2014 CX-5 owner looking to upgrade. New one worth it?

:
2014 CX-5 GS AWD
My mom has a 2014 CX-5 with the 2.5. Honestly, this car has totally changed my opinion of Mazda. I used to think of them like Nissan or some other Japanese brand second to Toyota or Honda. But no, Mazda is probably my favorite car brand, and I'm a Volkswagen diehard fanboy. But she now has 240,000kms, and has only required an oil pressure sensor(oil leak), a transmission shifter unit(car didn't recognize it was in park), and that's it. Doesn't burn a drop of oil, consistently gets stellar fuel economy, and it's definitely worked hard. I had to tow a few things with it, once I was wayyyyy over it's rating but had no choice and drove 2 hours towing 5,000lbs. I still got 25mpg towing, and it held 6th gear no problem doing 60mph. I love this thing. But it's getting older, mileage is creeping up and mom wants something newer. I think I'm going to convince her to get a new CX-5, but I've been out of the loop with the newer ones. Has the reliability changed? I know fuel economy, power with the turbo, and build quality etc. have all taken a big leap, but one thing is she drives a lot, and often to areas without cell service. I would have no problem in getting her an employee discount since I work at Toyota and get her into a Rav4, but the CX-5 I believe, is the best small SUV. Thanks guys
 
I own a 2021 CX-5 Signature and I love it. The only negative is I NEVER get better than 21 - 21.5 MPG. So I was shocked to read you were getting 25 MPG towing 5k lbs! I drive a lot, combo of highway and city but mostly highway. So with gas prices the way they are and the fact she drives a lot just bear the MPG in mind. Maybe others on here are getting better MPG than I am.

The Rav 4 Hybrid would be a good choice for her as well but they are impossible to get her in CA. I asked about one for my wife and I would have been number 76 on the waiting list with a 9 month wait. The wait for the Rav4 Prime is even longer!
 
I own a 2021 CX-5 Signature and I love it. The only negative is I NEVER get better than 21 - 21.5 MPG. So I was shocked to read you were getting 25 MPG towing 5k lbs! I drive a lot, combo of highway and city but mostly highway. So with gas prices the way they are and the fact she drives a lot just bear the MPG in mind. Maybe others on here are getting better MPG than I am.

The Rav 4 Hybrid would be a good choice for her as well but they are impossible to get her in CA. I asked about one for my wife and I would have been number 76 on the waiting list with a 9 month wait. The wait for the Rav4 Prime is even longer!
Interesting, yeah I still have no clue how it got that good of mileage to be quite honest, I thought I messed up my math when doing the pump calculation, but nope. 25mpg.(that's also US gallons too).

Empty SUV on the highway it'll easily do 32-35mpg. Best I got was 38 on a roadtrip. Apparently the new ones are better on fuel so who knows. Rav4 Hybrids are awesome, I work in the service dept. at a Toyota dealer and the new Rav's are real nice and have so much room, but I still prefer the CX-5 over the Rav.
 
I had a 2013, a 2016 and now a 2020, all GT+s. My current year long mileage is 31.5 mpg on the dash. The 2020 2.5 NA has cylinder deactivation which for me works great and is not noticeable and gets about the same mpg as my 2.0 did. It is much quieter and I love the radar cruise stop and go on the highway (I usually set it at 72), memory seats, ventilated seats and folding mirrors. Lane departure is OK and I love the led tuning lights.
 
Sounds like a test drive is in order. There are a number of changes with the 2nd gen platform including suspension and steering. I'm open to a number of brands in the market (Subaru, Toyota/Lexus, Infiniti, etc) and the CX-5 might be the best overall small SUV at the $~27K price point when you factor in reliability, resale, refinement, and styling. Consumer Reports tests everything and they review the CX-5 more favorably than the RAV4. Having also driven the Lexus NX, I can say even an entry-mid level CX-5 compares quite well for significantly less money.


The RAV4 is a good product, and my last two vehicles were Lexus brand, but I bought my CX-5 three years ago as my first Mazda and I'm pretty happy with it. As far as styling, there's no comparison. At least to me, the Toyota looks generic while the CX-5 looks more like a luxury brand. Also, you get cheaper reflector LED headlights instead of projector LEDs unless you pay up for higher trims.

1648622089519.png

1648622100669.png


The most glaring example of cost cutting on the RAV4 is the cheap and nasty plastic steering wheel on base-mid level trims, whereas the CX-5 has a leather wrapped steering wheel as standard.

1648622435766.png

1648622542613.png


Which looks nicer to you?
 
I would suggest a 2017-2022 non-turbo for long-term reliability. If you don't want Cylinder Deactivation, go for the 2017, it's the only year that doesn't have it on the non-turbo engine.

This is not to say that the turbo engine isn't reliable. I have a 2018 CX-9 with the 2.5T and love it. It's just that in the long run, an NA engine has fewer components, and thus, fewer potential failure points.
 
I had a 2016 GT FWD and got over 30 mpg. Loved that car. Traded in for what I paid for it, and got a 2022 Turbo. Next level. Mazda had been great, but they really upped the game in the new car. I get 27-30ish mpg if I drive normal. But with the turbo you can get addicted to the skinny peddle mash and it drops big time. The new model is also much quieter. First month with the car and really love it.
 
If fuel cost is not a major concern (we have $6/gal in CA), I would definitely recommend 2.5T over 2.5NA. I have both ('17 NA, and '22 Turbo). The latter is just much more responsive in daily driving and on highway. Mazda does not tune for 0-60mph dashing (which is dominated by peak hp).
The high torque (310ft-lb or 320ft-lb depending on fuel) is sweet.
You might lose 1-2mpg with the 2.5T, however.
 
My mom has a 2014 CX-5 with the 2.5. Honestly, this car has totally changed my opinion of Mazda. I used to think of them like Nissan or some other Japanese brand second to Toyota or Honda. But no, Mazda is probably my favorite car brand, and I'm a Volkswagen diehard fanboy. But she now has 240,000kms, and has only required an oil pressure sensor(oil leak), a transmission shifter unit(car didn't recognize it was in park), and that's it. Doesn't burn a drop of oil, consistently gets stellar fuel economy, and it's definitely worked hard. I had to tow a few things with it, once I was wayyyyy over it's rating but had no choice and drove 2 hours towing 5,000lbs. I still got 25mpg towing, and it held 6th gear no problem doing 60mph. I love this thing. But it's getting older, mileage is creeping up and mom wants something newer. I think I'm going to convince her to get a new CX-5, but I've been out of the loop with the newer ones. Has the reliability changed? I know fuel economy, power with the turbo, and build quality etc. have all taken a big leap, but one thing is she drives a lot, and often to areas without cell service. I would have no problem in getting her an employee discount since I work at Toyota and get her into a Rav4, but the CX-5 I believe, is the best small SUV. Thanks guys
Have had a '21 NA 2.5 and no issues or oddities, and I mash the gas and use manual mode a lot. I drive into random dirt roads without service a lot. I can't speak for the nav/infotainment in the smaller screens, but for the 10.25 inch screen the stock navigation works pretty well too. Rav4 would definitely work, just would be less fun and cool looking imo.
 
I would suggest a 2017-2022 non-turbo for long-term reliability. If you don't want Cylinder Deactivation, go for the 2017, it's the only year that doesn't have it on the non-turbo engine.

This is not to say that the turbo engine isn't reliable. I have a 2018 CX-9 with the 2.5T and love it. It's just that in the long run, an NA engine has fewer components, and thus, fewer potential failure points.
That cylinder deactivation feature that they introduced in 2018 on non turbo cars would really give me second thoughts. Personally if I were to buy a new Mazda, I'd buy a turbo equipped model.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the newer CX-5 is heavier, and probably slower than the 2014.
I test drove the 6 and the CX-5 back to back when I was shopping for a new car in 2017, and for my taste, the CX-5 was too slow. I really noticed the difference (the 6 has the same drivetrain, but it is considerably lighter, and much livelier on the road.)
To the OP: Good luck with whatever you choose. Keep us posted.
 
That cylinder deactivation feature that they introduced in 2018 on non turbo cars would really give me second thoughts. Personally if I were to buy a new Mazda, I'd buy a turbo equipped model.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the newer CX-5 is heavier, and probably slower than the 2014.
I test drove the 6 and the CX-5 back to back when I was shopping for a new car in 2017, and for my taste, the CX-5 was too slow. I really noticed the difference (the 6 has the same drivetrain, but it is considerably lighter, and much livelier on the road.)
To the OP: Good luck with whatever you choose. Keep us posted.

Yes, the 2nd gen CX-5 is a little heavier than the 1st gen. As a result, the 1st gen is just slightly faster from 0-60 (maybe a tenth of a second?). Probably not noticeable to OP's mom. I don't remember specifically where the extra weight comes from, but the 2nd gen is much quieter inside the cabin. The 2nd gen is also a slightly lower to the ground by 0.9", so it doesn't have as much clearance as the 1st gen, but it might make it a bit easier to get into/out of.
 
We have had a 2018 RAV-4 (model prior to the silly Tonka redesign) and first a 2019 Signature CX-5 and then a 2020 after my dealer rang me up to offer a deal I could not refuse.

They are not in the same class of vehicle. There’s nothing wrong with the RAV-4 but the CX-5 merits an “Oh, my!” with every drive. The non-turbo engine is adequate for your mom and thriftier, but then again a recent 1500 mile freeway road trip in my turbo model averaged 28.5 mpg running California’s crappy Premium formulation, and that’s just fine.

Mazda and Toyota/Lexus keep trading places in the reliability rankings in Consumer Reports and elsewhere, so there’s that too.
 
We crossed shopped our CX-5 with the Rav4 hybrid. The regular Rav4 was off the table because it was simply too rackety when we drove it. The Rav4 Hybrid Limited with THE SAME features we wanted in the CX-5 Preferred was $43K out the door. The Toyota dealership had $4K worth of non-negotiable add-ons so technically it was $39K out the door. Our CX-5 was $33.5K out the door.

We don't care for all the infotainment tech features.. The only must-have features we wanted was AWD (yes we're ok with the E-AWD), non-cloth seats (fake leather is OK), power height-adjustable seats for BOTH driver & passenger, and a power opening rear door. Blind spot & rear cross traffic alert were strong factors, but not must-haves.

We were actually ok with cloth seats (we've had them in all our previous cars) until we saw how cheap the cloth was in the Rav4. I've owned 3 other Toyotas in my life and the Rav4 cloth seats are BY FAR the cheapest feeling cloth material I've ever had the non-pleasure of sitting on.

It's ridiculous that for almost $40K the Rav4 did not have all these features standard. Even the super-expensive Rav4 Prime (base model) doesn't come standard with full-leather (or full fake leather) seats. CX-5 was a no-brainer decision at that point.
 
Last edited:
Back