I think lowering was a big part of how they improved ride without compromising handling.
(iagree)
I think lowering was a big part of how they improved ride without compromising handling.
I think lowering was a big part of how they improved ride without compromising handling.
Less drag equals better fuel efficiencyLowering also improves MPG.
Nothing to do with ride, but can improve handling.
Lowering also improves MPG.
Nothing to do with ride, but can improve handling.
I can't find a reference and for all I know a false memory... but I thought it was something about truck & SUV classification & 8 inches of ground clearance.
National Parks considers 8 inches high clearance
https://www.nps.gov/deva/planyourvisit/upload/Definitions-2.pdf
For my use I do appreciate that my '15 CX-5 has 8.5" (215.9 mm) of ground clearance. Looks like '17+ dropped down a bit to 7.6" (193.04 mm)
Ironically my CX is higher than stock on my GX when suspension is at normal height setting.
Wow. They lost an inch and didn't gain any handling. Sounds like grounds for being dumped.
Because they are concentrating on ride comfort not handling this time around
I guess it's not a racecar anymore.
There's a button on the dash, down and to the left of the wheel. Simple and convenient. An idiot light indicates when it's off.
I like it on the freeway, definitely turn it off in the twisties.
Mew Mazda CX-5 owner here. Actually, this is my first ever Mazda. Came here from my last three cars being Subaru Foresters. (2005 XT, 2007 non-XT, 2017 non-XT)
The 2005 Forester was my first exposure to Subaru, and it was 'love at first encounter'; the 2007 Forester was 'marriage for a lifetime'; the 2017 turned out to be, 'maybe it's time to end this relationship......?'
Please don't misunderstand: the Subarus have been stellar cars and I may ultimately end up in one again. I got rid of the '17 mainly due to the 'shock' of what the Subaru had become from what it was 10 years earlier. I thought, when I bought the '17, I was getting the 'new, improved' Subaru. Maybe it was, but the differences from older to newer were so noticeable, I was greatly disappointed by the 'new/improved'. Gone was the well thought out, engaging (ie. personable) vehicle to one that was a bit less personable and impassive. Sometimes, new is not better.
Driving dynamics were different (CVT trans, electro-servo steering, 'bloated' effect on interior and exterior changes, driver's cockpit experience, etc.). But, the biggest difference had to do with the new reality of the preponderance of electronic gadgetry and the need to interface with it just to operate the vehicle. Obviously, all auto manufacturers have incorporated lots more electronic controls in place of manual ones. To the distraction, frustration, and detriment of the driver experience, in my opinion. The Subaru version was maddening to me. Almost all of the controls were designed with what I call 'anti-logic', 'anti-intuition', and 'anti-engagement'. Not a fun/engaging experience while driving.
Turns out, all auto manufacturers are pursuing similar versions of the 'anti-' mindset; Mazdas included. Sad.
I'm not sure one could definitively say that Subaru or Mazda is 'better'; different, yes. While Mazda offers a great, engaging driver's experience, Subaru offers a unique version also. I get it why first time Subaru owners usually have a grin on their faces- nothing drives like a Subaru.
It's interesting that Subaru has a noticeable 'welcome to the family' aspect of Subaru ownership. Mazda- not so much. Mazda owners seem to bond more due to their appreciation for the vision/expression of Mazda itself; ie. enthusiasts. That's good, but it's not the same as family.
Subarus tend to invite a more laid back attitude re. how the car fits into one's lifestyle. Mazda owners come across as more focused.
Driving a Subaru is like driving a useful utility tool- a bit clunky, but fun; driving a Mazda is like driving a piece of artwork- sophisticated and capable.
My CX-5 is a very nice car, but, in many areas, it suffers from the same 'anti-' inclusions that the other auto manufacturers do- bummer. If my wife didn't like this car so much, I'm not sure I would want to keep it. I'm drawn to Mazdas emphasis on new technology, and how they seem to obsess over the minutiae- I love that! I'm hoping they can resist the pull to incorporate more and more stupid and frustrating driver-interface items in their cars. (Their infotainment control system is probably the biggest deal-breaker for me; insanely, asininely wrong.) Simpler is better, IMO, and the further cars get from simple, intuition, logic, the more they forfeit a satisfying car experience. I guess it's obvious: I'm not a fan of what this current generation of autos has to offer. I started driving back in the '60's and have seen lots of changes in cars from then to now. Many of those changes are great! I'm just not doing well with how those changes are being presented.
Just an old coots ruminations. Thanks for reading,
Rick
Mew Mazda CX-5 owner here. Actually, this is my first ever Mazda. Came here from my last three cars being Subaru Foresters. (2005 XT, 2007 non-XT, 2017 non-XT)
The 2005 Forester was my first exposure to Subaru, and it was 'love at first encounter'; the 2007 Forester was 'marriage for a lifetime'; the 2017 turned out to be, 'maybe it's time to end this relationship......?'
Please don't misunderstand: the Subarus have been stellar cars and I may ultimately end up in one again. I got rid of the '17 mainly due to the 'shock' of what the Subaru had become from what it was 10 years earlier. I thought, when I bought the '17, I was getting the 'new, improved' Subaru. Maybe it was, but the differences from older to newer were so noticeable, I was greatly disappointed by the 'new/improved'. Gone was the well thought out, engaging (ie. personable) vehicle to one that was a bit less personable and impassive. Sometimes, new is not better.
Driving dynamics were different (CVT trans, electro-servo steering, 'bloated' effect on interior and exterior changes, driver's cockpit experience, etc.). But, the biggest difference had to do with the new reality of the preponderance of electronic gadgetry and the need to interface with it just to operate the vehicle. Obviously, all auto manufacturers have incorporated lots more electronic controls in place of manual ones. To the distraction, frustration, and detriment of the driver experience, in my opinion. The Subaru version was maddening to me. Almost all of the controls were designed with what I call 'anti-logic', 'anti-intuition', and 'anti-engagement'. Not a fun/engaging experience while driving.
Turns out, all auto manufacturers are pursuing similar versions of the 'anti-' mindset; Mazdas included. Sad.
I'm not sure one could definitively say that Subaru or Mazda is 'better'; different, yes. While Mazda offers a great, engaging driver's experience, Subaru offers a unique version also. I get it why first time Subaru owners usually have a grin on their faces- nothing drives like a Subaru.
It's interesting that Subaru has a noticeable 'welcome to the family' aspect of Subaru ownership. Mazda- not so much. Mazda owners seem to bond more due to their appreciation for the vision/expression of Mazda itself; ie. enthusiasts. That's good, but it's not the same as family.
Subarus tend to invite a more laid back attitude re. how the car fits into one's lifestyle. Mazda owners come across as more focused.
Driving a Subaru is like driving a useful utility tool- a bit clunky, but fun; driving a Mazda is like driving a piece of artwork- sophisticated and capable.
My CX-5 is a very nice car, but, in many areas, it suffers from the same 'anti-' inclusions that the other auto manufacturers do- bummer. If my wife didn't like this car so much, I'm not sure I would want to keep it. I'm drawn to Mazdas emphasis on new technology, and how they seem to obsess over the minutiae- I love that! I'm hoping they can resist the pull to incorporate more and more stupid and frustrating driver-interface items in their cars. (Their infotainment control system is probably the biggest deal-breaker for me; insanely, asininely wrong.) Simpler is better, IMO, and the further cars get from simple, intuition, logic, the more they forfeit a satisfying car experience. I guess it's obvious: I'm not a fan of what this current generation of autos has to offer. I started driving back in the '60's and have seen lots of changes in cars from then to now. Many of those changes are great! I'm just not doing well with how those changes are being presented.
Just an old coots ruminations. Thanks for reading,
Rick
Thank you for your insights. (thumb)
Like you, I am not a fan of the of electronic gadgetry for the sake of electronic gadgetry. For example, I love having an actual needle for my speedometer, not some number readout on a screen. I love having actual buttons still for many of the controls. I don't always have to use the touchscreen (I know newer than mine CX-5's have commander knobs). I like not having any of the car nanny features. Exception being the blind spot monitoring and backup camera.
All that aside. I just enjoy the thrill of driving. Sure, it's not a sports car, but somehow Mazda managed to make a vehicle that despite the class its in which is largely family haulers and grocery getters, manages to hit that driving fun spot just right. To me, it does not feel like simply an appliance on wheels, but something with many uses, that appeals to many looking to retain that driving engagement. I love it because it is fun to drive and has the AWD and ground clearance I was looking for. I don't haul a family, I can count maybe 2 times I've loaded up the entire vehicle. It is my daily driver. Rain or shine, snow or dry. Fun any way you look at it.
And that is why I love my Mazda and will never even consider a Subaru.
To me it seems like you just bought the CX-5 so you can get away with AWD year-round without needing to switch to winter tires, which still isn’t as safe as dedicated winter tires. You also mentioned ground clearance, but you said that Colorado has unpredictable snowfalls which is usually not very deep, so that point is also moot. I’m brought to this conclusion. If you’re all about economy, why wouldn’t you just buy a Mazda 3/6, slap on some good winter tires and call it a day? You said you’ve only loaded up the car once or twice, so why do you need the extra space? All that’s doing is overtaxing the 2.5L engine, making the car slower, less fun to drive and less efficient then a 3 or 6 with the 2.5L engine. Now an AWD CX-5 in the snow with winter tires? There is no question that it will perform far better then a FWD Mazda with snow tires. But when comparing winter tires on a FWD car to all seasons on an AWD, there is absolutely no argument to be made as to which one is safer.
So this brings me to my final point... please don’t take this the wrong way, because I think the 2017 model is a great looking car, and I would never say a word about any of this if Mazda offered a diesel or some sort of 2.5L turbo to justify the extra weight of the CX-5. But if you’re stuck with the 2.5L NA engine and don’t want to move up to the heavy CX-9, why do you buy the heaviest car with the weaker motor? It doesn’t make any sense to me, but You can’t deny the fact that you’re just too lazy to switch to winters like you’re supposed to living in an area that snows. If you don’t care about your own safety driving in poor conditions, what about others? Don’t make this argument about infrequent snow. It’s the same s*** here in Canada but the few times we do get snow, the winter tires are extremely helpful. All seasons have no grip for steering or braking once you are moving and AWD just makes that worse because of the added weight. I’m tired of making this argument, but your post made it hard for me not to. There is a sense of unmistakable ignorance in the air...
Excuse me? Where do you ******* get off to be so presumptuous? This is why people don't like you Molestor.
1. Ground clearance. When I bought my CX-5, I lived in the mountains. You would die if you saw the driveway I was dealing with. Very easy to bottom out a lower to the ground vehicle in a rut that formed in the dirt driveway from rain over the spring. Snow in the winter made it worse even if ruts were fixed. Ground clearance very useful. So don't you ******* tell me it's a moot point.
2. Winter tires. Ok, I get your point about them being safer if you are regularly driving in snow. I’m not. 2-3 times driving in snow a year are not worth hundreds of dollars to me. Moreover, I grew up in the mountains where I gained driving experience in much more treacherous conditions than anything I’d ever encounter down here. Not only do I thus have the necessary experience to do so, I also have the wherewithal to know when I do or don’t need snow tires. Where I am now? Completely unnecessary. For the few times I do deal with snow, my AWD and tires have handled it phenomenally, yes including steering and braking. Maybe you are just ignorant of the capabilities of the CX-5. I am not. I have had this car for 5 YEARS. Also, where do you ******* get off calling me lazy for not having snow tires? If I still lived in the mountains, damn straight I’d have them on my CX-5. Where I am now? THEY ARE NOT NEEDED. Get this through your thick skull. If I had a 3/6? Damn straight I’d have them. On my CX-5? Completely unnecessary expense. I know what I can and can't do with my CX-5 and drive accordingly unlike these other ass hats on the road who think they can do anything. Once I got rid of those Yokohama tires you have a love affair with, I never had problems with steering, slipping, etc. Why? I actually know how to drive in snow. And then it's melted by the next day. Yep, totally worth hundreds of dollars! Not.
3. Where do you come up with me liking the CX-5 for “economy”? In what way did I say anything that indicated that? You are making up your own conclusions.
4. Just ******* stop it with all the 3/6 pushing. I like to drive higher off the ground and not feel cramped. I grew up with Jeeps, and drove Jeeps before I got my CX-5. CX-5 was a logical step down that wasn’t a car. I hate sedans, I don’t like driving them.
5. Where the **** did you come up with recommending a CX-9? You think my fun with my CX-5 is all about power? God, that’s some Mango level bulls*** right there. I guess in your mind the CX-5 is a pointless vehicle?
Maybe you should go back to the 6 forum.