Edmunds.com CX-5 Long Term Review

[ekcooper]

Well, although I loved the zoom-zoom of my Mazda3 2.5GT, I went with the 2.0 CX-5 for room and gas mileage. Although I was wishing briefly I had waited for the 2.5, it appears I'm just fine with the 2.0. And honestly, after 2500 miles, I've really gotten used to the available power. Guess I'll keep it!!!

 

[STE92VE]

I find it hard getting an accurate reading on mpg mainly because the avg drops so much when the car sits idle on startup.

If you're letting it idle for more than a minute or way past when the RPM's drop a bit than you are wasting fuel. You should drive off soon after start up and not push it until the blue temp light goes off. Just my (2cents)

 

[Seminole]

It may not be a luxury brand, but many of the features take it into this category for me. I've ridden in a bottom end Caddy SRX and it doesn't even come close to the features that the loaded CX-5 has.

Granted it is a 6-cyl engine, but to me it is worth far more to have the above features for less money, than to be driving a "luxury" brand.

Same thinking I used when getting the CX-5. I was originally looking at an RDX but couldn't justify the extra $7-8k over the CX-5. Plus my last car was a BMW and with the amount of miles I drive my resale value on it was in the dumpster. I wanted to avoid that with the next car I bought.

 

[STE92VE]

Same thinking I used when getting the CX-5. I was originally looking at an RDX but couldn't justify the extra $7-8k over the CX-5. Plus my last car was a BMW and with the amount of miles I drive my resale value on it was in the dumpster. I wanted to avoid that with the next car I bought.

Wow, another BMW to CX-5 convert. I just came out of an E92 and if I wanted a comparable BMW (X1) to the CX-5, I would have to spend an additional $10K. No contest in my book, I even think the CX-5 is more attractive vehicle.

 

[CX-SV]

I'm averaging over 27 mpg with 50/50 driving. .

That's close to expected mpg given the 2.5L combined rating of 26 mpg (55% city/45% highway)

Note: 2.0L combined rating is 28.

 

[CX-SV]

"I guess I need to stop driving 80 mph on the highway. "


I think the 2mpg loss is well worth the ability to go 80mph

The 2 mpg loss is a fair tradeoff for extra 29hp certainly.

Note: top speed of 2.0L is about 110 mph, not 80 mph.

 

[ManMachine]

Fuelly has the best real world data. For 2013, average is 28 mpg. Pretty good, and almost 2 mpg better than CR-V.

 

[Seminole]

Wow, another BMW to CX-5 convert. I just came out of an E92 and if I wanted a comparable BMW (X1) to the CX-5, I would have to spend an additional $10K. No contest in my book, I even think the CX-5 is more attractive vehicle.

Were you on E90post by any chance? I just grew tired of the maintenance costs and upkeep on it. I put on almost 74k in a little over 4 years. Some of my friends think I'm crazy, but so far I'm not regretting my decision to "move down" to a Mazda at all.

 

[STE92VE]

Were you on E90post by any chance? I just grew tired of the maintenance costs and upkeep on it. I put on almost 74k in a little over 4 years. Some of my friends think I'm crazy, but so far I'm not regretting my decision to "move down" to a Mazda at all.

Slightly off topic but...
Yes, that's me! I'm still a BMW enthusiast but not for the current crop that they're touting as efficient dynamic vehicles. If I had my druthers, I want a NA, 6 cyl engine and they're moving into turbos. That's fine if you lease your vehicle and are covered under their included maintenance program but for the long haul, I shy away from forced induction.

Back to long term on Mazda..
Interesting observation when I was down at my Mazda dealer.... There's quite a difference in the volume of cars in for service @ Mazda compared to BMW. My Mazda dealer is supposedly a high volume one but there were very few in for service, whereas at BMW, they are lined up at the door.

 

[CX-SV]

With TTL, I had to pay $33K out the door for my FWD GT w/tech. It may not be a luxury brand, but many of the features take it into this category for me. I've ridden in a bottom end Caddy SRX and it doesn't even come close to the features that the loaded CX-5 has.

Here's a list of things that are included on a CX-5 GT w/tech that aren't available on the standard model SRX, which starts at $38,225. Actually some of these features aren't even available on the next model up either:

1. Leather seats
2. Sunroof
3. Heated seats
4. Keyless Access
5. Backup Camera
6. Blind spot monitoring
7. Bi-level Xenon headlamps
8. Fog lamps
9. Navigation system
10. Automatic wipers
11. 8-way power driver seat

Granted it is a 6-cyl engine, but to me it is worth far more to have the above features for less money, than to be driving a "luxury" brand.

Agreed, and Caddy is hardly the cream of the crop luxury brand. The better luxury brands will run well over $10K over the loaded CX-5. I have 2 other luxury brand sedans and never considered Cadillac when buying.

$30K+ MSRP for a loaded non-luxury brand compact SUV is common with CRV and Escapes for example.