Why we bought a 2015 Mazda CX-5

[premio53]

In the 1990's we had a Subaru Impreza that was eventually wrecked but was very reliable and before that I owned an '87 Justy which was also basically trouble free for 220,000 miles. In 2013 we bought a Mazda 5 because my wife works with the girl scouts and thought the extra seat might be needed but after a year or so she decided she would like to get a crossover. I'm getting close to retirement and told her to get the car she wanted because it may be the last new one we'll ever purchase.

To make a long story short she had her heart set on a Subaru Outback and nothing else. We both test drove one and were very pleased. They didn't have the color and options we were looking for so we ordered one that was supposed to have arrived late in December. I had never even thought about a Subaru having any major problems but while waiting for the Outback we ordered I did a search on the internet and found out about the class action lawsuit against them for burning oil and the more I read the more it scared me. It was reported that Subaru was insisting that burning a quart of oil every 1,000 miles was acceptable and that there were actual customers having to do that with brand new vehicles! I didn't know the percentages but the thought of adding a quart of oil every thousand miles between oil changes gave me nightmares. I could imagine how much oil I would be replacing after 50,000 miles and at around $8.00 a quart that was totally unacceptable. To reinforce the idea that Subaru was having this problem was the fact they reduced their oil changes down to 6,000 miles.

It was then we went back to the dealership where we bought the Mazda 5 and they put us in a fully loaded Mazda CX-5 which drove just as good if not better than the Outback we tested. That's my story. Am I the only one that got cold feet and decided not to buy a Subaru because of the oil consumption problem?

 

[Unobtanium]

In the 1990's we had a Subaru Impreza that was eventually wrecked but was very reliable and before that I owned an '87 Justy which was also basically trouble free for 220,000 miles. In 2013 we bought a Mazda 5 because my wife works with the girl scouts and thought the extra seat might be needed but after a year or so she decided she would like to get a crossover. I'm getting close to retirement and told her to get the car she wanted because it may be the last new one we'll ever purchase.

To make a long story short she had her heart set on a Subaru Outback and nothing else. We both test drove one and were very pleased. They didn't have the color and options we were looking for so we ordered one that was supposed to have arrived late in December. I had never even thought about a Subaru having any major problems but while waiting for the Outback we ordered I did a search on the internet and found out about the class action lawsuit against them for burning oil and the more I read the more it scared me. It was reported that Subaru was insisting that burning a quart of oil every 1,000 miles was acceptable and that there were actual customers having to do that with brand new vehicles! I didn't know the percentages but the thought of adding a quart of oil every thousand miles between oil changes gave me nightmares. I could imagine how much oil I would be replacing after 50,000 miles and at around $8.00 a quart that was totally unacceptable. To reinforce the idea that Subaru was having this problem was the fact they reduced their oil changes down to 6,000 miles.

It was then we went back to the dealership where we bought the Mazda 5 and they put us in a fully loaded Mazda CX-5 which drove just as good if not better than the Outback we tested. That's my story. Am I the only one that got cold feet and decided not to buy a Subaru because of the oil consumption problem?

I bought the CX-5 because it was cheaper to buy, own, and operate than a Forester 2.0XT. It really is a joy to go on a roadtrip and almost not even bother to include fuel in the cost calculations.

I have some experience with vehicles that burn oil by design, and it doesn't bother me. I typically find an oil that they don't burn, and that solves the problem and I motor on quite happily.

 

[premio53]

I also have a 2000 Dodge Dakota Sport with over 191,000 miles and never add oil between 5,000 miles. I didn't know they made cars designed to burn oil right off the manufacturing line.

 

[Unobtanium]

I also have a 2000 Dodge Dakota Sport with over 191,000 miles and never add oil between 5,000 miles. I didn't know they made cars designed to burn oil right off the manufacturing line.

Low tension oil rings, short-skirt pistons, rod/wrist pin ratio/angles, and a bunch of other things play a role in it. Sometimes you take extra power and efficiency at the cost of using oil. However, I have never had a vehicle that DEMANDED oil be added between changes once I found an oil it liked. For my LS1, it was 0-30 German Castrol. Using 5-30 Mobil 1, it burned a quart every 2K miles. A friend of mine with an LS1 car was using almost twice that. His and my consumption dropped to nearly nil once I convinced him 0-30GC was the way. I think I went to about 3/4 quart every 5K miles or so.

 

[123373]

I didn't know they made cars designed to burn oil right off the manufacturing line.

They don't on purpose, but any dealer telling a customer that burning a quart of oil every 1000 miles is normal needs their head examined. Design flaw or improper break in are the only reasons it can be that high on a new car. I drive very aggressively in my 328, and with 104,000 miles I burn less than 1/4 quart in between 15,000 mile oil change intervals not having to add any.Yes 15,000 is BMW's recommend oil change intervals for my model year. My CX5 with 33,000 miles uses nothing between 7500 oil changes.

 

[Unobtanium]

They don't on purpose, but any dealer telling a customer that burning a quart of oil every 1000 miles is normal needs their head examined. Design flaw or improper break in are the only reasons it can be that high on a new car. I drive very aggressively in my 328, and with 104,000 miles I burn less than 1/4 quart in between 15,000 mile oil change intervals not having to add any.Yes 15,000 is BMW's recommend oil change intervals for my model year. My CX5 with 33,000 miles uses nothing between 7500 oil changes.

1 quart per 1k miles is the typical threshold for replacement for most companies. That includes mazda, I'd bet.

 

[ocinsomniac]

To make a long story short she had her heart set on a Subaru Outback and nothing else. We both test drove one and were very pleased. They didn't have the color and options we were looking for so we ordered one that was supposed to have arrived late in December. I had never even thought about a Subaru having any major problems but while waiting for the Outback we ordered I did a search on the internet and found out about the class action lawsuit against them for burning oil and the more I read the more it scared me. It was reported that Subaru was insisting that burning a quart of oil every 1,000 miles was acceptable and that there were actual customers having to do that with brand new vehicles! I didn't know the percentages but the thought of adding a quart of oil every thousand miles between oil changes gave me nightmares. I could imagine how much oil I would be replacing after 50,000 miles and at around $8.00 a quart that was totally unacceptable. To reinforce the idea that Subaru was having this problem was the fact they reduced their oil changes down to 6,000 miles.

It was then we went back to the dealership where we bought the Mazda 5 and they put us in a fully loaded Mazda CX-5 which drove just as good if not better than the Outback we tested. That's my story. Am I the only one that got cold feet and decided not to buy a Subaru because of the oil consumption problem?

My story of how I canceled an order on a 2016 Outback and picked up a 2016 CX-5 is very similar to yours.......
Being a long time Subie owner (five in the past fifteen years) I went to my local dealer back in July to order a new Outback under the premise that I would purchase at invoice and trade in my 2011 Outback (which they wanted for a certified used vehicle) for KBB and/or Edmunds calculated trade in value, which were virtually the same. I had purchased two vehicles from this dealership within the past five years, and the sales manager agreed with this pricing formula in both instances.

This time, he agreed with the invoice price, but only offered me $2,500 under KBB/Edmunds trade in value and would not budge. Turns out this dealership with whom I developed an outstanding relationship has grown by leaps and bounds within the past 1 1/2 years and Subies are selling like hotcakes in this area........hence the take it or leave attitude.

So I reluctantly placed the order and figured I would have enough time to sell my 2011 to a private owner. The following day, I went to the Mazda dealer, took a test ride, fell in love with a 2016 Crystal Blue GT w/tech pkg, and was shocked at the deal the sales manager agreed to - $1k under invoice plus a $500 Chase factory incentive , and took my trade in for $300 more than the Subie dealership offered. Was a no brainer for me, so on the way home, stopped at the Subie dealer, canceled my order and got my refund without any hassle.

I really liked the drive train on the CX-5 better than the OB ........with more HP and torque and a lighter weight, it seemed significantly quicker. The front end feel seemed much better than the OB, which tended to feel more like a wandering floater (like an old Buick at highway speeds), the CX-5 seems better planted to the ground and handles much quicker. The only drawback I can see so far according to my priorities is a few less cubic feet of cargo space. AWD is not a priority for me, since I live in GA like yourself, and winters are very mild. If I lived up north in snow country where AWD is more of a necessity, I would have definitely stayed with the OB.

I was not concerned about the Subie oil burning issue, as that was brought on with the advent of the FB series engines in 2012-2014 early models, occurred in only a small percentage and was supposedly fixed from the 2014 models onward. But I do agree, Subaru handled it very poorly, denying the problem saying burning a quart/1,000 miles is acceptable, and being very slow to first acknowledge and then remedy the symptoms. Big turnoff! But they must be doing something right, they have significantly increased their market share within the past couple of years, especially in our area which is not considered "AWD country" as compared to the wintry northern and western states.

BOL with your new CX-5, I know I'm enjoying mine and have no regrets owning one over the 2016 OB!

OC

 

[lordkosc]

Am I the only one that got cold feet and decided not to buy a Subaru because of the oil consumption problem?

Nope , I have a co-worker with a 2015 crosstrek that is eating oil , he is not pleased. And seeing his experience with his dealer and directly with Subaru HQ, pretty much wrote the brand off for me.

Congrats on the new CX-5.

 

[Triton46]

We did both! I traded my 2002 Maxima for a 2013 Mazda CX5 and then traded my wifes 2004 Subaru Forester XT for a 2015 Subaru Outback. We have not encountered any issues with the 2015 Subaru Outback.

 

[ALafya]

I test drove an Outback before buying my CX-5 and did not like it. It felt heavy and non-responsive. In stark contrast, the CX-5 feels much better and has superior handling.

I too was aware of the oil-burning issue, however, I believe new Outbacks (or any Subaru product with the FB 2.5L or 2L engines) are now without this issue for the most part.

 

[MikeM.]

I test drove an Outback before buying my CX-5 and did not like it. It felt heavy and non-responsive. In stark contrast, the CX-5 feels much better and has superior handling.

Yes, and if you think the Outback feels heavy and non-responsive when it's brand new, just wait until it has 80,000 miles on it! But I am with you, I can't stand the way they drive new!