Who is still loving their CX-5?

[Speedie95]

Just over a month since I picked up my GT AWD with Tech and i-ActiveSense. I already have 1,500+ miles on it versus a normal monthly average of 750-800 miles, partly because of temporary life circumstances but also because I keep looking for reasons to drive it A CUV really has no business being this much fun to drive, and even less business averaging 27.9mpg in mixed and often ummm spirited (officer) driving. I can honestly put hand on heart and say that I find it far more enjoyable to drive than the Infiniti G37x that it replaced, and it's better equipped and cheaper to run.

Tangent, but I had a Mazda 3 loaner today. Clocked 42.3mpg on a 55 mile run, and I wasn't hanging around. It too was a lot of fun to drive. Mazda really have their lineup nailed down right now.

 

[IHeartGroceries]

I love my wife's. It's been a great vehicle. Nearly 3.5 years in, just about to roll over 50k miles, with no unscheduled service.

Have to admit, if Mazda does right with the CX-9, I'll be replacing the CX-5 with one.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[MikeM.]

A CUV really has no business being this much fun to drive, and even less business averaging 27.9mpg in mixed and often ummm spirited (officer) driving. I can honestly put hand on heart and say that I find it far more enjoyable to drive than the Infiniti G37x that it replaced, and it's better equipped and cheaper to run.

Damn straight. And isn't that what it's all about?

 

[Unobtanium]

Damn straight. And isn't that what it's all about?

My CX-5 has indeed proven to not be boring. It strikes a GREAT balance of utility and on-road competence. Off-road though, I am not a fan. That nice on-road suspension and all that feels terrible even on light gravel, but really, I bought it for snow, and nothing worse than light gravel/mud, and I don't think Mazda insinuated otherwise.

Also, I did a comparison with my friend's 2.0XT Subaru. While he gets better mileage than me of course, I still save $200/year in fuel because he is forced to use 91 octane.

 

[jojackso]

My CX-5 has indeed proven to not be boring. It strikes a GREAT balance of utility and on-road competence. Off-road though, I am not a fan. That nice on-road suspension and all that feels terrible even on light gravel, but really, I bought it for snow, and nothing worse than light gravel/mud, and I don't think Mazda insinuated otherwise.

Also, I did a comparison with my friend's 2.0XT Subaru. While he gets better mileage than me of course, I still save $200/year in fuel because he is forced to use 91 octane.

I took my 2015 CX5 with 8500 miles on it for an oil change and the manager told me he could get me in a '16 for about my same payment. I told him go figure it out and I was at my car about to leave and they came out and showed me they could do it for 50 bucks more on my payment per month. I did not have tech on mine so I gave him a down payment that covered the cost for the tech package. I picked out a silver GT with tech and really like the changes they made. I was not expecting to get a new one so quickly but it seemed like a good deal.

 

[MikeM.]

I love this car on really bad roads, the kind that either aren't paved or they have more unpaved than paved sections. Big potholes, pavement/dirt transitions that are more like small curbs, this thing is so nimble and has so much suspension travel, it just sucks up the bumps. And the flat cornering and quick steering is very nice when dodging the worst of the mess. It's at it's best with two normal sized adults in the front and about 50-100 pounds in the trunk.

 

[Unobtanium]

I took my 2015 CX5 with 8500 miles on it for an oil change and the manager told me he could get me in a '16 for about my same payment. I told him go figure it out and I was at my car about to leave and they came out and showed me they could do it for 50 bucks more on my payment per month. I did not have tech on mine so I gave him a down payment that covered the cost for the tech package. I picked out a silver GT with tech and really like the changes they made. I was not expecting to get a new one so quickly but it seemed like a good deal.

Hrmmm....that sounds like a terrible deal to me, personally. Was your current vehicle messed up in some way and you just needed out, nevermind the negative equity, or what? I mean, I did that on my Grand Jeep Cherokee, but it certainly wasn't something I relished doing, carrying negative equity like that.

 

[Unobtanium]

I love this car on really bad roads, the kind that either aren't paved or they have more unpaved than paved sections. Big potholes, pavement/dirt transitions that are more like small curbs, this thing is so nimble and has so much suspension travel, it just sucks up the bumps. And the flat cornering and quick steering is very nice when dodging the worst of the mess. It's at it's best with two normal sized adults in the front and about 50-100 pounds in the trunk.

Interesting. I feel the opposite, like it's tearing the thing up because the tight suspension transmits the impact of even the smallest pebble through the entire vehicle. It feels very fragile to me.

 

[MikeM.]

Interesting. I feel the opposite, like it's tearing the thing up because the tight suspension transmits the impact of even the smallest pebble through the entire vehicle. It feels very fragile to me.

Maybe you prefer the flexy chassis that all cars had back in the 70's? Like driving a steel spring, sure, it made the ride "soft" as if that was desirable, and nothing broke when the suspension bottomed out because the frame was part of the suspension. I spent my misguided youth careening around logging roads in those flexy flyers and will never forget how you would have to turn the wheel and wait for it to steer, hoping you made it rather than careened off the nearest 500 foot embankment to your almost certain death.

Ah, yes, those were the days....... not!

The CX-5 is not fragile and I've proven that to myself by using it extensively on barely maintained backcountry roads that go on for miles.

 

[Rarebit]

Interesting. I feel the opposite, like it's tearing the thing up because the tight suspension transmits the impact of even the smallest pebble through the entire vehicle. It feels very fragile to me.

I don't think if feels fragile, but certainly the bias towards good handling makes it less able to suck up the bumps and potholes on bad roads.

Pick your poison - I don't expect tight handling / low body roll in corners AND compliant long suspension travel in the same vehicle, though maybe it could be achieved these days with technology. My 88 Mazda MX-6 GT had electronically adjustable dampers, which allowed me to adjust suspension firmness to some degree. I'm guessing that now, some company would be able to adjust spring rates and shock damping based on how active the suspension is milli-second by milli-second. But I wouldn't expect that in a car that runs ~ $30k fully optioned. Leave it to BMW. ;-)

 

[MikeM.]

I don't think if feels fragile, but certainly the bias towards good handling makes it less able to suck up the bumps and potholes on bad roads.

Pick your poison - I don't expect tight handling / low body roll in corners AND compliant long suspension travel in the same vehicle, though maybe it could be achieved these days with technology.

While I haven't tried it, the bumps and potholes would be absorbed even better if the anti-sway bars were removed.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

While I haven't tried it, the bumps and potholes would be absorbed even better if the anti-sway bars were removed.

Many guys on the ORV forums do that to soften the ride up as well. It is fairly trivial to do that on an ATV... not as easy on a car unless you have something like Jeep's electronic sway bar disconnect in the Wranglers.

 

[edhchoe]

While I like my cx5, I will probably get into a mazda3 next year when the lease ends.
Mazda 3 gets even better mpg and handling for a lot less monthly payment.
I will miss the higher viewing position of the road, however.
I would like to get the blind spot monitoring and back up camera on my next vehicle.
I would love to have heated seats and auto dimming mirror but it will be too expensive.

 

[littlebear]

While I like my cx5, I will probably get into a mazda3 next year when the lease ends.
Mazda 3 gets even better mpg and handling for a lot less monthly payment.
I will miss the higher viewing position of the road, however.
I would like to get the blind spot monitoring and back up camera on my next vehicle.
I would love to have heated seats and auto dimming mirror but it will be too expensive.

My 2014 Mazda3 (2.0L) gets around 35mpg highway (65-70mph). I can get 40mpg but it MUST stay 60-65MPH.

I am opposite of you, I want to sell my Mazda3 and get a CX-5. I need the AWD, ground clearance, and storage capacity.

 

[edhchoe]

My 2014 Mazda3 (2.0L) gets around 35mpg highway (65-70mph). I can get 40mpg but it MUST stay 60-65MPH.

I am opposite of you, I want to sell my Mazda3 and get a CX-5. I need the AWD, ground clearance, and storage capacity.

I get 34 mpg highway with my CX5. 30 mpg daily.
With a Mazda 3, I expect to get 35 mpg daily.
When I got the CX5 two years ago I needed the large cargo space but I don't need it any longer.

 

[IHeartGroceries]

Maybe you prefer the flexy chassis that all cars had back in the 70's? Like driving a steel spring, sure, it made the ride "soft" as if that was desirable, and nothing broke when the suspension bottomed out because the frame was part of the suspension. I spent my misguided youth careening around logging roads in those flexy flyers and will never forget how you would have to turn the wheel and wait for it to steer, hoping you made it rather than careened off the nearest 500 foot embankment to your almost certain death.

Ah, yes, those were the days....... not!

The CX-5 is not fragile and I've proven that to myself by using it extensively on barely maintained backcountry roads that go on for miles.

Hahaha! Boy, well said. Chassis of old suck terribly. My Buick and Chevy are both like driving a stick of butter down the road. Many folks observe great advencements in things like tech and drivetrain components. The unsung hero of advancements in the industry has been chassis engineering, with brakes and tires not far behind.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[edhchoe]

I am very impressed with the lack of squeaking in cx5. Mine and my wife's. 2nd gen Mini Cooper boasted its chassis torsional stiffness but it was a rattle house.

 

[littlebear]

Hahaha! Boy, well said. Chassis of old suck terribly. My Buick and Chevy are both like driving a stick of butter down the road.

I agree. I drove 80's and 70's GM cars and man, they were scary in the curves. They drove like a land yaht but once you got into turns, it got scary. There was a delay in the steering response and the car was floaty. It would "plow" through turns. The car would want to go straight even when it should be turning.

They also rattled and squeaked.

New cars like the CX-5 are light years ahead.

 

[doppelganger420]

I bought new my 2013 CX-5 Sport June 2012. I am still in love! Went car shopping with my husband this past week to trade in his 2000 Honda CR-V on a 2015 Fit. I was curious if I would get new car envy visiting lot after lot, absolutely not! I saw nothing nor did we test drive anything that I would rather be in than my 3yr old CX-5. So yes, still enjoying and in love with my CX-5.