mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
Reviews Monday for 2017s?
- Thread starter Dermochelys
- Start date
Autoblog first drive review.
This one is likely the best I've read at providing real feedback in a lot of areas, rather than just stating the improvements. There's a nice real world video as well.
This one is likely the best I've read at providing real feedback in a lot of areas, rather than just stating the improvements. There's a nice real world video as well.
Reviews look good. Although, they are all of the Grand Touring, I'd like to see a review of the non-top-of-the-line trim (doubt any of the big magazines were sent anything but the top of the line, though). I wonder what those 17" wheels that come on the Sport and Touring look like....
The testers are usually top of the line trims. I do think there are lower trim testers given out to non premium reviewers on internet or youtube.
But you are correct - Last year a reviewer rated CX-5 Touring as the most value CUV / Trim combination followed by CR-V / EX.
I stand by his assessment the Touring is best bang for buck.
- :
- 2016.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech Package
This shouldn't be a shock to anyone, but do keep in mind these reviews are coming from a press event where Mazda "invited" (aka paid for) the press to come, spend a nice weekend in San Diego, and write nice reviews. I'm sure the 2017 CX-5 is better, but just keep in the mind the inherent conflict of interest going on here. I remember when the Honda HR-V came out, and many of the press event reviews were gushing...but then a few month later the picture was less rosy when these reviewers had the cars to test on their own.
As with anything, just be aware of the circumstances of where these reviews are coming from.
As with anything, just be aware of the circumstances of where these reviews are coming from.
Interesting. I bought the floor mat for the cargo area and it smooths over the channel pretty well, so I rarely notice there's a slight change in height.
Some parts are subject (looks, feel, ect.) yet some facts are there too. In the end an actual test drive is a good start.
Also note that most car magazines and online review sources like "TFL" have a positive bias towards Mazda products.
- :
- 2016.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech Package
Absolutely....though as always, caveat emptor applies.
Last edited:
Mattyredsox
Member
- :
- 1990 Eunos (Mazda) V-Special Roadster (sold), 2014 Mazda CX-5 Pr
Having read most of the reviews, and having driven the 2017 over here in Japan several times, before ordering a new one, this review most mirrors my experience. It's a greatly improved vehicle, and the naysayers haven't experienced it themselves and 2016.5 buyers should be feeling buyers remorse. And mine is the diesel... it moves really well!
Jalopnik has theirs up:
http://jalopnik.com/the-2017-mazda-cx-5-is-still-the-crossover-for-people-w-1793234420
Looks like this car could really benefit from a bump in HP. It would probably scoot pretty well with a modest 220-240hp. But I guess that's the case with most of Mazda's vehicles.
http://jalopnik.com/the-2017-mazda-cx-5-is-still-the-crossover-for-people-w-1793234420
Looks like this car could really benefit from a bump in HP. It would probably scoot pretty well with a modest 220-240hp. But I guess that's the case with most of Mazda's vehicles.
Mazda's combined fleet mpg is 29.6 - its a big number on its own. It sells far too many 3s than CX-9. The 2.5T will not impact it because very few will buy it. The few enthusiasts that keep telling us how amazing it would be and push sales up - if they bought 30 each then yes it makes economic sense. Else it just doesnt.
I wouldn't necessarily say more HP automatically equals worse gas mileage ratings. Peak power is usually achieved at specific points in the powerband and can be very easily tuned so as to not negatively impact the usual engine RPM sustained for driving at the speeds tested for EPA ratings. I mean, on the Ford side of things we have 300hp, 3600lb RWD turbo cars getting over 30MPG on the highway and 435HP, 3700lb V8 cars hitting high 20's in real world highway driving. City ratings are not wonderful, but certainly not bad, relatively speaking. Plus that CAFE fleet-regulated stuff is usually compensated by other vehicles in the line-up that have the hyper-miling focus, so Mazda could easily get away with say, offering that turbo 4 that the CX-9 has as an option on its other vehicles where it could work, with no negative impact from the regulation standpoint.
By no means am I expecting a CX-5 to be 'fast,' but there's real benefit here of it being too slow.
By no means am I expecting a CX-5 to be 'fast,' but there's real benefit here of it being too slow.
Last edited:
G
Guest2019C20
TFL blew that one. They refused to actually compare the mazda to the luxo cars. Why the hell not?!
G
Guest2019C20
I owned two turbo cars. I guarantee you, you would see significantly less MPG, because you WILL get into boost often. Highway mileage might be ok, depending on how close to needing boosted HP you come. A small engine in a huge frontal area CUV, I bet some people on here, who already get awful hwy MPG, would be into boost, and getting even worse MPG.
G
Guest2019C20
Having only recently bought a 2016.5 - just about 1000 miles it - I'm almost hesitant to read the reviews of a "newer/better" CX-5.
The front end is *ugly*. The side swoop goes down, not up. Wrong. It has a HUD!!! Steering wheel switchgear might be more usable. Everybody gets LED headlights!
I'm not upset that I saved about $1,000, although I'd love that HUD. Although I'd still probably hear 'You are over the speeeed limit' every couple minutes.
