Test drove a '19 GT-R and Signature today

At this stage I would just hope the Turbo trickles down to the lesser trims. Signatures are MSRPing close to $39k around here and not everyone is a fan of brown leather and wood trim. (barf)
 
At this stage I would just hope the Turbo trickles down to the lesser trims. Signatures are MSRPing close to $39k around here and not everyone is a fan of brown leather and wood trim. (barf)


Yeah, but honestly, you can get the CX-5 Signature for 35-36K and the wood so minimal you will wonder where it is. The brown leather is nice but I agree, I don't understand whey they don't give you the same options that they have in the Mazda 6. Makes no sense.
 
Have you guys seen the brown leather? It's so dark that it could be mistaken for black.

I like it actually, makes it different.
 
Does anyone know if Mazda realizes more profit from a loaded Signature vs a basic Sport? Or any other trim level comparisons of profit. Wondering if that would explain offering the turbo in only higher trim levels [like Subaru does/did].
 
Yeah, but honestly, you can get the CX-5 Signature for 35-36K and the wood so minimal you will wonder where it is. The brown leather is nice but I agree, I don't understand whey they don't give you the same options that they have in the Mazda 6. Makes no sense.
I would love to see the turbo come down to the Touring. That's more my feeling on a price for a CX-5.

I mean, I paid $25k for mine. $35-36k still not very appealing.
 
Last edited:
with that said,
when is Pano roof coming? you know Mazda has to plan for this now.

Re: addind Auto-CC. They simply had to. Every other car company has it... how are you NOT going to offer it? That's all it is. No slight at all to being the 'drivers car company'. Is there any car company that DOESN'T have this now?
 
If people say they want more handling options or color options, I would hope Mazda would respond to that. But I have not heard anybody (serious) about he handling of the CX5 (as compared to competition).

and this is why we have aftermarket ;)
if Mazda offered all the performance upgrades from factory ala AMG or M, I could see the aftermarket companies selling less and less of their products.
 
From my experience,
manufacturers and dealers seem to always make more profit from a loaded vehicle.
But with that said, it's always more of a deal to get a car that comes loaded than adding the options individually.



Does anyone know if Mazda realizes more profit from a loaded Signature vs a basic Sport? Or any other trim level comparisons of profit. Wondering if that would explain offering the turbo in only higher trim levels [like Subaru does/did].
 
From my experience,
manufacturers and dealers seem to always make more profit from a loaded vehicle.
But with that said, it's always more of a deal to get a car that comes loaded than adding the options individually.
Yeah if I recall, the GT was the best selling trim (before they added GTR and Sig).
 
Have you guys seen the brown leather? It's so dark that it could be mistaken for black.

I like it actually, makes it different.


I agree, the guys whining about the brown leather and wood trim probably haven't even seen the car in person. The brown leather looks more black and the wood trim blends in and is hardly noticeable. You have to look twice to even see it. Maybe they should have left it off.
 
I agree, the guys whining about the brown leather and wood trim probably haven't even seen the car in person. The brown leather looks more black and the wood trim blends in and is hardly noticeable. You have to look twice to even see it. Maybe they should have left it off.
Well I'm stopping at the dealer this week so I'll see in person. I've just seen pics online.
 
that would be good, but from a marketing standpoint,
trickling the turbo down to the touring trim wouldn't make the touring the affordable well packaged value that it is.
Mazda has to differentiate their premium models.
But with that said, MAYBE in the near future, who knows, the prev gen Cx-5 all had the 2.0 engines right and the whole line up was upgraded to the 2.5.





I would love to see the turbo come down to the Touring. That's more my feeling on a price for a CX-5.

I mean, I paid $25k for mine. $35-36k still not very appealing.
 
Just be prepared to feel less satisfied with your car if you drive the turbo.
Sure... I mean faster is faster. But I can't get it in a Gen 1 package so there is less chance of me feeling less satisfied.

I've never driven a turbo before so am genuinely curious.
 
that would be good, but from a marketing standpoint,
trickling the turbo down to the touring trim wouldn't make the touring the affordable well packaged value that it is.
Mazda has to differentiate their premium models.
But with that said, MAYBE in the near future, who knows, the prev gen Cx-5 all had the 2.0 engines right and the whole line up was upgraded to the 2.5.
I mean...is there that big of a price difference between turbo and none turbo 2.5L? Didn't think there was but don't remember.
 
I mean...is there that big of a price difference between turbo and none turbo 2.5L? Didn't think there was but don't remember.

Seems like about $2k [for other brands as well]. Bet it doesn't cost them anywhere near that much to build it!
 
i mean i doubt it..perhaps $1,000 in real costs? (just throwing out a number)
but maybe they need to move the current 2.5 engines somehow.
and if it does cost and additional $1000 for a 2.5T engine i doubt that's the price they would have to mark it up by,




I mean...is there that big of a price difference between turbo and none turbo 2.5L? Didn't think there was but don't remember.
 
It sets it apart, if you know what to look for.

If the cost savings to leave it off was substantial, I agree and could have done without it.

However, like I said before, I like it though as its different and sets it apart from the other trims.
 

New Threads and Articles

Back