids and all our stuff) on a 1600 mile road trip and I got more than a few tanks at around 31.5-32 MPG with all that added weight. There is also less engine and wind noise in my 5 compared to my CX5 but a little more road noise. When I first got the 5 it was quieter all around than my CX5. I also like the five speed automatic as it always seems like it's in the right gear and unlike my CX5 sport I never feel like the power is inadequate.
 
metalfab said:
Skyactiv is just another marketing term. Just like CUV, etc.
Click to expand...
If you think SkyActiv is just another marketing term, think again! Please read all articles discussing SkyActv Technology with 13:1 high compress engine and clutch oriented automatic transmission, then compare to old engine and transmission on Mazda5 to see how much the power and efficiency have been improved!

metalfab said:
Just like the gas mileage ratings on the window are exaggerated from All car makers. I had the 2012 5 for a year and the CX5 for about the same. Gas mileage is very similar.
Click to expand...
Our CX-5 AWD has EPA city fuel economy rated at 24 mpg, but the actual gas mileage we calculated for 5 fill-ups were around 26 mpg with all city driving. The EPA fuel economy ratings may be exaggerated for some cars with turbo engine or CVT, but definitely not for CX-5!
 
Last edited:
Unobtanium said:
So far my cx5 fails to deliver on the mileage. But it is better than my hemi jeep. So I'm ok.
Click to expand...

The only complaint I have is that the homelink buttons aren't lit up. Other than that, loving my CX-5. :)
 
Last edited:
mazdan00b said:
The only complaint I have is that the homelink buttons aren't lit up. Other than great, loving my CX-5. :)
Click to expand...

I love my CX-5, as well, but on daily work-home trips, it gives about 20mpg, not 24. On the highway, I don't know, as I have not gone on a road trip. I fully expect it to return 30mpg doing 80mph on flat ground, though, because literally every other vehicle I have ever owned returns sticker-listed mileage in those conditions. My HEMI Jeep, my Z06 (actually exceeded sticker by 2mpg), my WS.6, my 370Z, my G20, all of em! 80mph and sticker mileage...so I have high expectations.
 
Unobtanium said:
. I fully expect it to return 30mpg doing 80mph on flat ground, though, because literally every other vehicle I have ever owned returns sticker-listed mileage in those conditions. My HEMI Jeep, my Z06 (actually exceeded sticker by 2mpg), my WS.6, my 370Z, my G20, all of em! 80mph and sticker mileage...so I have high expectations.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're in for a big disappointment.
You might get sticker at 70MPH in the CX-5, but not at 80.
All of your other cars (Except for your HEMI Jeep) are much more aerodynamic than the CX-5.
The CX-5 has an excellent coefficient of drag, but it's also VERY tall, so speed has a greater impact on your consumption than other vehicles.
 
piotrek91 said:
I suspect you're in for a big disappointment.
You might get sticker at 70MPH in the CX-5, but not at 80.
All of your other cars (Except for your HEMI Jeep) are much more aerodynamic than the CX-5.
The CX-5 has an excellent coefficient of drag, but it's also VERY tall, so speed has a greater impact on your consumption than other vehicles.
Click to expand...
That's dissqpointing. It is what it is though....what are others getting at normal freeway speeds 80 to 85?

I also think people are over estimating this vehicles drag.

It has tiny little tires.
It has a great cD
It has a flat underpan.
Mine has no roof rack

Everyone is so hung up on height, but the underbody airflow is very well managed. I bet if you actually knew the frontal area, you would be surprised at how good it is compared to many cars. Anyone actually have that data?

Eta: *model has a 2.6000 m2*frontal area, its drag area being 0.8580 m2*and the drag coefficient - 0.33.*

As I suspected.

It also depends on bsfc at cruising rpm, etc as well.
 
Last edited:
V8toilet said:
I currently own a 2012 Mazda 5 that my wife drives mostly and a 2014 CX5 FWD 2.5. I also previously owned a 2013 FWD CX5 sport With the 2.0. Using my Gtech the 2.0 sport was slightly quicker than the 5 in an all out race but during normal every day Driving the 5 just felt more responsive with its greater low end torque. I also feel that the Mazda 5 feels like it is more nimble and I can definetly pack more stuff into the 5 with the third row seats down. It's too bad that the 5 isn't more popular because it's a brilliant vehicle. As far as gas milage is concerned the skyactiv engines are more efficient but the 5 can still easily exceed its highway rating. Last year I took the family (2 kids and all our stuff) on a 1600 mile road trip and I got more than a few tanks at around 31.5-32 MPG with all that added weight. There is also less engine and wind noise in my 5 compared to my CX5 but a little more road noise. When I first got the 5 it was quieter all around than my CX5. I also like the five speed automatic as it always seems like it's in the right gear and unlike my CX5 sport I never feel like the power is inadequate.
Click to expand...

Church.
 
I saw a Mazda 5 at wal-mart last night. I know in this market segment looks are second to functionality, but I just was not a fan.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Towser
2021 CX-5 Front end thump...Any ideas?
Replies
10
Views
953
cz5gt
cz5gt
S
2024 Test Drive: CX-5, Outback and Forester
Replies
3
Views
915
yrwei52
yrwei52
S
    • Wow
2023 CX-5 Turbo vs Premium Plus
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
17K
sm1ke
sm1ke

Latest posts

Back