New 2017 CX-5 Revealed

[dougal]

Just adding this gem of a review from Edmunds, read with caution, it might make you wiser:

"Do not buy this car if you want a comfortable,quite ride with music. Do not buy this car if you take your dogs with you. It collects hair and dirt. The dashboard is made of a black rubber tire. How do you clean that? Do not buy this car if you haul grain or horse supplies. It takes hours to clean. I think the body is made out of Pepsi cans. Every bump in the road you will feel. The road noise is deafening especially when you ride in the backseat . Forget trying to listen to the radio while driving over 40mph. I live in the mountains, so I can't get a radio station anyway. I thought it had Sirius , but of course not. It can't even be installed. I bought this piece of junk for 33,000 dollars. I traded in my beautiful Hummer and would do anything to get it back!!!"

Although Chris de Armond doesnt say what happens when you haul pigs in the CX-5, i am assuming its not suitable for it. The gem is Chris lamenting about the fact that he cannot hear the radio - then remembers he doest get a radio station anyway lol.

Does this persons name start with a U?

 

[yrwei52]

Does this persons name start with a U?

Definitely not. He had a Jeep, not a Hummer! And he has never said he wants his Jeep back!

 

[Dliv]

Raise your hand if MPG was really a deciding factor in your CX5 purchase?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Agree. I couldn't tell you what the MPG was on any of the cars I looked at ,before I settled on the CX-5. It was a non factor. I knew it would be much better than the 2003 Dodge Dakota 3.9 L V6, I was trading in.

 

[Ricsta]

Agree. I couldn't tell you what the MPG was on any of the cars I looked at ,before I settled on the CX-5. It was a non factor. I knew it would be much better than the 2003 Dodge Dakota 3.9 L V6, I was trading in.

Same here. I came from a 2003 Highlander, which I was getting about 15mpg. I knew I wanted a 4 cylinder for better mileage buts that's it. All the CUV's I looked at met that criterion so I didn't worry about 1 or 2 mpg difference among RAV4, Rogue or CX5

 

[yrwei52]

After reading a bit more on 17 CX5 - I am downgrading it severely - I think it will struggle to hit 100K Sales.
There are few reasons for me to be negative:
Downgraded EPA estimates - 31? now compare that with 34 or 35 that rogue or CRV has and it looks bad.
Early market goes to 2017 CRV in terms of sales - Sales bring in more curiosity and more sales as friends and family ask for - Mazda needs to time new release with tax returns as well.
both Rogue and CRV having 45% or more sales jump - big factor imo.

This may not be a bad thing - skyactive two if it does bring in a 36-37 mph highway and a 32 mpg city CUV that will do very well with improvement in certain areas as fit n finish.

I agree with you. This new CX-5 has nothing to show off like the 1st-gen CX-5 and offers not much but good handling and good looking! And good looking is purely a personal preference. Compounded with late 2017 release date, I'm afraid this new 2nd-gen CX-5 may just like 2nd-gen CX-9 last year, sales would struggle.

 

[Anchorman]

Are people really bothered about 3 or 4mpg? The new CX-5 breaks the mould of the boring ute with an interior to match. We'll see if it works in a bit.

 

[boandlkramer]

Are people really bothered about 3 or 4mpg? The new CX-5 breaks the mould of the boring ute with an interior to match. We'll see if it works in a bit.

^^^This

Oh and no manual...BLASPHEMY! [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[Anchorman]

^^^This

Oh and no manual...BLASPHEMY! [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

I think that's a cultural thing. The standard set up in the USA is for a gasoline engine and an auto box so catering for a few enthusiasts doesn't make sense for a mass production vehicle. Over here, things are different and manual transmissions are far and away the majority of sales. In some ways, this dates back to apprehension from early unreliable autos that were expensive to repair. There are loads of CX-5s in Europe that have been written off so if you were that bothered you could buy a 16 model and just drop the lot in to one of yours without much difficulty.

 

[boandlkramer]

I think that's a cultural thing. The standard set up in the USA is for a gasoline engine and an auto box so catering for a few enthusiasts doesn't make sense for a mass production vehicle. Over here, things are different and manual transmissions are far and away the majority of sales. In some ways, this dates back to apprehension from early unreliable autos that were expensive to repair. There are loads of CX-5s in Europe that have been written off so if you were that bothered you could buy a 16 model and just drop the lot in to one of yours without much difficulty.

In Europe, Manual has been historically cheaper. These days, I think volume sales have bucked that logic.

Same reason why in the 90s, A/C wasn't standard


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[yrwei52]

Are people really bothered about 3 or 4mpg? The new CX-5 breaks the mould of the boring ute with an interior to match. We'll see if it works in a bit.

^^^This
Oh and no manual...BLASPHEMY! [emoji23]

I agree! If Mazda CX-5 emphasizes good handling, then at least current Sport manual setup should be kept even though the sales volume is minimum in US market. This's a strong selling point no other competitions offers for a compact CUV! All the federal certificates for the engine and drive train have been done, and the same setup is used by Mazda3. The cost is not high to keep the manual on new CX-5 in the US.

 

[7eregrine]

I've never in my life cared about gas prices. This girl at work used to ask me: did you see the price of gas today? Um...No. Does that mean it's high? Or low? I got gas today...Couldn't tell you what the price per gallon was. And no...It's not because I have money today. I have always been like this.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Kaps]

I've never in my life cared about gas prices. This girl at work used to ask me: did you see the price of gas today? Um...No. Does that mean it's high? Or low? I got gas today...Couldn't tell you what the price per gallon was. And no...It's not because I have money today. I have always been like this.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

We drive 36K miles a year for work, at that mileage the FE becomes important. I have an app to get me the lowest prices for gas - I also buy kroger cards on eBay that have lots of fuel points. Lets say the kroger beats costco prices with card by 5-10 cents. If i owned a car for 5 years it would have 120k miles - at that point difference between 28 and 32 avg. mpg is $1400 which is significant - i would say 5-10% of the depreciation hit.

 

[7eregrine]

So you're doing a that to save $23/month? And that's worst case scenario assuming 10 cents savings? Not worth the trouble for me. How much time do you spend saving that, at worst, $23/ mo?
Not giving you a hard time. I seem to come off combative on this forum apparently. Lol. Not the case. Just discussing. I'm certainly, not saying you shouldn't do what you do. You're not "doing it wrong". LOL

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bamirault]

Raise your hand if MPG was really a deciding factor in your CX5 purchase?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It certainly was. Bought a Volvo S70 in '99 intending to keep it for 10 years. Bought a sloop in '01 and discovered that a CUV would be far handier than a sedan for taking things to and from for a weekend on the water or maintenance. Went shopping for that CUV in '08 with the restrictions that it be AWD, not have a bigger footprint than the Volvo, and be more fuel efficient than the vehicle it replaces mainly because all my new cars need to get better economy than what came before. To meet my criteria for a replacement I had to keep the Volvo for 13.5 years, as the '13 CX-5 was the first to do so - and so I bought one. It's replacement will also have to be more efficient, but the diesel might fit the bill.

As an aside I don't think you have to participate in anything to be an enthusiast about it. I am an armour enthusiast; knowing a good deal about the topic. When I was younger I spent some time making a living in Centurion MBTs and additional time in armoured reconnaissance and yet at this time I don't own any armour - and am never likely to do so. I consider myself a driving enthusiast and I own a CX-5 as well as an MX-5 NC - currently in winter storage. I am also certainly an Emma Thompson enthusiast although sadly I have not yet nor am ever likely to indulge that particular enthusiasm. We're all in it together and I trust there is a place for everyone.

Brian

 

[Kaps]

So you're doing a that to save $23/month? And that's worst case scenario assuming 10 cents savings? Not worth the trouble for me. How much time do you spend saving that, at worst, $23/ mo?
Not giving you a hard time. I seem to come off combative on this forum apparently. Lol. Not the case. Just discussing. I'm certainly, not saying you shouldn't do what you do. You're not "doing it wrong". LOL

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

If you say $23 / mo it sounds petty, but if you say 1400 - which if you factor in my car's depreciation over those years is a good percentage of it. Assuming i can sell my touring for 10K, i am looking at 14k depreciation, 1400 comes to about 10% - so yep its a big deal. Thats almost like getting the tech package on touring free + 250 cash.

 

[Anchorman]

Not really. I enjoy getting good mpg but it isn't paramount. I always had RAV4s but I simply hate the dash so if it cost the same and did another 10mpg I still wouldn't change from my gorgeous CX-5. It's the whole thing that matters to me.

 

[7eregrine]

If you say $23 / mo it sounds petty, but if you say 1400 - which if you factor in my car's depreciation over those years is a good percentage of it. Assuming i can sell my touring for 10K, i am looking at 14k depreciation, 1400 comes to about 10% - so yep its a big deal. Thats almost like getting the tech package on touring free + 250 cash.

1400 over 60 months (if you use the bigger number, you have to give the term) still doesn't sound like much. And that was calculated, if I'm not wrong, at the 10 cent valuation, so that 1400 is on the high end. You do 4x the miles I do, I'd probably care more about mpg at 35k per.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Kaps]

1400 over 60 months (if you use the bigger number, you have to give the term) still doesn't sound like much. And that was calculated, if I'm not wrong, at the 10 cent valuation, so that 1400 is on the high end. You do 4x the miles I do, I'd probably care more about mpg at 35k per.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

My calculation was between 28 and 32 mpg. This is not a land rover that 1400 does not matter when compared to total depreciation, it matters a lot. Its 10% of my total depreciation. If this was a 50K SUV then yes it doesnt matter, but 10% matters - its a good chunk.
You can spread it over 60 months still doesnt change the fact that its 10% of my depreciation cost.

 

[7eregrine]

We're all different. 10% isn't much to me. But, depreciation doesn't mean much to me either.
Viva la difference!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Kaps]

We're all different. 10% isn't much to me. But, depreciation doesn't mean much to me either.
Viva la difference!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Good for you, you can pay 10% extra when buying your next home, it will just be $4 more per day or 0.002 cents per minute.