- :
- Denver, CO
I thought Sport models were 60/40 splits.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
An Interesting Opportunity to Compare
- Thread starter Studum
- Start date
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
In the US, the sport models get the very basic 60/40 seats, whereas the Touring and GT got the 3 way remote folding seats that fold down slightly flatter.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yep Australian 2017 CX-5 gets more cargo space with the rear seats up comparing to thier 2016 CX-5, but it has only about a half of the space than ours!
The truth is on paper Mazda Australia calculates the cargo space with the rear seats up only the part underneath the cargo cover. They don't count the space above the cargo cover as the cargo cover is a standard equipment coming with all CX-5's.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
Yup. They are.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Your cargo room volume VDA (litres) is based on rear seats up and to tonneau cover. Different way of calculation because you guys get free factory cargo cover which apparently sits a bit higher in 2017 than 2016's.
In US with 2nd-row seatback up, cargo volume from floor to ceiling is 30.9 cu-ft (875 liters) for 2017 CX-5; and 34.1 cu-ft (966 liters) for 2016 CX-5.
Mazda CX-5 2017 and 2016.5 US/NA Spec Comparison
Noticeable differences are 187 hp @ 6,000 rpm vs. 184 hp @ 5,700 rpm; and the maximum torque 185 lb-ft for 2017 CX-5 AWD is occurred at higher RPM than FWD.
[table="width: 720, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]MAZDA CX-5
SkyActiv-G 2.5L[/td]
[td]2017[/td]
[td]2016[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horsepower SAE (hp)[/td]
[td]187 @ 6,000 rpm[/td]
[td]184 @ 5,700 rpm[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Torque SAE (lb-ft)[/td]
[td]185 @ 3,250 rpm - FWD
185 @ 4,000 rpm - AWD[/td]
[td]185 @ 3,250 rpm[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Gear Ratios AT1)[/td]
[td]3.552/2.022/1.452/1.000/0.708/0.599[/td]
[td]3.552/2.022/1.452/1.000/0.708/0.599[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Reverse
[td]3.893[/td]
[td]3.893[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Final Drive
[td]4.325 - FWD
4.624 - AWD[/td]
[td]4.325 - FWD
4.624 - AWD[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Wheelbase (in)[/td]
[td]106.2[/td]
[td]106.3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Overall L/W/H (in)[/td]
[td]179.1 / 72.5 / 66.1[/td]
[td]178.7 / 72.4 / 67.3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Track F/R (in)[/td]
[td]62.8 / 62.8[/td]
[td]62.4 / 62.5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Turning Circle (ft)[/td]
[td]36.0[/td]
[td]36.7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Ground Clearance (in)[/td]
[td]7.6[/td]
[td]8.5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Towing Capacity (lb)[/td]
[td]2,000[/td]
[td]2,000[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Total Curb Weight (lb)[/td]
[td]3,527 - FWD
3,655 - AWD[/td]
[td]3,433 - FWD
3,589 - AWD[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]EPA-estimated MPG
(combined/city/hwy)[/td]
[td]27 / 24 / 31 - FWD
26 / 23 / 29 - AWD[/td]
[td]29 / 26 / 33 - FWD
26 / 24 / 30 - AWD[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Headroom F/R (in)[/td]
[td]39.7 / 39.0
39.3 / 39.0 - w/Moonroof[/td]
[td]40.1 / 39.0
39.0 / 39.0 - w/Moonroof[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Legroom F/R (in)[/td]
[td]41.0 / 39.6[/td]
[td]41.0 / 39.3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Shoulder Room F/R (in)[/td]
[td]57.1 / 54.8[/td]
[td]57.5 / 55.5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Hip Room F/R (in)[/td]
[td]55.2 / 55.3[/td]
[td]55.2 / 53.7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Cargo Volume (cu ft)[/td]
[td]30.9 - 2nd-row Seatback Up
59.6 - 2nd-row Seatback Down[/td]
[td]34.1 - 2nd-row Seatback Up
65.4 - 2nd-row Seatback Down[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
That 39-liter phantom volume increase of yours is the result of the raised position of cargo cover, but the true cargo volume from floor to ceiling has actually decreased by 10% - 3.2 cu-ft (91 liters) with the 2nd-row seatback up which is pretty significant to me.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
No way to fix it unless Mazda changes the body design making it looks like the Honda CR-V. 2nd-gen CX-9 has the same issue.
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?
You can call it phantom increase if you want but an increase is an increase for us. The size is still adequate and for me it should be enough. Yes it's smaller than my 6 but the opening cavity is greater in the CX-5 than the 6 and I don't have to bend down and inside the cargo area to retrieve items.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I bllieve the reason why cargo volume on 2017 CX-5 is about 10% less than 2016 is because 2017 loses more height than ground clearance, and the cargo floor is a bit higher than previous gen to make the whole floor a bit flatter (but still not 100% flat) when the rear seat-backs are folded down.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
That's debatable as 2017 has less shoulder room for rear passengers.
The reviews here have said more space. Not massive but still more
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
But the specs don't lie ⋯
