An Interesting Opportunity to Compare

[Xeler8ing]

But the specs don't lie ⋯

Over here no brochure or review for Mazda reveal any internal measurements. I do have the measurements for both current model CX-5 and 6 at home (sourced from overseas sites which I have converted to mm)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[yrwei52]

Over here no brochure or review for Mazda reveal any internal measurements. I do have the measurements for both current model CX-5 and 6 at home (sourced from overseas sites which I have converted to mm)

I've just posted the spec comparison between 2016 and 2017 earlier including interior measurements.

 

[jhu8]

When I test drove the 17 Tucson, I had to immediately dismiss it because of the cargo space seemed much smaller than my cx5. Not by much but seemed too small for my German Shepherd. That was 31 cu ft. The new cx5 is even smaller than that at 30 cu ft. So yeah, Mazda needs to correct that big time. Passengers have plenty of room in my 16. Bring back the cargo space to at least the same as the 16.

 

[Xeler8ing]

I've just posted the spec comparison between 2016 and 2017 earlier including interior measurements.

Thanks. More legroom in 17 than 16. Less shoulder room in 17. But if you look at the figures, the differences are so small they are hardly noticeable across the board except for your cargo area

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Xeler8ing]

When I test drove the 17 Tucson, I had to immediately dismiss it because of the cargo space seemed much smaller than my cx5. Not by much but seemed too small for my German Shepherd. That was 31 cu ft. The new cx5 is even smaller than that at 30 cu ft. So yeah, Mazda needs to correct that big time. Passengers have plenty of room in my 16. Bring back the cargo space to at least the same as the 16.

Mazda will probably say get a CX-9 for more cargo room

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[mazdadude]

I've just posted the spec comparison between 2016 and 2017 earlier including interior measurements.

Is it because the rear seats recline back now also>?

 

[Xeler8ing]

Is it because the rear seats recline back now also>?

Doesn't recline that much so I doubt it's this

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[yrwei52]

When I test drove the 17 Tucson, I had to immediately dismiss it because of the cargo space seemed much smaller than my cx5. Not by much but seemed too small for my German Shepherd. That was 31 cu ft. The new cx5 is even smaller than that at 30 cu ft. So yeah, Mazda needs to correct that big time. Passengers have plenty of room in my 16. Bring back the cargo space to at least the same as the 16.

There's no way Mazda can apply magic to increase cargo space for current generation until the next design change. This's a decision Mazda had made during the body design for 2nd-gen CX-5, and they felt cargo space can be sacrificed for better look. The same happened on 2nd-gen CX-9.

BTW, I still remember the picture you posted of your German Shepherd at that time still young and cute sitting on the front passenger floor!

 

[Xeler8ing]

There's no way Mazda can apply magic to increase cargo space for current generation until the next design change. This's a decision Mazda had made during the body design for 2nd-gen CX-5, and they felt cargo space can be sacrificed for better look. The same happened on 2nd-gen CX-9.

BTW, I still remember the picture you posted of your German Shepherd at that time still young and cute sitting on the front passenger floor!

If space becomes such an issue, import the upcoming CX-8. One can keep the 3rd row seats folded away for more cargo space plus it comes standard with the 2.2L diesel

 

[123373]

Has anyone measured from behind the seats to the tailgate on a 2016 verses a 2017? I am guessing it's the same and the loss of cubic feet is coming from a slightly more sloping roofline on the 2017?

 

[Xeler8ing]

In probably 98% of the time I won't be filling it to the roofline so won't be experiencing any so called loss.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[jhu8]

There's no way Mazda can apply magic to increase cargo space for current generation until the next design change. This's a decision Mazda had made during the body design for 2nd-gen CX-5, and they felt cargo space can be sacrificed for better look. The same happened on 2nd-gen CX-9.

BTW, I still remember the picture you posted of your German Shepherd at that time still young and cute sitting on the front passenger floor!

Yeah that is true. I just hope they don't continue to sacrifice cargo space. Otherwise the point in owning a CUV is slowly dwindling. Not really, but obviously cargo space is a big bonus with CUVs.

Yeah, I'll have to post another picture now! She now owns the trunk lol

 

[banjos-n-beer]

My QX seems closer to my old 3 hatchback than CX5 cargo space wise...

 

[Studum]

The 16 has a 60/40? That's strange. Are you in the US, Studum?

I'm in Canada. I thought the 60/40 might be a trim level thing because I can see the blank plates for the remote levers in the back and the left side looks bigger light in our 17 (for the double / center pull)

STUDUM -- With the lack of seat levers and having a 60/40 split, the 2016 you must be driving must be a SPORT model then?

Can you pop the hood and look at the engine decal on the underside of the hood and see if it is a 2.0 engine or the 2.5 engine?

I know it's a 2.5 AWD Auto with the 7" screen, privacy glass, stereo control on the console and alloy wheels. Canada trims are a little different than elsewhere, with a quick look I'm fairly confident it's a Canadian GX + 2.5 / AWD + Convenience Package which is a loaded up base model

I know there are some body style changes from 2016 to 2017, but its mostly the same platform. What did they do to lose that space?

I can't say for certain, but a little would be in the left / right side cubby's that are now covered with removable panels and, as others have mentioned, the more sloping rear roof line.

When I test drove the 17 Tucson, I had to immediately dismiss it because of the cargo space seemed much smaller than my cx5. Not by much but seemed too small for my German Shepherd. That was 31 cu ft. The new cx5 is even smaller than that at 30 cu ft. So yeah, Mazda needs to correct that big time. Passengers have plenty of room in my 16. Bring back the cargo space to at least the same as the 16.

It's not the size of your space, but how you use it (rofl2) It's still worth actually looking at the space in the new one to compare it's real-world usability. i.e. if the space is wider and / or longer but lower it may be more usable even with the same or lower volume.

No idea if that's the case or not, but I wouldn't take the numbers on their face value. Test them out to see what works / doesn't if they're both serious contenders for you.

Doesn't recline that much

I think I read somewhere it's something like 5-7 degrees. Don't quote me on that though, I can't remember where I read it.

Has anyone measured from behind the seats to the tailgate on a 2016 verses a 2017? I am guessing it's the same and the loss of cubic feet is coming from a slightly more sloping roofline on the 2017?

I will try and get to doing basic floor measurements. May take me a couple days though (super busy at work).

Thanks everyone for trying to keep the thread cleaner

After putting 500 kms on the 17 from Fri-Sun the difference in ride quality was pretty glaring this morning getting back into the 16. I also immediately noticed how much better the display was in the 17. What I mean was I didn't really notice the improvement when going from the 16 to the 17, but when going from the 17 all weekend back to the 16 I realized how much sharper / clearer the stereo display is on the 17.

I wonder how weird it's going to feel to get my 3 back when the time comes. I am missing it a bit now.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Thanks for the updates Studum. (thumb)

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[7eregrine]

LOL. Yea you always notice the difference going backwards. This big ass phone of mine. Man that's just sooo big I thought when I got it. Went back to the old one when mine broke for a few weeks....how'd did I ever use that tiny ass phone?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[ColoradoDriver]

LOL. Yea you always notice the difference going backwards. This big ass phone of mine. Man that's just sooo big I thought when I got it. Went back to the old one when mine broke for a few weeks....how'd did I ever use that tiny ass phone?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

LOL happened to me too. Before my Motorola Droid Turbo and Turbo 2, I had a RAZR M. Thing was tiny, and I thought the Turbo was huge. Now it feels normal LOL.

 

[Jonno21]

In probably 98% of the time I won't be filling it to the roofline so won't be experiencing any so called loss.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Same here. As the boot (trunk) cover is material and flexible, I find that for practical purposes I can load up higher than if the cover was solid. I hate to think of the consequences of carrying out an emergency stop loaded to the roofline. I would also think the police would have something to say about loading up to the roof, (at least in the UK) - Oh hang on, police numbers have been cut and I see a police car about once per fortnight on my travels.

 

[Studum]

Time to close this out. I got my Mazda 3 back earlier in the week. Thankfully the noise that was the issue is gone, but the pedal feels a bit soft. Brakes still work, there's just a little more throw in the pedal before getting resistance from the brakes. At this point I honestly can't recall if it was like this before and I'm just used to the brake feel on the CX-5's after not driving my car for so long so I'm going to err on the side of caution and have them test ride again to see if normal or not.

Anyhow, enough of that.

I returned the 2016 CX-5 after nearly 4 weeks with 2,900 additional km's on it than when I got it. The driving had to be 85% or more hwy, even some 2 lane slower speed hwy towards the end. Not sure how far back the fuel economy computer goes when it computes it's average (I reset it the day after I got the car) but my overall average was 7.9 L/100km. Not too shabby...

I can say this is directly comparable to the '17. My wife's '17 is averaging 8.3 L/100 km and it handles all of the around town / city driving in addition to her commutes.

I was immediately back at home in my car. As a driver I definitely prefer the lower center of gravity and the 3 did immediately feel more "spritely" than the CX-5 did. Fairly obvious it would, but I found it funny how quickly you get accustomed to driving a different car.

Overall it was the creature comforts that I missed the most on my daily drive. That leather wheel sure is a ton nicer to grab than the plastic one.

After experiencing all 3 I can safely say that radar cruise is a nice upgrade over standard cruise, and radar cruise with stop & go is a gem for people in that situation. It's hard to explain how it relieves some stress from the drive because it simply paces the car in front if needed, vs having to step up or down a km/kr or two if the guy in front can't keep a constant speed and you get too close for comfort. Not everyone will agree, but I really missed not having the radar cruise after having it for the past 7 months.

Not having blind spot or reverse camera also felt like stepping back in time even though it was still a new-ish 16. Man I've been spoiled. I'm glad these systems are trickling down as standard equip in lower trims on current models. Again, not "required" but it's certainly nice to have them there.

Overall though, in terms of the drive, I liked the '16 CX-5 I had a lot more than I thought I would for it being a base trim level model.

There wasn't really anything inherently wrong with it, and to me it would present itself as a tremendous value with all the necessities for those who like a little more engaging ride compared to some of the competition out there.

That's all for now folks

 

[Unobtanium]

Time to close this out. I got my Mazda 3 back earlier in the week. Thankfully the noise that was the issue is gone, but the pedal feels a bit soft. Brakes still work, there's just a little more throw in the pedal before getting resistance from the brakes. At this point I honestly can't recall if it was like this before and I'm just used to the brake feel on the CX-5's after not driving my car for so long so I'm going to err on the side of caution and have them test ride again to see if normal or not.

Anyhow, enough of that.

I returned the 2016 CX-5 after nearly 4 weeks with 2,900 additional km's on it than when I got it. The driving had to be 85% or more hwy, even some 2 lane slower speed hwy towards the end. Not sure how far back the fuel economy computer goes when it computes it's average (I reset it the day after I got the car) but my overall average was 7.9 L/100km. Not too shabby...

I can say this is directly comparable to the '17. My wife's '17 is averaging 8.3 L/100 km and it handles all of the around town / city driving in addition to her commutes.

I was immediately back at home in my car. As a driver I definitely prefer the lower center of gravity and the 3 did immediately feel more "spritely" than the CX-5 did. Fairly obvious it would, but I found it funny how quickly you get accustomed to driving a different car.

Overall it was the creature comforts that I missed the most on my daily drive. That leather wheel sure is a ton nicer to grab than the plastic one.

After experiencing all 3 I can safely say that radar cruise is a nice upgrade over standard cruise, and radar cruise with stop & go is a gem for people in that situation. It's hard to explain how it relieves some stress from the drive because it simply paces the car in front if needed, vs having to step up or down a km/kr or two if the guy in front can't keep a constant speed and you get too close for comfort. Not everyone will agree, but I really missed not having the radar cruise after having it for the past 7 months.

Not having blind spot or reverse camera also felt like stepping back in time even though it was still a new-ish 16. Man I've been spoiled. I'm glad these systems are trickling down as standard equip in lower trims on current models. Again, not "required" but it's certainly nice to have them there.

Overall though, in terms of the drive, I liked the '16 CX-5 I had a lot more than I thought I would for it being a base trim level model.

There wasn't really anything inherently wrong with it, and to me it would present itself as a tremendous value with all the necessities for those who like a little more engaging ride compared to some of the competition out there.

That's all for now folks

Which is what I've harped on all along with this forum. Your landboat feels like a racecar because you don't have a racecar to compare it to, and one landboat will be similar to another "in feel to you" after a few weeks anyway.