The salesman will also tell you anything he can think of so you can take whatever they have on the lot. I have had salesman outright lie to me, not even BEND the truth, just an outright lie. LoL All the more important to arm yourself with the facts before you sign on the line.
Keep the 5 or get a CX-5?
- Thread starter littlemisszoom
- Start date
The salesman will also tell you anything he can think of so you can take whatever they have on the lot. I have had salesman outright lie to me, not even BEND the truth, just an outright lie. LoL All the more important to arm yourself with the facts before you sign on the line.
I am sure that Mazda won't be putting the 2.2L turbodiesel into the CX-5 in 2014. If we're lucky, we will see the diesel in the new Mazda6 by the end of 2014. Perhaps by the middle of 2015 the diesel will be available in the CX-5. These are the two models with which Mazda hopes to make the most money and they will likely therefore have the most available options. For example, Mazda wants to sell more Touring and Grand Touring models than they do the Sport Models so they will couple the more attractive engine options with the more expensive electronic features. I doubt that the turbodiesel will be available in the Mazda6 Sport and probably the CX-5 Sport will keep the 2.0L Skyactive. There has never been an engine option in the Mazda5 but the 5 has always had the top-level engine from the Mazda3 (first the 2.3L then the 2.5L MZR engines). I would love for there to be an engine option and I think that no matter what happens in the next 1-2 years the Mazda5 engine will be changed, probably to the 2.0L Skyactive. I doubt that Mazda will ever offer the turbodiesel in the 5 in the US. But I'd happily take the 2.0L Skyactiv and the 6 speed transmissions as this will dramatically improve the Mazda5's fuel economy, one area that sorely needs improvement. I'd love to see 27MPG city and 33 or 34MPG highway in a Mazda5.
S'why I'm here and on other sites, reading reviews, having conversations,
etc. This ain't my first rodeo.
I really don't know why some people think that the 2.0 Skyactiv is slow. I drive a 3 with the 2.0 Skyactiv everyday and can testify that it is far from slow. I think it comes down to knowing how to actually drive it to get the most torque and power out of it. You can't really gauge that from a quick test drive.
Well, I bit the bullet and got the CX-5. Couldn't be more pleased. Thanks so much for all of your advice and commentary!
If you mean, me, then yeah, all I can say is, I have driven many cars/trucks/SUV's, both manual and auto trannys. I have driven Freightliners, I used to work on them. Maybe I was given a lemon to test drive, but assuming that Skyactiv Mazda3 was working correctly, then no, I would never buy one. WOT is WOT on any car, has nothing to do with "how you drive it." I WOT the 2.0 that I test drove, it was noisy and it felt bothered I was asking for power. For me, the engine and transmission are speaking 2 different languages. They are not working in concert 100% of the time. It felt like an appliance, not a car. You may feel the same way or opposite, that is your opinion, we are all entitled to our own. But if I'm not the only one saying things like these about the Skyactive Mazda3 then maybe i'm not crazy after all.
Funny thing, I was at Home Depot today buying HVAC filters when I saw a sort of darkish blue CX-5 in the lot. I never got so close to one before, looks like a 2012 but I could be wrong. I like the back of the vehicle, I'm not crazy about the front and the sides remind me of the first gen Hyundai Santa Fe for some reason. I would not buy this car for looks. Then again I didn't buy my Mazda5 for looks either.... love the sliding doors though, that was a deal maker.
Driving many different cars doesn't really prove anything, I meet people all the time that all about engine power, regardless of the car manufacturer. Hey, there isn't anything wrong with that, but most people I know with the 3 Skyactiv, and the majority of car geeks from multiple car magazines, who that all they do is drive tons of cars and compare them, some really nice and expensive cars, has praised the Skyactiv engine and the transmission in the 3. Hardly any of them have complained about power. I just find it ironic that someone who praises a Yaris; I have found a ton of people who call Toyota's appliances on wheels, calls the Mazda 3 Skyactiv a appliance. The last Toyota I've driven that didn't drive like an appliance and actually had feel in the steering wheel and didn't have a soft suspension was the Celica, but whatever, everyone has different taste and as long as the vehicle they drive makes them happy, that is all that matters. That is why there are so many different car manufacturers, because different people want and like different things from their vehicles, the car industry would be boring if there wasn't variety.
The main problem with the Skyactiv 2.0 is that it sounds raspy and unrefined which makes it sound like it's complaining, but it's every bit as peppy as the 2.3L engine in my old Mazda 5, about the same numbers too.
I do miss the sound of the 2.3L revving. Oh how many times have I bounced off that rev limiter.
- :
- 2008 Mazda5 GT
You are not a typical driver and your opinion does not align with the masses. Fortunately/Unfortunately, the masses get their way. More power to the people (pun intended)!The main problem with the Skyactiv 2.0 is that it sounds raspy and unrefined which makes it sound like it's complaining, but it's every bit as peppy as the 2.3L engine in my old Mazda 5, about the same numbers too.
I do miss the sound of the 2.3L revving. Oh how many times have I bounced off that rev limiter.
I've never driven a Sky 2.0 but I think it is a great engine from what I've read if used in the right application. I don't think the CX5 is the right application. Acceptable - yes. Ideal -no. Just MHO.
- :
- 2015 Soul Red 6 Sport Auto 2016 Accord EX Auto
Just goes to show how much everyone's tastes differ. I had a Duratec23 (MZR23) manual equipped vehicle. Hated it, glad to see it put out of it's misery. The MZR25 in the MZ5 is decent. Smooth, quiet, reasonable pep at lower speeds, okay MPG. That same motor tuned differently in the last-GEN Fusion I was not fond of. Raspy, no low end. Transmission easily confused.
That being said, I drove an auto/awd CX-5 and it really is slow (for my tastes). It wouldn't be so obvious if the rest of the car wasn't so brilliant, but it is brilliant. It IS loud at cold start up but is just fine otherwise (for my tastes). This is pretty much mentioned by every NA review I have read/heard of. That being said, the efficiency is great. And the acceleration reasonable if MPGs were very important to you (for most folks, it is). The rest of the car is brilliant, so much so that I hope the manual version will feel better. I drove a Mazda 3 Skyactiv manual and found it peppy and somewhat refined. That back seat is just too small. My sales guy said the CX-5 manual feels better than the 3 Skyactive manual. Smoother shifting, better ride and handling. Hope he's right! For under $19k (base S manual) there's not much around with the same ride/handling balance combined with the room/utility the CX-5 has.
I would love Mazda NA to package the manual with AWD and the Skyactive 2.5, then sweeten it further by offering it in Touring form, but that's never going to happen.
That being said, I drove an auto/awd CX-5 and it really is slow (for my tastes). It wouldn't be so obvious if the rest of the car wasn't so brilliant, but it is brilliant. It IS loud at cold start up but is just fine otherwise (for my tastes). This is pretty much mentioned by every NA review I have read/heard of. That being said, the efficiency is great. And the acceleration reasonable if MPGs were very important to you (for most folks, it is). The rest of the car is brilliant, so much so that I hope the manual version will feel better. I drove a Mazda 3 Skyactiv manual and found it peppy and somewhat refined. That back seat is just too small. My sales guy said the CX-5 manual feels better than the 3 Skyactive manual. Smoother shifting, better ride and handling. Hope he's right! For under $19k (base S manual) there's not much around with the same ride/handling balance combined with the room/utility the CX-5 has.
I would love Mazda NA to package the manual with AWD and the Skyactive 2.5, then sweeten it further by offering it in Touring form, but that's never going to happen.
Last edited:
Exactly, Skyactiv was designed to be high-revving, come on, it has a compression ratio of 12:1, which is actually toned down from the 13:1 ratio that the European cars get. Of course it is going to sound that way, with those specs. I own both a 2.3 MZR and a 2.0 Skyactiv, and I would agree, that other than the way they sound when they rev, the power is about the same in both of them. I like both engines, don't really prefer one over the other, but differently prefer the 3's chassis, to the 5's. I know that really isn't a fair comparison. going from a suspensionally challenged Sienna to a 5, was like night and day. Even driving around in a sonota or camry for a couple days, makes me appreciate the fact that the 5 handles as good or better than even some sedans, but going from the 5 to the 3, really makes me appreciate how tight the suspensions are on the 3. I won't say they are up there with a BMW, but they are BMW like.
phunky.buddha
Booga Booga?
- :
- DFW TX
- :
- No mo MZ5 want MX5
Being able to carry 6 in a pinch is a HUGE help for me with grandparents stuffed in the car all together- so I would have kept the 5. But I'm glad you're happy with your decision.
I'm going to upload a youtube video of me racing a bicycle in a Mazda3 with SkyCraptive, and me losing (hah)
I should have mentioned, when I test drove the 3 with SkyCraptive, it felt eerily JUST LIKE my 2011 Corolla S. That scared the crap out of me. When I hopped in the 2.5 I'm like .... who the hell would buy a 2.0L??
I should have mentioned, when I test drove the 3 with SkyCraptive, it felt eerily JUST LIKE my 2011 Corolla S. That scared the crap out of me. When I hopped in the 2.5 I'm like .... who the hell would buy a 2.0L??
Last edited:
No offense, but this is coming from someone who praises Toyota's and the Yaris. It is hard to take that seriously, when virtually every major car magazine full of guys who test drive tons of cars for a living, all praise the Skyactiv 3 for decent power, great handling, and overall refinement, and yet at the same time shun most toyota's for their lack of handling and for being overall boring. The 2.0 has decent power in the 3, in the heavier CX-5 it is just barely adequate. The release of the 2.5 in the CX-5 this year will take car of the power issue. Furthermore, if they ever offer the 2.2 skyactiv turbocharged diesel, in the CX-5 like they are going to in the new 6, it will blow anything in that segment out of the water. Offering the best in fuel efficiency and power in that segment. One thing that is forgotten about the 3, is that the Skyactiv is now standard and can return over 40 mpg's on the highway. In other compact cars, you have to spend more money and opt for their high efficiency models to achieve the same mpg's as is offered standard on the 3, but all those other models aren't as fun to drive. Here is a good review by motor trend on that very topic.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html
We never could fit the grands in the 5 without them being folded up, because we have 2 in car seats. We always ended up in Gramm's Denali. And while I will miss the 5, I really love the CX-5 so far. I agree with the previous poster who described the car as brilliant- it is. And looks matter to whoever is doing the looking; I thought my 5 was nice-looking (many don't, and I'm not a fan of the Nagare style, so I was glad to have a 2010). I like the look of the CX-5.
Funny, and I am one that can appreciate your sarcastic humor, even if I don't think you know what your talking about with the Skyactiv 3. Difference of opinion isn't a bad thing, and when one throws in some finely placed sarcastic humor, it makes the conversation even more enjoyable.
