2017 CX-5 now featured on Mazda USA site

[123373]

The built-in Nav in the Mazda's are useless if you own a smart phone which 99% of the population does. Google Maps FTW.

True, google maps using the phone works well and I have experienced better accuracy. I prefer to use the car NAV because it's much easier for me to see even though I have an iPhone 7 plus. I also like seeing a picture of my CX5 driving on the screen in 3D mode!

 

[Pipemajor]

Our last 3 cars have had factory Navi. Our 2010 Camry Hybrid has the Denso Nav and it's never been updated. Requires a DVD disk which is fairly spendy.

On several trips, we've routed on the in-dash Nav and plugged in the external Garmin. Our 2015 CX-5 has the Tom-Tom which does have the indicated speed. Still, the 2 different units will often differ significantly in estimated time and distance remaining but will align closer and closer as we approach our destination. Sometimes we use one device for the actual routing and the other, simply to show our zoomed out position on the map.

I'm looking forward to the day the in-dash screen is a dumb device which you can link your Apple or Andriod device as the back-end logic.

We have a trip upcoming this summer to the west coast via Amtrak. We'll have our Garmin NUVI stuck on our sleeper window to display where we currently are.

 

[7eregrine]

Think I told this story before. Coworker has a boat: a 2014 Toyota Highlander. I turned on her Navi. "I just want to see if you have the live traffic feature, you do". Her reply was pretty awesome: "what's that?". So I explain it to her. "Yea, I'll never use that".
A lot of people just don't care. Does it get me where I'm going? Cool. Some folks need to remember that car nerds...Er enthusiasts...That hang out on websites talking cars....Aren't typical car buyers.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Dr Kev]

I'd like to interject what I posted elsewhere this morning (keep in mind that the comparison involves a 2016 (not 2016.5) and a 2017 GT:

I do want to comment about how some folks have claimed that the 2017 is so much more expensive. Some have commented that there's a big price jump for the GT model from 2016 to 2017. That's true. With destination and without packages, my 2016 car cost $29,100. The comparable 2017 model is $30,335. That's over a $1,200 difference! Yet to get the 2016 comparably equipped to the 2017, you'd have to add the Tech and i-Active Sense packages for $3005 together. So, that car would come out to over $32,000! That 2016 car would have a CD player (Mazda: boo for removing it on the 2017 on NA models!), but it would lack features standard on the 2017 model. These include: the enhanced MID, auto brake hold, power tailgate (which is very smooth and quiet in operation), increased covered storage (I'm really glad that the USB ports are all covered.), rear USB ports for charging, adjustable angle on the rear seat, vastly improved refinement with the same or better driving dynamics (thanks in part to G-Vectoring control), rear AirCon vents, and previously unavailable i-Active Sense features (e.g., full range adaptive cruise control). So, when someone says that the 2017 is so much more expensive (at least in the US), it's a good idea to take that kind of claim with a grain of salt.

For 2017 CX-5 Grand Touring, base MSRP is $29,395 on FWD; $30,695 on AWD. It's $820 increase.

 

[m8te]

I'd like to interject what I posted elsewhere this morning (keep in mind that the comparison involves a 2016 (not 2016.5) and a 2017 GT:

I do want to comment about how some folks have claimed that the 2017 is so much more expensive. Some have commented that there's a big price jump for the GT model from 2016 to 2017. That's true. With destination and without packages, my 2016 car cost $29,100. The comparable 2017 model is $30,335. That's over a $1,200 difference! Yet to get the 2016 comparably equipped to the 2017, you'd have to add the Tech and i-Active Sense packages for $3005 together. So, that car would come out to over $32,000! That 2016 car would have a CD player (Mazda: boo for removing it on the 2017 on NA models!), but it would lack features standard on the 2017 model. These include: the enhanced MID, auto brake hold, power tailgate (which is very smooth and quiet in operation), increased covered storage (I'm really glad that the USB ports are all covered.), rear USB ports for charging, adjustable angle on the rear seat, vastly improved refinement with the same or better driving dynamics (thanks in part to G-Vectoring control), rear AirCon vents, and previously unavailable i-Active Sense features (e.g., full range adaptive cruise control). So, when someone says that the 2017 is so much more expensive (at least in the US), it's a good idea to take that kind of claim with a grain of salt.

I agree. You cannot simply just look at the price between the 2 without looking into what you actually get for each. I believe you will be getting better value with the 2017 model even if for a small negligible increase in price. There are just some improvements which you just can't see or is listed on a spec sheet.

 

[Kellic]

Our last 3 cars have had factory Navi. Our 2010 Camry Hybrid has the Denso Nav and it's never been updated. Requires a DVD disk which is fairly spendy.

On several trips, we've routed on the in-dash Nav and plugged in the external Garmin. Our 2015 CX-5 has the Tom-Tom which does have the indicated speed. Still, the 2 different units will often differ significantly in estimated time and distance remaining but will align closer and closer as we approach our destination. Sometimes we use one device for the actual routing and the other, simply to show our zoomed out position on the map.

I'm looking forward to the day the in-dash screen is a dumb device which you can link your Apple or Andriod device as the back-end logic.

I'll never get a car that doesn't have it built in as a backup. The day you are 100% reliant on your phone is the day you drop it on a road trip in the middle of nowhere, or you get bad reception, or it's stolen. Then again I also still keep an analog map in my car, just in case crap happens. =D
Which it almost did driving back from Calgary to Minneapolis by way of Montana and South Dakota. The SD memory card couldn't be read and I was in the middle of a dead zone for my phone in Montana as I was exploring and wasn't 100% sure where I was, even with offline maps on Google Maps it sometimes gets flaky. Thankfully reseating the card in the car fixed that. But I was close to going old school with a folded map.

Tech is a wonderful thing. But Murphy loves to dick with it at the worst possible times.

 

[7eregrine]

Actually a great point Kellic.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Think I told this story before. Coworker has a boat: a 2014 Toyota Highlander. I turned on her Navi. "I just want to see if you have the live traffic feature, you do". Her reply was pretty awesome: "what's that?". So I explain it to her. "Yea, I'll never use that".
A lot of people just don't care. Does it get me where I'm going? Cool. Some folks need to remember that car nerds...Er enthusiasts...That hang out on websites talking cars....Aren't typical car buyers.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Haha. Love that line.

Yeah pretty much. I don't even have NAV in mine and don't give a rat's behind.