-Lack of remote start
-225 series is too narrow, 245's woulda been prime
-Info system is laggy
Those are nitpicks though, and not a big deal to me.
Funny you mention the tires. Someone has a CX-5 in my complex and just the other day I noticed how oddly skinny the tires look, especially from the rear. Doesn*t do the car*s design justice.
Anyone know if there*s a wider Mazda wheel/tire that could stand-in? Perhaps from the CX-9?
Funny you mention the tires. Someone has a CX-5 in my complex and just the other day I noticed how oddly skinny the tires look, especially from the rear. Doesn*t do the car*s design justice.
Anyone know if there*s a wider Mazda wheel/tire that could stand-in? Perhaps from the CX-9?
You can run 245 width tires on the OEM GT wheels. You don't necessarily need to get new wheels if you just want to run wider tires. Of course the wider tires will look and perform better on wider wheels.
Ah I didn*t realize that. What*s the consensus *best* tire size for the OEM wheels in terms of looks and performance?
I don't know that there is a consensus for best tire size, but if you go with 245 width tires, your only option really is 245/50/19. That tire size only has a -0.3% difference compared to the stock tire size. There is a little bulge, because the stock wheels are only 7 inches wide, but it looks fine.
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123863145-Anyone-Running-245-50-19-Tires&p=6566277&viewfull=1#post6566277
It's helpful to separate fact from preference. It's a provable fact that, statistically speaking, extended warranties are not a good investment. The math on this doesn't lie. But every one of us decides the value of things for ourselves and that's a subjective component that can't be squared up with the facts sometimes.
If you personally gain a sense of peace of mind from buying an extended warranty and that feeling is valuable to you, then the extended warranty and its cost has value and may well be worth it to you. It's all in how you frame that sense of value.
It's helpful to separate fact from preference. It's a provable fact that, statistically speaking, extended warranties are not a good investment. The math on this doesn't lie. But every one of us decides the value of things for ourselves and that's a subjective component that can't be squared up with the facts sometimes.
If you personally gain a sense of peace of mind from buying an extended warranty and that feeling is valuable to you, then the extended warranty and its cost has value and may well be worth it to you. It's all in how you frame that sense of value.
I like the idea of the extended warranty in that it allows a person to follow through with their plan of owning a vehicle for x amount of years before upgrading. Often times folks trade in their car when they lose confidence in its reliability. If Unobtanium or some hypothetical person feels the best financial decision is to keep their car for 10 years, but gets cold feet after 6, then to me the price of the extended warranty is a fraction of the cost of starting the car payment clock over 4 years early.
Having an extended warranty doesn't necessarily give you confidence in its reliability; a breakdown is a breakdown, even if the cost of fixing it doesn't come out of your pocket.
My wife bought an extended warranty with her Hyundai Accent (both before we met). Sure, she didn't have to worry about out-of-pocket-costs for 7 years or 140,000km (up from 5yr/100Kkm here in Canada), but the 8 repairs that warranty covered didn't give us any confidence in her car's reliability at all. At the end of the day, the Accent needed more repairs in 7 years than my past 2 Mazdas over 12 years combined, and since the repairs were all drivetrain-related, we couldn't trust it to be anything more than an around-town runabout.
I challenge that math. The warranties in CRs writeups were short term, as in, 60k miles, etc. instead of 150k miles like mine. Of course a 60k mile warranty on top of OEM is bad money. However, once a vehicle is 7-9 yesrs and 130k miles old...water pumps, ac compressors, turbos...they start to be risky.
Well, this is the era of each individual deciding what the truth is for themselves.
Like I said this is one of those subjects that has an intangible factor that cannot be quantified with numbers. You feel the warranty is worth the money, so for you it is. I'm not trying to argue to the contrary, just pointing out that all the statistical studies that have been done on the matter suggests that it normally does not pan out from a financial perspective.
Ha! (rofl)My insurance company still wont let me identify as a 65 year old female, so don't tell me about deciding our own truths.
It's my zip code and I am in the worst demographic for rates.Holy crap!!!! Is insurance in CO higher than other states? Im paying about $630 for 6 months, two vehicles (13 CX5 and 17 Odyssey) with $250 comprehensive and $500 collision. 50/100/50 with 25/50 (I think?) uninsured motorist with stacked coverage. Me and my wife are named, both ~30. Granted, I did Snapshot with Progressive but I dont think that is saving me more than 15% per car. I also save about $100 or so by paying the 6 month premium in full.
Damn. Mines $2200/year.Wow! I live in "expensive" SF Bay Area and my insurance went down when I bought my 2019 Sig. Coverage is $75/month ($900 per year) and more than $250 cheaper per year than the policy for my previous vehicle (2018 Honda CR-V Touring).
My Geico coverage includes $100 comprehensive and $500 collision deductibles. 100/300/100 with 100/300 (Uninsured Motorist & Underinsured Motorist), and rental reimbursement ($50/Day, $1,500 max). I do get CA good driver and low mileage discounts.
One of the perks of being in my 50s, I guess!
My insurance company still wont let me identify as a 65 year old female, so don't tell me about deciding our own truths.