Okay, well by your ideology than Mazda should just abandon their whole premise. Forget sport tuned suspensions and driving. Lets just make dull, boring driving vehicles. Cushy rides, etc. Who wants anything else anyway? Us Mazda fans do! So because the dull driving experiences are popular, Mazda should conform to that so it can meet sales?? I applaud Mazda for sticking to their guns. Good thing there aren't people like you in Mazda. They know who they are and they're not going to let their sales status define them. Pretty awesome of Mazda.
News Flash - Mazda CX5 Competitors
- Thread starter Lbear
- Start date
Okay, well by your ideology than Mazda should just abandon their whole premise. Forget sport tuned suspensions and driving. Lets just make dull, boring driving vehicles. Cushy rides, etc. Who wants anything else anyway? Us Mazda fans do! So because the dull driving experiences are popular, Mazda should conform to that so it can meet sales?? I applaud Mazda for sticking to their guns. Good thing there aren't people like you in Mazda. They know who they are and they're not going to let their sales status define them. Pretty awesome of Mazda.
When I bought my Cx-5 I didn't look at any of the "competitors" listed. I did drive the Audi Q5 and BMW X3. I think the Cx-5 drives most like the X3, sportier and firm feeling. The Q5 was too plush and cushy for my liking. I think the higher trims on mazdas compete with some of the lower trims of luxury brands. There was a CR video I was watching that made the same observation saying the mazdas in the GT trims sort of bridged the gap between mass market cars and luxury brands.
Perhaps you might have mistaken yrwei52 for someone else. Some of his/her posts do criticize the CX-5, but they often are valid points to some degree (windshield, sound system, noise level, ...), not just bad mouthing out of thin air.
Personally I have no problem seeing Mazda's low sale figures. Given how the people I know don't even know anything about the car they're driving, I'm even glad that I'm not lumped together with the mass. However, to make fun cars, Mazda needs to survive and do well first, and that also reflects in their recent statement:
http://www.thedrive.com/news/2954/mazda-calls-mazdaspeed-variants-childish
No, I just don't get the whole sales comparison he/she continues to ramble on about. When that doesn't mean anything in regards to the quality cars Mazda puts out. Yes, there are other things that can improve. As with anything.
But yeah, I have no problem with there sales situation. I'm just glad they have continued to stick to their guns and who they are. I think Mazda will gain more and more traction the more years that go by since their separation from Ford.
Well said and so true!
Exactly.
Look at Mazda commercials and slogans. It's all about "Driving Matters" and that's what it builds. If you want a boring CUV then buy a Toyota or Honda. There's tons of manufacturers that build boring to drive CUV vehicles. Mazda is NOT one of them.
The only other fun to drive/sporty CUV's out there are the high-end ones like the BMW X3 or X5, that cost double or triple that of a CX5.
I can honestly say I test-drove almost every one on the OP's list. Even the ones who had exteriors that I didn't like. The only one I didn't drive was the Chevy Trax because well, ewww Chevy. I kept coming back to the CX5 for the $$ I had to spend. I loved the lines of it, the fact that it sits higher than most of them, the clean open interior, and the gorgeous blue color I chose. The one I really loved, but was way out of my budget, was the Infinity QX60. The body is so sexy, but I realized the CX5 is very similar. I'm so happy with mine, haven't regretted it yet. And I've always had Toyotas. It's also, hands down, the most enjoyable vehicle to drive that I've ever owned.
Last edited:
As a side business, I do model and marriage photography ($$) and for fun - landscape. So, I agree with you. Photos in 1st. page show Toyota and then a Honda. Toyota's center is LITTERED with buttons. I test drove it off and on for 2 weeks and then my friend owns it. He still has not got used to which button is for what. Honda's a bit more refined but not there yet. CX-5 - hands-down : better. So, where exactly it fails? Well it fails in color combination and strategic placement of chrome trims. There's too much black, effectively masking the contours and shadows aren't visible. The chrome trimming looks like an after-thought. Finally, what's the deal with the upper dashboard. Cushioned? For what - I don't place my hands there. Whereas, the top part of the windows are solid rubber, no cushion. Heck - i do rest my elbows there, sometime, my body is in constant touch with that part.... YES: There's room for improvement. Finally - I measured the center console - its very straight. Whereas Honda and Toyota has an elegant curve to the whole thing.
100% agree with you!
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
...except for 2016, someone wised up and made things more cushy at the expense of performance.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Toyota tried the Mazda thing. The V6 RAV Sport would eat the CX-5 for lunch. But sales ate IT for lunch, and it was discontinued. THAT was the CUV I wanted. 271hp V6, AWD, etc. Sadly, 2012 was the last model.
What are you talking about?
Well, the answer to that is wait until early 2017 and the CX5 will have a turbo charged 2.5L that will make 250HP and 310 FT.LBS of torque.
According to Mazda:
"When traveling at 55 mph (88 km/h), a driver needs just 18 HP to maintain speed on flat roads."
Nope..
Mazda designs it's cars from the ground up with the "soul of a sports car" (whatever that means)
Meanwhile, Toyota put the engine and soul of a mini van into the v6 rav4 and called it a day.
we own an 07 rav4 v6 AWD Sport in addition to the CX-5. (got it as a hand-me-down with 145kmi and the wife uses it to haul the baby around)
The rav4 is objectively the better car. It has much more cargo room, the rear seats slide back and forth and they recline, it has a full size spare and way more power than it needs.
However, other than the excessive straight line acceleration it is no fun to drive.
Driving the rav4 on mountain roads provides zero satisfaction while the CX-5 begs to be driven faster.
Despite the low HP rating, the CX-5 is actually easier to drive uphill fully loaded because the RAV4's transmission has a hard time figuring out what gear to use.
I stick the CX-5 in 5th and it'll happily pull up any freeway grade, while the RAV4 will be in 4th and loose speed until you press the pedal an 1/8" further and it'll drop to third and surge forward like a scalded ape.
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Has it been confirmed that the CX-5 will have this motor, or is this just conjecture?Well, the answer to that is wait until early 2017 and the CX5 will have a turbo charged 2.5L that will make 250HP and 310 FT.LBS of torque.
According to Mazda:
"When traveling at 55 mph (88 km/h), a driver needs just 18 HP to maintain speed on flat roads."
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
The gearing and torque curve of the CX5 is truly excellent. Transmission problems are why I did not buy the RAV4.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
It's been confirmed by many news sources worldwide. SkyActv-G 2.5L Turbo will be available on 2nd-gen CX-5 which should be announced in LA Auto Show this November.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
But compare a 9-year-old previous-gen RAV4 to your 3-yeaar-old current-gen CX-5 is like comparing our CX-5 to an X5 - it's an unfair comparison. Not to mention the RAV4 has had 145K miles on it.
