Subaru vs. Mazda

[Xeler8ing]

Mechanically it has been ok but it goes through shocks and even the simple HVAC control broke. I don't use it much but sometimes on the weekends when camping or hunting. The old inline-6 4.0L actually is a fairly robust motor but fuel economy isn't very good even with a manual.

Never really been that economical

 

[mangoconchile]

Ignore lists don't work for quotes so what was the point? Had nothing to do with wanting to see your posts Mango. Anyway, you are the one who decided to start jabbering in this thread based off a simple use of "Mango". No one was bringing you into anything, so why don't you just leave it alone? Snowflake much? Maybe take a dose of your own advice.

The whole point if the Ignore List is to give you a little self-control in responding to my posts. Clearly it didn't work. Why do you care if you can see my posts when someone else quotes me? They clearly aren't directed towards you so there's no need for you to respond to it. The fact that you put in the extra effort in removing from your Ignore list of baffling. Do me a favor and re-add me to it, that way you won't bring up my name in threads anymore that I have nothing to do with.

Thank you

 

[ColoradoDriver]

-snip- You think my fun with my CX-5 is all about power? God, that’s some Mango level bulls*** right there.

Clearly my initial post wasn't directed to you either, yet here you are still crying about it? Comparing Molestor's post about power to all the well established history of you bringing up the power (in your opinion "lack of") of the CX-5 is somehow directed at you? Yeah ok. You're downright delusional Mango. Nothing else was said in regards to you until you piped up...and keep talking. Clearly the rest of us moved on to a different discussion (car nannyisms), except you.

Take your own advice, and then we can be done with this. I even quoted it for you. I'm done with this discussion about you (and was several posts ago), hell my initial post wasn't about you either, let's see if you are done too.

Also if you don't like someone posts, you do have the option of not reading them or replying to them.

Thank you.

 

[7eregrine]

ABS, TCS etc are classified as nannys and have been around since 90's

ABS is one in like. Saved my ass at least twice over the years.

 

[Xeler8ing]

ABS is one in like. Saved my ass at least twice over the years.

Agreed

 

[ColoradoDriver]

ABS is one in like. Saved my ass at least twice over the years.

Fully agree and same here!

 

[Unobtanium]

That's because technology for this stuff was in its infancy back then and engineers etc hadn't mastered how to tune then correctly.

I think a lot of it is engine control. We have MUCH more control over the combustion process, nowdays. Back then, not so much.

 

[Unobtanium]

I guess when I think of nannies, I think of whatever they have in CX-5's now alerting when you have a hand off the wheel, and other things like that. Or the locking out of the touchscreen when moving. But I am in my 20's, so that's just my perspective from having not been in pre-90's vehicles regularly. ABS, TCS don't seem like nannies to me. Just seem normal. But I guess I could understand why they would to others who drove before those.

Different perspective.

Hah! I grew up driving a car without traction control or ABS. I'm 31. Car was a 1993.

 

[Unobtanium]

What's funny is these guys added to me their ignore list a while back, then removed me because they just HAD to see my posts. Groupies indeed(lol2)

As far as this debate goes, IMO Subaru is currently the better of the 2. BRZ/WRX(new STI scheduled for 2019 release)Forester's power(250HP with new model coming soon). They're very reliable and their customer retention is #2 in the country despite being so small of a company.

For Mazda, I like the Miata and the 3 Hatch. The CX-9 is nicely styled, but it's dark, claustrophobic interior kinda ruins it. Don't really like anything else in the lineup. I also think this whole 'budget luxury' direction they're going is not going to succeed. They need more power and Carplay/AA in their vehicles than anything else. I think if they add these 2, they will be OK.

What will be new about this STi? I'm all ears.

 

[Xeler8ing]

I think a lot of it is engine control. We have MUCH more control over the combustion process, nowdays. Back then, not so much.

Agreed but you also have to remember that the onboard computers in vehicles were limited by the capacity and programming

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Concur, the 4.0L inline 6 is pretty bullet proof.

Other parts on the Jeep? Yeah not so much... (lol)

Growing up, we had both the 2.5L 4 and 4.0L 6 Cherokee's. Both engines were pretty much bullet proof. And even the 2.5L with manual was a blast in fields and on dirt roads. Neither vehicle had any major problems, but they were certainly quite Spartan by design. Got us through many Maine winters and down many rough hunting and fishing roads. The only problem was the legendary death wobble on the 4.0L. Funny how our local mechanic was the only one able to solve the problem.

Good memories.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Growing up, we had both the 2.5L 4 and 4.0L 6 Cherokee's. Both engines were pretty much bullet proof. And even the 2.5L with manual was a blast in fields and on dirt roads. Neither vehicle had any major problems, but they were certainly quite Spartan by design. Got us through many Maine winters and down many rough hunting and fishing roads. The only problem was the legendary death wobble on the 4.0L. Funny how our local mechanic was the only one able to solve the problem.

Good memories.

Yes...many high elevation Colorado winters here with ours too. Got a plow at one point for it. Driveway was so bad some years even the Jeep couldn't get out.

Yes! The death wobble! I remember that quite well.

 

[Road Warrior2]

It’s because of mazdas chasss, which loves to be loaded up in corners. It feels firm. The suspension is soft and complaint especially on the cx-5, but the alignment among some other things result in good steering feel that firms up nicely when you load it into a corner. I do agree with you on all these unnecessary electronic gimmicks though.. I took a big gamble when I decided to buy my BMW for cheap which has tons of complicated little electronics, but the look of the car, great RWD chassis and inline 6 engine with the brilliantly tuned 8 speed transmission made me all over the car and I just had to have it. Fortunately, the cars been very reliable though.

To me it seems like you just bought the CX-5 so you can get away with AWD year-round without needing to switch to winter tires, which still isn’t as safe as dedicated winter tires. You also mentioned ground clearance, but you said that Colorado has unpredictable snowfalls which is usually not very deep, so that point is also moot. I’m brought to this conclusion. If you’re all about economy, why wouldn’t you just buy a Mazda 3/6, slap on some good winter tires and call it a day? You said you’ve only loaded up the car once or twice, so why do you need the extra space? All that’s doing is overtaxing the 2.5L engine, making the car slower, less fun to drive and less efficient then a 3 or 6 with the 2.5L engine. Now an AWD CX-5 in the snow with winter tires? There is no question that it will perform far better then a FWD Mazda with snow tires. But when comparing winter tires on a FWD car to all seasons on an AWD, there is absolutely no argument to be made as to which one is safer.

So this brings me to my final point... please don’t take this the wrong way, because I think the 2017 model is a great looking car, and I would never say a word about any of this if Mazda offered a diesel or some sort of 2.5L turbo to justify the extra weight of the CX-5. But if you’re stuck with the 2.5L NA engine and don’t want to move up to the heavy CX-9, why do you buy the heaviest car with the weaker motor? It doesn’t make any sense to me, but You can’t deny the fact that you’re just too lazy to switch to winters like you’re supposed to living in an area that snows. If you don’t care about your own safety driving in poor conditions, what about others? Don’t make this argument about infrequent snow. It’s the same s*** here in Canada but the few times we do get snow, the winter tires are extremely helpful. All seasons have no grip for steering or braking once you are moving and AWD just makes that worse because of the added weight. I’m tired of making this argument, but your post made it hard for me not to. There is a sense of unmistakable ignorance in the air...

Wow. A lot to unpack there.

Let's start with the tires/AWD lazy theme. I am speaking from 40 years of driving experience that includes international driving experience. I have never owned an AWD vehicle, I do own a 4WD vehicle, it is a very rare occasion that I feel the need to shift into 4WD HI to drive in winter. Of the 5 vehicles I have owned in that time period, I have NEVER owned a set of dedicated snow tires, I have NEVER gotten stuck or had a sliding accident due to my skills or lack of and poor road conditions. I live in W PA, we can get lake effect or Nor'easter storms that dump feet of snow in my area. Travel to work is 50 miles, into the snow belt north of I80. If you drive within your means, have decent all season tires that have some siping on them, you will do just fine. No real need for snow tires with a FWD or AWD. My 4WD Xterra had Kumho all seasons until about 2 years ago when I went to a deep lugged Cooper tire with new wheels. Prior to that, no need for winter tires. If a person feels it is absolutely necessary to have a dedicated snow tire to be out in the snow, have at it. In my world, not necessary. If it is that bad out, you have no business being on the road. Get out of the way and let the plow crews do their job that my tax dollars are paying to do.

Power plant. I am a little leary of owning a 4 cylinder SUV like the CX5. When I consider what I'll be using the vehicle for (to and from work about 85% of the time and then general running around locally) it would be nice if Mazda put more horses into the engine, I would not complain. I was hoping that that my next vehicle would have a minimum 250hp, that would mean Forester, never warmed up to the Subaru. So the CX5 has a 187hp motor with a six speed auto. Since it appears as though the tranny and the engine output are a good match, the perception is that you have more power than you actually do and it can get you up to highway speed quick enough. Also being able to slap stick it and downshift to get the engine some relief is a plus, you just have to learn to work the combination. The Molester has a 6 and not a CX5. Why he keeps showing up in the CX5 forum to talk about his 6 is beyond me, other than his 6 is underpowered and he is here to complain about it? I was all set to buy a Sport Sedan, my criteria was AWD, minimum 275hp. Love the current 6 styling, and that is where it ends. Dog motor in a FWD sedan. Had it been RWD, I might reconsider. But the 6 is all teeth and no bite in my world where I want a Sport Sedan that has power and looks.

Lastly size and space. It is good to have and not use than to need and not have. I live alone, no kids to haul etc. When I go to work, I use up about 60% of the rear cargo space in my Xterra for my work kit. I have to judiciously pack the MX5 to get everything into it for work. If I go to the range or fly fishing, I have a lot of stuff to carry and I use the Xterra for that. It has 125K on it, I am concerned for it's long term reliability. The CX5 is it's successor. A 6 sedan would have worked except it has the dog engine in it. I was all set to buy a Ford Fusion Sport with AWD, 325hp V6 twin turbo, would have bought a $400 tune reflash to boost to 400hp and had a lot of fun. Sale price and depreciation killed the deal. See, I want power in a Sport Sedan, not so much of a big deal in a SUV/CUV. The Xterra is a heavier vehicle than the CX5 yet has less HP than the CX5, so when it comes to the 99% of the type of driving I do (paved roads) the Xterra experience has been more than adequate and the CX5 should be also due to it being lighter and more HP.

Lastly, Molester does not own or drive a CX5 on a regular basis, so I have no idea where his fantasy CX5 driving experience comes from. He reads facts and figures and watches videos, yet has no relevant experience to draw from when it comes to the CX5. Yet just can't help himself to stop posting in the CX5 forum with 6 comparisons.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

A 6 sedan would have worked except it has the dog engine in it. I was all set to buy a Ford Fusion Sport with AWD, 325hp V6 twin turbo, would have bought a $400 tune reflash to boost to 400hp and had a lot of fun. Sale price and depreciation killed the deal. See I want power in a Sport Sedan, not so much of a big deal in a SUV/CUV.

Have you thought about G37 or Q40?... the latter was the renamed G37 for the final 2015 model year. 327HP, an available RWD biased AWD system (ATTESA ETS) and reliable.

 

[Road Warrior2]

Have you thought about G37 or Q40?... the latter was the renamed G37 for the final 2015 model year. 327HP, an available RWD biased AWD system (ATTESA ETS) and reliable.

Budget buster....plus when they break, they break expensive.

I currently own 2 vehicles, I'd like to get it down to one. I need some hauling capacity. Caddy's also have the AWD thing. Perhaps later if I get the urge. I need to have something to replace my aging Xterra should it go down this winter.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

Budget buster....plus when they break, they break expensive.

I currently own 2 vehicles, I'd like to get it down to one. I need some hauling capacity. Caddy's also have the AWD thing. Perhaps later if I get the urge. I need to have something to replace my aging Xterra should it go down this winter.

True.... but drivetrain is pretty solid in that line as it had a 10 year run for the V36 line anyway. ATTESA goes back to late 80s.

Always a 4Runner if you want to stay BOF since Xterra was discontinued. Not sure if you are open to used vehicles.

 

[Unobtanium]

Wow. A lot to unpack there.

Let's start with the tires/AWD lazy theme. I am speaking from 40 years of driving experience that includes international driving experience. I have never owned an AWD vehicle, I do own a 4WD vehicle, it is a very rare occasion that I feel the need to shift into 4WD HI to drive in winter. Of the 5 vehicles I have owned in that time period, I have NEVER owned a set of dedicated snow tires, I have NEVER gotten stuck or had a sliding accident due to my skills or lack of and poor road conditions. I live in W PA, we can get lake effect or Nor'easter storms that dump feet of snow in my area. Travel to work is 50 miles, into the snow belt north of I80. If you drive within your means, have decent all season tires that have some siping on them, you will do just fine. No real need for snow tires with a FWD or AWD. My 4WD Xterra had Kumho all seasons until about 2 years ago when I went to a deep lugged Cooper tire with new wheels. Prior to that, no need for winter tires. If a person feels it is absolutely necessary to have a dedicated snow tire to be out in the snow, have at it. In my world, not necessary. If it is that bad out, you have no business being on the road. Get out of the way and let the plow crews do their job that my tax dollars are paying to do.
No comment except I've seen some crazy icec/snow videos out of Russia showing CX5's.

Power plant. I am a little leary of owning a 4 cylinder SUV like the CX5. When I consider what I'll be using the vehicle for (to and from work about 85% of the time and then general running around locally) it would be nice if Mazda put more horses into the engine, I would not complain. I was hoping that that my next vehicle would have a minimum 250hp, that would mean Forester, never warmed up to the Subaru. So the CX5 has a 187hp motor with a six speed auto. Since it appears as though the tranny and the engine output are a good match, the perception is that you have more power than you actually do and it can get you up to highway speed quick enough. Also being able to slap stick it and downshift to get the engine some relief is a plus, you just have to learn to work the combination. The Molester has a 6 and not a CX5. Why he keeps showing up in the CX5 forum to talk about his 6 is beyond me, other than his 6 is underpowered and he is here to complain about it? I was all set to buy a Sport Sedan, my criteria was AWD, minimum 275hp. Love the current 6 styling, and that is where it ends. Dog motor in a FWD sedan. Had it been RWD, I might reconsider. But the 6 is all teeth and no bite in my world where I want a Sport Sedan that has power and looks. The Mazda 6 is usually a "slow as balls but it felt so good to drive" car in reviews. Don't let anyone wiht a sub-200hp car run their suck about speed unless it's also sub 2000#. As to the CX5, it actually does better in the real world AND on paper than its numbers indicate, not that it's fast, but it is adequate.

Lastly size and space. It is good to have and not use than to need and not have. I live alone, no kids to haul etc. When I go to work, I use up about 60% of the rear cargo space in my Xterra for my work kit. I have to judiciously pack the MX5 to get everything into it for work. If I go to the range or fly fishing, I have a lot of stuff to carry and I use the Xterra for that. It has 125K on it, I am concerned for it's long term reliability. The CX5 is it's successor. A 6 sedan would have worked except it has the dog engine in it. I was all set to buy a Ford Fusion Sport with AWD, 325hp V6 twin turbo, would have bought a $400 tune reflash to boost to 400hp and had a lot of fun. Sale price and depreciation killed the deal. See, I want power in a Sport Sedan, not so much of a big deal in a SUV/CUV. The Xterra is a heavier vehicle than the CX5 yet has less HP than the CX5, so when it comes to the 99% of the type of driving I do (paved roads) the Xterra experience has been more than adequate and the CX5 should be also due to it being lighter and more HP. I am in the same boat as you, but man, I have used the space in my CX5. That said, I would have been better off with a Jeep Grand Cherokee sized vehicle 10% of the time. Again though, that came with a very high fuel cost for that slight bit of added utility.

Lastly, Molester does not own or drive a CX5 on a regular basis, so I have no idea where his fantasy CX5 driving experience comes from. He reads facts and figures and watches videos, yet has no relevant experience to draw from when it comes to the CX5. Yet just can't help himself to stop posting in the CX5 forum with 6 comparisons.

Because the CX5 and Mazda 6 share the same engine, don't you know?

 

[Xeler8ing]

Because the CX5 and Mazda 6 share the same engine, don't you know?

Not to mention certain chassis components as well along with the Mazda 3

 

[jthj]

Aren’t all 3 on the same modular platform?

 

[Xeler8ing]

Aren’t all 3 on the same modular platform?

Pretty much and they are all different in their own way