An Interesting Opportunity to Compare

[Xeler8ing]

That's pretty good fuel economy figures there Studum considering the vehicle is a bit heavier than gen 1. Mazda did say real world figures would be a bit better than official figures

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[jhu8]

Dang I wish I had the power to clean up this thread.


Back to the relevant q's:



(dunno)..... if you don't want sporty behavior don't push the sport button???? (not directed at you, but the naysayers). I've played with it to compare to my 3. I actually missed my paddle shifters that I have in the 3 LOL..

Yeah paddle shifters with sport mode would be awesome!

 

[yrwei52]

Each time I see this B-pillar seatbelt trim cover, it reminds me Mazda doesn't pay attention to detail. This piece of trim cover seems not belonging to here with totally unmatched lines and curves to front door panel. I was amazed to see that the 2017 CX-5 inherited the same B-pillar trim cover which is still totally unmatched to the front door panel! This picture doesn't do the justice about how bad the trim cover is as it isn't a 3-D. Just sitting in the back seat looking at the trim cover and door panel by yourself!

View attachment 217138

IMHO, the position and shape of the cut-out area in the B-pillar trim cover exists to create additional clearance for your hand when reaching back to grab the seatbelt it has nothing to do with the matching the lines and curves of front door panel.

If you pull your front seatbelt to buckle up, you'll never reach to the cut-out area as it's too low. Even if you want to design a cut-out on the B-pillar trim cover, you should consider the neighborhood area to match the lines and curves nearby. This's the basic of good design and paying attention to detail. This's nothing to do with whether you need a cut-out or not on the trim. The way Mazda did on 1st-gen CX-5 and now the supposedly better interior 2nd-gen CX-5 for this trim piece is a perfect example of not paying attention to detail in my book!

 

[lowincash]

haha wow...regardless of what that cut out is for, does it really bother you that much?

 

[jetydosa]

Better driving car = car you would rather drive.

If you put a '17 CX-5 and a '17 CR-V in a person's driveway and ask which would you like to take out for a nice drive up the coast or a morning run through the mountains, the answer will tell you which one is a "better driving car".

The CR-V is the perfect example of a car designed by engineers and accountants who aren't car people. They aced the test, made their numbers, but produced something that has little appeal to anyone with a drip of testosterone in their body. I'm a left brain kind of guy, an engineer by education and profession. But I also have an eye for design, and was born with a bit of need for speed, which I've mainly satisfied through motorcycles. I used to really appreciate Honda's engineering and used to be a big fan of the company through the '80s and '90s. They were never a company to shoot for maximum horsepower, but they produced well balanced cars that were fun to drive on normal roads and they had simple, clean, functional designs of high quality.

Sadly, I think Honda has lost their way and is just coasting on their reputation. They badly need a new head of design, as their vehicles are getting uglier with every iteration. I used to point to GM as a company whose designers have no taste, but GM are merely bland. Honda has become ugly. The CR-V could have 300 horsepower, stop in under 100 ft, and lap faster than a Viper but I wouldn't be caught dead in that thing. Same for the Civic and Odyssey. The Ridgeline and Pilot are still tolerable except for the instrument cluster. The 2018 Accord is an improvement over the current model, but still suffers from incongruent design. All IMHO of course. In motorsports, they are a shadow of their former self, and an embarrassment in some series they used to dominate. I think if he were alive, Soichiro Honda would be appalled at what the company has become.

I've never really been a Mazda fanboy. I always thought they were a good engine company, but most of their mainstream cars have been forgettable. However, over the last decade or so Mazda has put some effort into making their cars fun and responsive to drive, and the CX-5 set a benchmark for handling and styling in the class that the other manufacturers are just catching up to. Now Mazda are setting a new benchmark for materials quality and NVH in the class. So for the same price you can buy an ugly, chrome and plasticky Honda like all those soccer moms and snively accountant-types want because it has more space and perceived reliability, or you can buy CX-5 and enjoy your ride so you don't have to troll competing car forums cherry-picking test results to validate your decision.

Just want to say I agree with every single word of this.

Mazda today reminds me a lot of Honda of the late 80s/early 90s.

 

[mazdadude]

Yeah paddle shifters with sport mode would be awesome!

Yes it is! I highly recommend it!

 

[yrwei52]

haha wow...regardless of what that cut out is for, does it really bother you that much?

No, I don't really care too much about those cosmetic issues and there're other things worrying me more such as the transmission. I only use this as an example for those who say Mazda is paying attention to detail. And I haven't mentioned the long gap on passenger dash many people have reported on 2017 CX-5 ⋯

 

[Xeler8ing]

Yeah paddle shifters with sport mode would be awesome!

Would be nice to have but I've got them on my 6 and I must say haven't used it that much along with manual shifting with gear stick. Used sports mode more. Glad this CX-5 has that at least [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[Dimcorner]

At least the manual shift mode on the stick is oriented the correct way.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

At least the manual shift mode on the stick is oriented the correct way.

I disagree, and consider it backwards. Up/forward movement should move you up through the gears, and down/backwards should move you into lower gears.

 

[Monterra]

I disagree, and consider it backwards. Up/forward movement should move you up through the gears, and down/backwards should move you into lower gears.

While I recognize that on paper it would seem forward to upshift, back to downshift would be the more intuitive action, in practice the opposite ie. the way Mazda and BMW do it is exactly right. Think about it when you're accelerating you're being pulled backward, when decelerating- pushed forward. True these forces in a modestly powered family oriented CUV aren't what they are in a performance machine so it is less obvious but under hard acceleration or braking going with inertia is the way to go My guess is other cars you've owned have been wrong and you've simply grown accustomed to it?

 

[banjos-n-beer]

While I recognize that on paper it would seem forward to upshift, back to downshift would be the more intuitive action, but in practice the opposite ie. the way Mazda and BMW do it is exactly right. Think about it when you're accelerating you're being pulled backward, when decelerating- pushed forward. True these forces in a modestly powered family oriented CUV aren't what they are in a performance machine so it is less obvious but under hard acceleration or braking going with inertia is the way to go My guess is other cars you've owned have been wrong and you've simply grown accustomed to it?

CX5 was my first ever vehicle with a manu-matic mode. And I've always felt it was backwards. Can't count how many times I went from 2nd --> 1st when I wanted to go into 3rd.

 

[Monterra]

Ouch...try accelerating harder but more seriously do also you also use it to downshift? That's what I mostly use it for in the CX5..In the X1 I'm always on the paddles b/c with 8 cogs it almost never knows what gear I want(headbang) ...and even with paddles (very nice to have) I probably use the stick almost as much.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Both upshifting and downshifting. I found downshifting when coming to a stop was sometimes quite clunky/jumpy. (Like someone who can't really drive a stick shift smoothly). Very jerky in 1st.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Both upshifting and downshifting. I found downshifting when coming to a stop was sometimes quite clunky/jumpy. (Like someone who can't really drive a stick shift smoothly). Very jerky in 1st.

Sure is.

 

[7eregrine]

While I recognize that on paper it would seem forward to upshift, back to downshift would be the more intuitive action, in practice the opposite ie. the way Mazda and BMW do it is exactly right. Think about it when you're accelerating you're being pulled backward, when decelerating- pushed forward. True these forces in a modestly powered family oriented CUV aren't what they are in a performance machine so it is less obvious but under hard acceleration or braking going with inertia is the way to go My guess is other cars you've owned have been wrong and you've simply grown accustomed to it?

Thank you. Never thought of it that way.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Monterra]

Both upshifting and downshifting. I found downshifting when coming to a stop was sometimes quite clunky/jumpy. (Like someone who can't really drive a stick shift smoothly). Very jerky in 1st.

Agreed on 2-->1 which is why I almost never do it..that was also the case on any of my half dozen or so manual shift cars I've owned..even if the syncro was acceptant of the throw, its pretty dang tough to get a smooth clutch take up in 1st unless you're just crawling..at least in my almost 25 year experience.

 

[finch204]

Agreed - for what they are I'm impressed with the fuel economy. I think Mazda's hit a pretty good sweet spot in balance of power / responsiveness / fuel economy. The only spot where it kind of loses it's breath is higher up in the rev range when you're really wringing it out but it's manageable. That said I feel the power level is perfectly adequate to keep up with traffic and scoot when you need to. It has yet to disappoint us. IMO it's perfectly suited for economical DD duties.

Re: the throttle sensitivity:
Correct. It feels dumbed down a bit in my "3" - tuned more for efficiency I think. The CX-5 responds very quickly to throttle input to the point where it seamlessly downshifts before you even have to think about it needing to do so. The result is you're "in the power" quickly and smoothly when you need or want to be without having to think about it.

My Mazda3 will at times try to hold a gear longer than I would like it to if you're soft with your input or don't quite push it enough. It's just enough that you have to think to yourself to give it a bit more to kick it down, whereas the CX-5 has already done it. The CX-5 base tuning feels like a happy medium between my 3's normal and sport modes - where sport mode is really fun in the twisties but you don't want to drive with the higher revs all the time. If my 3 had the throttle mapping/tuning of the CX-5 I'd be in pure heaven. Well, close to it anyways... what I really wanted was a 6 wagon that isn't available here (rant).

That said you do learn how it behaves, it just took a little while to really pick up on it's personality. I'm now aware of how much I have to goose it or not goose it depending on what I want it to do in the 3. Of course I can always (and do) flip the paddle myself to prep for a situation in my 3 if I so desire then flip it right back to auto without touching the gear leaver. For instance - pacing a car preparing to pass on a 2 lane road, can bring it down in gear so it's in the meat of the power band and ready to go without a moment's hesitation when the oncoming traffic is clear (like a manual). Or approaching a corner I want to play in: flip it down to hold a gear while entering / pulling out and put it back in auto when back to normal. In that regard my 3 is a blast to drive on my long commute.

Also note the Mazda 3 is quicker as it's got less weight and a lower center of gravity... the gen 2 CX-5 just has a very "intuitive" throttle tuning. Not sure that's the right word, but you know what I mean... (I think??? (freak))

The Gen 2 is fine. No major complaints. The Gen 2 is just noticeably better - coming from someone who "likes" to drive.

That sounds great. I wish they would have made those throttle sensitivity changes on the 2016 CX-5 as I really believe it makes it more fun to drive. I was a little surprised that the 2017 Mazda3 doesn't have this same throttle sensitivity change/update considering they are both 2017 models. Maybe it has something to do with the newer engine changes made on the 2017 CX-5s engine for better throttle response.

-----------------
Regarding the discussion people are having about how the downshifts/upshifts when in manual mode on a Mazda, I also believe Mazda and BMW have it right. Pull down to downshift, push up to upshift, it makes sense. It is also partly inspired by how you shift in racecars with sequential transmissions.

When driving the CX-5 in manual shift mode, I never downshift past 2nd gear because I will just end up on the redline. If you are driving in 2nd gear and you think you need more power, step on the throttle pedal all the way and the transmission will determine whether or not it needs to downshift to 1st. It will downshift to 1st for you if it can even when you are in manual shift mode.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Finch- I'm confused by your manu-mode comments. You state Mazda has it right, but type out a comment that refutes it... unless we have different definitions of pull down or push up.

(uhm)

Pull down to me means moving the shifter from front to back, which should be a down shift. In Mazdas that's an upshift.

 

[finch204]

Finch- I'm confused by your manu-mode comments. You state Mazda has it right, but type out a comment that refutes it... unless we have different definitions of pull down or push up.

(uhm)

Pull down to me means moving the shifter from front to back, which should be a down shift. In Mazdas that's an upshift.

My apologies, I have it backwards and so my analogy of the pull down to downshift and push up to upshift is invalid LOL.