Car and Driver 2019 CX5 article.

[Sideswipe]

Yea I was just saying lower ride height is subjective and a positive to some like myself.

If we're still talking about the CX-5 here, I could see some people preferring a taller ride given that it's technically a 'utility' vehicle. But I bet most CX-5 buyers don't consider higher ground clearance a critical criteria when it comes to their 'utility' requirements. For these folks, I suspect it's more of a cargo room thing, the fact that it's AWD, and sitting up higher than the average car -- the utility aspect doesn't go much beyond that for me, anyway. I mean, the thing has 19" wheels on relatively low profile tires... it's not an off-road vehicle whatsoever. If that is a serious consideration, people would probably be looking at a Subaru or the new RAV-4 which to me at least *looks* more rugged and capable off-road (vs. CX-5).

That said, the times I have had to navigate snowy side streets and hills my Mazda did a great job.

It's too bad the average "SUV/CUV" buyer doesn't realize that a wagon actually ticks all the 'utility' boxes they're after. If some manufacturer offered a WAGON that I liked, I would have definitely considered it. But there are so few options because for whatever reason people think they're lame, so the market is full of CUVs instead. ::sadface::

The only things a wagon gives up to the average CUV is some vertical rear cargo space (which is the least useful IMO) and sitting up higher on the road. I'd gladly give up those 2 advantages for a wagon I liked as much in all other aspects as my CX-5.

 

[dougal]

Is this forum moderated? (scratch)

Put them on ignore and report posts that derail threads. That is the only way.

The Car and Driver review is excellent and I hope they do a multi-car comparison -they could do it against the RDX, X1, XC40 and GLA. The CX-5 may not come out 1st but it might be 2nd or 3rd and that would be a good thing.

I mean on paper, it is faster, quieter and cheaper than a RDX...

 

[jthj]

If we're still talking about the CX-5 here, I could see some people preferring a taller ride given that it's technically a 'utility' vehicle. But I bet most CX-5 buyers don't consider higher ground clearance a critical criteria when it comes to their 'utility' requirements. For these folks, I suspect it's more of a cargo room thing, the fact that it's AWD, and sitting up higher than the average car -- the utility aspect doesn't go much beyond that for me, anyway. I mean, the thing has 19" wheels on relatively low profile tires... it's not an off-road vehicle whatsoever. If that is a serious consideration, people would probably be looking at a Subaru or the new RAV-4 which to me at least *looks* more rugged and capable off-road (vs. CX-5).

That said, the times I have had to navigate snowy side streets and hills my Mazda did a great job.

It's too bad the average "SUV/CUV" buyer doesn't realize that a wagon actually ticks all the 'utility' boxes they're after. If some manufacturer offered a WAGON that I liked, I would have definitely considered it. But there are so few options because for whatever reason people think they're lame, so the market is full of CUVs instead. ::sadface::

The only things a wagon gives up to the average CUV is some vertical rear cargo space (which is the least useful IMO) and sitting up higher on the road. I'd gladly give up those 2 advantages for a wagon I liked as much in all other aspects as my CX-5.

Im with you and wish we had more wagon options!

 

[bigtex]

Put them on ignore and report posts that derail threads. That is the only way.

The Car and Driver review is excellent and I hope they do a multi-car comparison -they could do it against the RDX, X1, XC40 and GLA. The CX-5 may not come out 1st but it might be 2nd or 3rd and that would be a good thing.

Agreed, if you ignore 1-2 key people, the whole vibe of this forum changes. But people will still quote them at times so you know they are still there, raging in the background.

But to your point, the X1, XC40 and GLA (all subcompact class) are not the same size vehicle as the CX5. The CX5 competes with X3, XC60 and GLC, and as you mentioned, the RDX. These would be the best multi-car comparison and add the Q5.

 

[jthj]

Agreed, if you ignore 1-2 key people, the whole vibe of this forum changes. But people will still quote them at times so you know they are still there, raging in the background.

But to your point, the X1, XC40 and GLA (all subcompact class) are not the same size vehicle as the CX5. The CX5 competes with X3, XC60 and GLC, and as you mentioned, the RDX. These would be the best multi-car comparison and add the Q5.

Thanks for the tip I'll do that.

I think in this article where he talks about how people who are in the market for a used luxury SUV and want the latest tech should just get a CX-5 is on point.

https://jalopnik.com/all-the-cars-i-convinced-people-not-to-buy-in-2018-1831351680

 

[Sig cx-5]

I feel the ignore button would be a last resort, but at least I know it's there. Thanks!

From another thread, there are people comparing the XC40 to the CX-5: https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123866842-2019-XC40-vs-2019-CX-5-Signature

I compared the CX-5 to more vehicles than I ever had in the past. Some direct competition and some way outside (SQ5 and X3 m40i). At the end of the day, I couldn't justify the cost difference. The Car and Driver review was timely for me. It was one of those things that pushed me over the edge.

 

[dougal]

Thanks for the tip I'll do that.

I think in this article where he talks about how people who are in the market for a used luxury SUV and want the latest tech should just get a CX-5 is on point.

https://jalopnik.com/all-the-cars-i-convinced-people-not-to-buy-in-2018-1831351680

They have a good point. I went through that same process and was thinking of a used MDX (2016) or a new CX-9. The MDX, even only 2 years old, felt out-dated.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Is this forum moderated? (scratch)

Yes. That 1 page-ish battle took place within the span of 1 hour.. no one reported it I just happened to see it as I am interested in this thread..

 

[bigtex]

I feel the ignore button would be a last resort, but at least I know it's there. Thanks!

From another thread, there are people comparing the XC40 to the CX-5: https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123866842-2019-XC40-vs-2019-CX-5-Signature

I compared the CX-5 to more vehicles than I ever had in the past. Some direct competition and some way outside (SQ5 and X3 m40i). At the end of the day, I couldn't justify the cost difference. The Car and Driver review was timely for me. It was one of those things that pushed me over the edge.

I think they want to compare the new CX5 to the smaller crossovers from premium brands because the MSRP is closer on these, even though the loaded XC40 is $45K.
Loaded X1 will be $42K, loaded GLA will be $50K.

Passenger Volume
RDX 105 cu ft
CX5 102 cu ft
Q5 102 cu ft
XC60 100 cu ft
X3 99 cu ft
GLC 98 cu ft
X1 98 cu ft
XC40 95 cu ft
GLA 78 cu ft
Q3 hard to ever find passenger room listed

Of course, cargo volume is where the subcompact crossovers really suffer with a lot of them near half of what the CX5 has.

 

[jthj]

Yea if I were going for a true luxury suv it would be the X3 not X1. Or maybe a Q5.

 

[dougal]

I think they want to compare the new CX5 to the smaller crossovers from premium brands because the MSRP is closer on these, even though the loaded XC40 is $45K.
Loaded X1 will be $42K, loaded GLA will be $50K.

Passenger Volume
RDX 105 cu ft
CX5 102 cu ft
Q5 102 cu ft
XC60 100 cu ft
X3 99 cu ft
GLC 98 cu ft
X1 98 cu ft
XC40 95 cu ft
GLA 78 cu ft
Q3 hard to ever find passenger room listed

Of course, cargo volume is where the subcompact crossovers really suffer with a lot of them near half of what the CX5 has.

Wow. Very surprised at how similar these are and how much more room the CX-5 has. I always assumed it was one of the smallest CUVs out there..

 

[jthj]

Yea IIRC from when I was looking at specs CX-5 was mid pack in cargo.

 

[Danny Linguini]

If we're still talking about the CX-5 here, I could see some people preferring a taller ride given that it's technically a 'utility' vehicle. But I bet most CX-5 buyers don't consider higher ground clearance a critical criteria when it comes to their 'utility' requirements. For these folks, I suspect it's more of a cargo room thing, the fact that it's AWD, and sitting up higher than the average car -- the utility aspect doesn't go much beyond that for me, anyway. I mean, the thing has 19" wheels on relatively low profile tires... it's not an off-road vehicle whatsoever. If that is a serious consideration, people would probably be looking at a Subaru or the new RAV-4 which to me at least *looks* more rugged and capable off-road (vs. CX-5).

That said, the times I have had to navigate snowy side streets and hills my Mazda did a great job.

It's too bad the average "SUV/CUV" buyer doesn't realize that a wagon actually ticks all the 'utility' boxes they're after. If some manufacturer offered a WAGON that I liked, I would have definitely considered it. But there are so few options because for whatever reason people think they're lame, so the market is full of CUVs instead. ::sadface::

The only things a wagon gives up to the average CUV is some vertical rear cargo space (which is the least useful IMO) and sitting up higher on the road. I'd gladly give up those 2 advantages for a wagon I liked as much in all other aspects as my CX-5.

When my lease was almost up on my 3 last year, I would gladly have gotten another -- if AWD had been an option. I test drove a CX3, which almost ticked all the boxes, but just didn't quite cut it compared to the CX5 (or another 3). Now that AWD is coming to the 3, I'm pretty sure I know what I'll be in when my current lease is up.

 

[bigtex]

Yea IIRC from when I was looking at specs CX-5 was mid pack in cargo.

I added cargo room for each. CX5 is best of these listed in cargo.

Passenger/Cargo Volume
RDX 105/30 cu ft
CX5 102/31 cu ft
Q5 102/27 cu ft
XC60 100/30 cu ft
X3 99/29 cu ft
GLC 98/20 cu ft
X1 98/27 cu ft
XC40 95/21 cu ft
GLA 78/17 cu ft
Q3 hard to ever find passenger volume listed/19 cu ft

The new CRV and new RAV4 have more cargo volume and less passenger volume than the CX5, but I don't think most would consider them competitors to new CX5 turbo or even the non-turbo.

 

[jthj]

Yea I was including things like CRV and Escape in my spreadsheet where it was mid pack.

Edit: and those are boxier so that extra space probably isnt even that useful anyway.

 

[husker_soze]

Thanks for the tip I'll do that.

I think in this article where he talks about how people who are in the market for a used luxury SUV and want the latest tech should just get a CX-5 is on point.

https://jalopnik.com/all-the-cars-i-convinced-people-not-to-buy-in-2018-1831351680

Latest tech? ummmm...I'm not convince on this one. Just because of their infotainment and low-res cameras.

I would agree that if they want more "features", then yeah.

 

[jthj]

Latest tech? ummmm...I'm not convince on this one. Just because of their infotainment and low-res cameras.

I would agree that if they want more "features", then yeah.

I think he was specifically talking about stuff like radar cruise control. And if youre looking at a 3 year old X3 it probably doesnt have the 360 camera either.

I agree Mazdas cameras arent the best. And I think the infotainment is the biggest weak spot. Also to a lesser degree sound system. But the Mazda Bose audio is better than the base system in the BMW. So I think his argument still holds even there.

 

[dougal]

I think he was specifically talking about stuff like radar cruise control. And if you*re looking at a 3 year old X3 it probably doesn*t have the 360 camera either.

I agree Mazda*s cameras aren*t the best. And I think the infotainment is the biggest weak spot. Also to a lesser degree sound system. But the Mazda Bose audio is better than the base system in the BMW. So I think his argument still holds even there.

You would be surprised at how bad the Acura infotainment system from 2016 is. And in some of those cars, there is not even blind spot monitoring. Some of those safety things lower car all have are not there on the more expensive stuff. Kinda strange.

 

[jthj]

Yea I agree. Audi and BMW both have pretty nice infotainment though.

Also when I searched used it was hard to find any with the safety tech as it something typically only on the highest trim.

Edit: what strange to me is the system VW/Audi use is Panasonic. Why arent the Japanese automakers using it?

 

[Unobtanium]

Really think Mazda is punching above their weight similar to how they did in 2014 with the 2.5 cx5.