Dear Mazda, consider moving the shifter to steering column

[mtvon2]

I stand corrected on downshifting causes an increase in fuel consumption. After an internet search it seems like it does not. I think this answer I found sums it up best. "It does not use more gas to downshift. It is the kinetic energy of the vehicle being turned into mechanical energy in the engine that makes it go faster. This can alternatively be turned into heat energy in the brakes, which makes the brakes wear out faster. If the throttle plate is closed (because your foot is off the gas) the engine cannot burn more fuel because it has no more air."

I am however still holding firm on no column shift. haha.

 

[gova]

... prepare for a hill etc...

When I drove Fiat P126 with 21HP 35 years ago, I had to prepare for a hill.

If you have to prepare for a hill in 2014, you should either not admit it or change your car. But I get it, it is 2L engine. I used to have one.


There is no need to occupy most of cramped car with 'device' to control forward/backward direction of driving.

 

[tobeychris]

Please no.

 

[deepfriedsushi]

I will admit...when comparing the CX5 to the CRV, I did like the CRV's center console better. The shifter might not be a column mounted one, but it's certainly out of the way. It's so much more efficient with the use of space. And the arm rest issue is solved with chair mounted ones.

My gf would naturally put her purse on the "table" of the center console when getting in to drive the CRV. But in the CX5, the only options are on the front passenger seat or the front passenger's footwell. And if there's a passenger...it can be a bit of a hassle.

 

[erhayes]

Back to the original comment about moving the shifter to the steering column. I would not want that but, I also think that Mazda, in their infinite wisdom reduced the interior of the CX5 from the near perfect CX7. Give me the CX7 interior dimensions with all the SkyActic attributes and I'd be a happier person. Ed

 

[CX-SV]

The CX-5 is a significantly smaller (and lighter, more fuel-efficient, better-handling) vehicle, so I'm not surprised interior dimensions are smaller. To move the shifter to column doesn't have enough impact on roominess to justify the change to a less driver-oriented setup. Mazda did the homework right.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

I will admit...when comparing the CX5 to the CRV, I did like the CRV's center console better. The shifter might not be a column mounted one, but it's certainly out of the way. It's so much more efficient with the use of space. And the arm rest issue is solved with chair mounted ones.

My gf would naturally put her purse on the "table" of the center console when getting in to drive the CRV. But in the CX5, the only options are on the front passenger seat or the front passenger's footwell. And if there's a passenger...it can be a bit of a hassle.

that works well for the crv because they do not offer a manual transmission in it.

 

[CX-SV]

that works well for the crv because they do not offer a manual transmission in it.

Yes, and notice the lack of a proper hand-brake too.

 

[CC58]

I will admit...when comparing the CX5 to the CRV, I did like the CRV's center console better. The shifter might not be a column mounted one, but it's certainly out of the way. It's so much more efficient with the use of space. And the arm rest issue is solved with chair mounted ones.

Consider the CX-5 chassis had to be designed to fit the huge full length header. Required a huge bulge in the firewall. No way you could put a shifter in CRV position. Considering the header is responsible for the power and efficiency of the CX-5, I'll live with the shifter position any day. Now if only they would be the head light bright switch on the floorboard. (freak)

 

[SayNoToPistons]

The CX-5 is a significantly smaller (and lighter, more fuel-efficient, better-handling) vehicle, so I'm not surprised interior dimensions are smaller. To move the shifter to column doesn't have enough impact on roominess to justify the change to a less driver-oriented setup. Mazda did the homework right.

This. My girlfriend actually has a CRV with a column shifter. Absolutely hate it along with the steering and seating position. It is no different from driving a large truck. I am no stranger to column shifters since I grew up with a 1993 MPV in the family. It doesn't make sense for this type of vehicle. It is not an SUV.

For a driver focused brand, there should be no reason for Mazda to opt for column shifters. When I drive, I want my right arm and hand to naturally rest on the shiftknob when my hand falls to that area. I manually select gears quite often. If Mazda designed the CX-5 with a column shifter, it would be a factor for me to decide AGAINST the CX-5. I'm sure there are many that agree and Mazda knows it.

Back to the original comment about moving the shifter to the steering column. I would not want that but, I also think that Mazda, in their infinite wisdom reduced the interior of the CX5 from the near perfect CX7. Give me the CX7 interior dimensions with all the SkyActic attributes and I'd be a happier person. Ed

IIRC the CX-5 actually has more interior space than the CX-7. On paper at least.

EDIT: Via C&D

"The CX-5 has a wheelbase of 106.3 inches, exactly two inches shorter than the CX-7’s. With a length of 178.7 and a width of 72.4, the CX-5 is 5.6 inches shorter and 1.3 inches narrower than its sibling. Despite its smaller shadow, the CX-5 actually offers more interior space: 103.8 cubic feet overall to the CX-7’s 101.7."

 

[CX-SV]

For a driver focused brand, there should be no reason for Mazda to opt for column shifters. When I drive, I want my right arm and hand to naturally rest on the shiftknob when my hand falls to that area. I manually select gears quite often. If Mazda designed the CX-5 with a column shifter, it would be a factor for me to decide AGAINST the CX-5. I'm sure there are many that agree and Mazda knows it.

Same here, column shifter would be deal killer.

(The ML350 gen 2 setup unique to Mercedes I had a while back was a bit better than most column shifters, plus it had paddle shifters on backside of steering wheel).

 

[ALafya]

The shifter position in the CRV was yet another reason why not to get it. Big no to steering column mounted.
I do miss more storage space in the CX-5. There is definitely less space on the doors, the center console and cubby. If anything, I'd cancel the manual handbrake and combine it with the 'P' position of the transmission (OK to leave manual, or electric for manual transmission). I can't think of a reason, other than sliding the car while driving, why they need to be separate.

 

[deuxdiesel]

Why not just skip the slushbox altogether and offer a 2.5 AWD manual 6 speed? It's hard to take the "driver focused brand" mantra seriously when manual transmissions are not universally available.

 

[RG_Flyer]

Why not just skip the slushbox altogether and offer a 2.5 AWD manual 6 speed? It's hard to take the "driver focused brand" mantra seriously when manual transmissions are not universally available.

Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly! If everyone is adamant about the "sportiness" of having a console shifter to move, why stop there and not go for the third pedal?

I will be first in line to purchase the 2.5 MT-6 (AWD or not). I just want the manual!

 

[ALafya]

Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly! If everyone is adamant about the "sportiness" of having a console shifter to move, why stop there and not go for the third pedal?

I will be first in line to purchase the 2.5 MT-6 (AWD or not). I just want the manual!

In the US it will be a very short line
Not that I am objecting, but I'd personally rather see the Diesel in the US (with auto transmission).

 

[katman]

I liked the column shifter on my '98 CRV as it made possible a flip tray and "walk through" access to the back. However, on the CX5, I don't see how it could be beneficial, I don't see enough room to put it behind the wheel.
It all comes down to this:
This is a car of milimeters. Everything has been designed to maximize space and feel. Look at the front doors- they are real thin. This makes for slightly more interior room. That steering wheel is small too. The interior looks like it went from committee to committee, was tweaked and tweaked until we got what we got. To toss a column shift on it woud be akin to throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

 

[speedbegone]

The days are close where gear selectors will either be buttons or dials like in the Evoque:
this way, space saving in the center console will be easy, because this type of knob can be placed anywhere on the dash, and preferably near the start button. It could even be the start button.

having this, hopefully will mean that paddle shifters will be standard in sporty cars automatic/dual clutch cars.

I do still prefer a hand e-brake to an electronic e-brake, but its mainly for immature empty parking lot winter fun...

 

[CC58]

The Edsel did this 40 years ago. It didn't go over well.

 

[palk]

The shifter position in the CRV was yet another reason why not to get it. Big no to steering column mounted.
I do miss more storage space in the CX-5. There is definitely less space on the doors, the center console and cubby. If anything, I'd cancel the manual handbrake and combine it with the 'P' position of the transmission (OK to leave manual, or electric for manual transmission). I can't think of a reason, other than sliding the car while driving, why they need to be separate.

I use the handbrake quite often while driving. Usually when the radar detector goes off and I want to slow down without flashing the brake lights (assuming there is no one close behind). A quick blip of the handbrake also cancels cruise control which is convenient when my hand is resting there and I don't want to reach for the wheel and fiddle for the button.

 

[CX-SV]

The handbrake used as a parking brake works better than most pedal operated parking brakes. I live in hilly area and appreciate CX-5's handbrake.