Thinking of getting a CX-5, how's the reliability?

[myke232]

I am coming from driving Hondas and Toyotas for the past 15 years... (loved my honda btw).

I need something with ample cargo space, but also need a manual transmission... which leads me to the CX-5.

I've never owned a Mazda, but have read some things about the reliability... some bad, some good...

Any insight?

 

[fdew]

I am coming from driving Hondas and Toyotas for the past 15 years... (loved my honda btw).

I need something with ample cargo space, but also need a manual transmission... which leads me to the CX-5.

I've never owned a Mazda, but have read some things about the reliability... some bad, some good...

Any insight?

At one time Mazda had a partnership with Ford. there were some problems. Now Mazda is all Mazda. Reliability and warranty service have been good. check this thread.

https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123856583-In-the-market-How-are-the-2014-s-holding-up

 

[wlong01]

I am coming from driving Hondas and Toyotas for the past 15 years... (loved my honda btw).

I need something with ample cargo space, but also need a manual transmission... which leads me to the CX-5.

I've never owned a Mazda, but have read some things about the reliability... some bad, some good...

Any insight?

Have owned my CX-5 for about 17 months, zero problems. Tight, smooth ride, plenty of room, decent mpg, fun to drive, great safety tech.
Owned two prior Mazdas, both solid. We also have a CR-V and I'd take the Mazda over the Honda any day. Only thing better about the Honda is the sound system. It's the upgraded Bose system.

 

[teradyl]

I've had a 2013 Touring Model for 4 years and 28k miles. So far so good. Only problem I've had was the battery went after only 2 years.

 

[yrwei52]

I am coming from driving Hondas and Toyotas for the past 15 years... (loved my honda btw).
I need something with ample cargo space, but also need a manual transmission... which leads me to the CX-5.
I've never owned a Mazda, but have read some things about the reliability... some bad, some good...
Any insight?

We have a 1998 Honda CR-V with 174,569 miles and it's our first Japanese car we bought. It certainly meets my expectation and it's our most reliable vehicle we've ever owned. Honestly if your concerns are only on reliability and longevity, I think getting a Toyota or Honda is still the way to go. Mazda's reliability, like you've found out, some bad, some good. It's hit and miss. Since you want a stick shift compact CUV, I guess you have no choice but the Mazda CX-5 Sport!

 

[Unobtanium]

2015, currently don't have many miles on it, but it's held up rather well and I am pleased. Odo should roll over on 52K mi this week, and nothing has broken that wasn't environmental (flooded rear diff ($2600 repair bill, covered under warranty, body-panel cladding blown off by huge chunk of concrete on freeway)

 

[myke232]

At one time Mazda had a partnership with Ford. there were some problems. Now Mazda is all Mazda. Reliability and warranty service have been good. check this thread.

Interesting... sounds promising...

Have owned my CX-5 for about 17 months, zero problems. Tight, smooth ride, plenty of room, decent mpg, fun to drive, great safety tech.
Owned two prior Mazdas, both solid. We also have a CR-V and I'd take the Mazda over the Honda any day. Only thing better about the Honda is the sound system. It's the upgraded Bose system.

Good to hear. Also, I keep reading about how the driving experience is more fun... looking forward to driving one...

I've had a 2013 Touring Model for 4 years and 28k miles. So far so good. Only problem I've had was the battery went after only 2 years.

Cool...

Since you want a stick shift compact CUV, I guess you have no choice but the Mazda CX-5 Sport!

Yeah, the only other one that's close in size that comes in a stick is the HR-V... but it's just a bit too small. Plus the Mazda has a better feature set for the price...

 

[piotrek91]

Yeah, the only other one that's close in size that comes in a stick is the HR-V... but it's just a bit too small. Plus the Mazda has a better feature set for the price...

The Subaru Forester might be worth looking at.. but if reliability is a top concern, I would stick with the CX-5.
Too many reports of Subaru oil consumption out there.
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f183/oil-consumption-poll-343889/

 

[yrwei52]

Yeah, the only other one that's close in size that comes in a stick is the HR-V... but it's just a bit too small. Plus the Mazda has a better feature set for the price...

Honda HR-V is compatible to Mazda's CX-3 size wise. If the stick shift is what you really want, CX-5 is a good choice, and it's your only choice!

 

[ddtigger1]

I like my 2016.5 CX Grand Touring W/ tech. I came from 16 years with BMW. SO FAR SO GOOD...

 

[robertmazda]

My 2013 has 69,000 miles. I do all of my own routine maintenance and the car has never had any kind of repair. Bulletproof!!

 

[old-school]

SWMBO has a 2015 CX-5 with 42k miles on it. No issues.

I'm driving a '06 Ford Escape Hybrid with 275k miles. The Escape is reported to be designed by Mazda and carries the MRZ motor. IIRC the current Escape motors are Ford licensed MRZ Mazda motors built in Mexico.

Will the CX-5 go 300k miles? I intend to find out. But if you want insurance against your money I'd stick with Toyota or Honda. Lacking forward thinking (CVT, really?) and as profoundly uninteresting (read boring) as they are, they're likely a better bet until Mazda's SkyActiv has more time in the saddle.

Right now I'd seriously avoid Subaru, who seems to think burning a quart of oil every 1,200 miles is SOP. When leaded fuel was the norm that indicated the cylinders needed to be honed and the pistons re-ringed. I've run aircooled VW's over 100k miles that didn't burn oil any where near that bad before I put new jugs on them. Not feelin' the love at all on really poor execution of an inherently stable platform. Full disclosure - we've owned 3 Subaru's.

On the other hand SkyActiv is a lot of proven hotrod mechanical ideas and a bunch of new techno ideas all rolled into one synergistic piece of hardware. (I'm talking about the vehicle, I could care less about the infotainment etc. add-on fluff.) I'm at a point in my life I can risk a purely capitalist decision to support a small innovative collection of bad to the bone, hardcore engineers that love to drive and build cars for real people. If it blows up at 100k miles I'll likely not give them another chance. If I get 200k miles I'll definitely buy another. If it approaches 300k miles I'll buy my kids a new model when they give me grand children.

 

[yrwei52]

At one time Mazda had a partnership with Ford. there were some problems. Now Mazda is all Mazda. Reliability and warranty service have been good.

I'd agree with you on this partially. Yes I do believe the reliability "should" be better based on some limited evidence. But 50,000 or 60,000 miles on 4 years without problem means not much as far as reliability and longevity go. Warranty service? It's been the same for all these years, there's no better warranty coverage and dealer service since Ford left!

Mazda hasn't done anything since Ford left to resolve the major issue on its front transfer case, or PTU, on CX-9's AWD since 2007! At least Mazda should add a drain hole and change the maintenance schedule to 20,000 miles instead of "life time". Even Ford added a drain hole on its PTU for certain overseas market on the Explorer AWD. No, Mazda did nothing!

 

[yrwei52]

Sorry guys.... IMO.....a problem free 200K+ mile '16 Toyota or Honda that never saw the dealer will be an extreme exception. No one thinks of a '96 Explorer as any symbol of reliability but mine has essentially been bulletproof as well. Pre-2K vehicles are far less complicated than ones sold today.

Is you Ford Explorer AWD?

As far as CX-5 goes, here we saw someone with major SkyActiv-MT manual transmission problem at 53,000 miles. We saw several who had failed SkyActiv-Drive automatic transmission at only several thousand miles. We saw guys had SkyActiv-G 2.5L engine replaced due to unfixable oil leak. We saw a guy fought with Mazda North American Operations to get his whole new CX-5 replaced due to unsolvable airbag warning. I understand these could be just isolated cases, but we also have to remember that there're more CX-5 owners who don't post here even if they have major problems! And consider there're only ⅓ number of CX-5 owner's for each CX-5 MY than Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4, and with only 4 model years, we know these major problems, not related to complicated high tech issues for modern vehicles, are also likely under-reported as there're far less CX-5 owners than those Honda's and Toyota's. When I was with VW Passat forum for many years, and Passat is not well-known for good reliability, I'd seen all kind of problems but none of them involved engine or transmission replacement during warranty period!

On the other hand, we saw many CX-5 owners having good experience so far. This makes me think that the reliability for Mazda is a hit and miss thing. Most people may get good quality CX-5 but a few others may not. This could be traced by the problems to be a small car manufacture like Mazda. They have less power to control suppliers who actually make parts for Mazda. So sometimes a bad batch of parts caused problems like some of the automatic transmissions installed in 2015.

 

[yrwei52]

... Will the CX-5 go 300k miles? I intend to find out. But if you want insurance against your money I'd stick with Toyota or Honda. Lacking forward thinking (CVT, really?) and as profoundly uninteresting (read boring) as they are, they're likely a better bet until Mazda's SkyActiv has more time in the saddle.

(iagree)

... On the other hand SkyActiv is a lot of proven hotrod mechanical ideas and a bunch of new techno ideas all rolled into one synergistic piece of hardware. (I'm talking about the vehicle, I could care less about the infotainment etc. add-on fluff.) I'm at a point in my life I can risk a purely capitalist decision to support a small innovative collection of bad to the bone, hardcore engineers that love to drive and build cars for real people. If it blows up at 100k miles I'll likely not give them another chance. If I get 200k miles I'll definitely buy another. If it approaches 300k miles I'll buy my kids a new model when they give me grand children.

(drinks)

 

[sillyxone]

On the other hand SkyActiv is a lot of proven hotrod mechanical ideas and a bunch of new techno ideas all rolled into one synergistic piece of hardware. (I'm talking about the vehicle, I could care less about the infotainment etc. add-on fluff.) I'm at a point in my life I can risk a purely capitalist decision to support a small innovative collection of bad to the bone, hardcore engineers that love to drive and build cars for real people. If it blows up at 100k miles I'll likely not give them another chance. If I get 200k miles I'll definitely buy another. If it approaches 300k miles I'll buy my kids a new model when they give me grand children.

(2thumbs) A major reason for the CX-5 to be my first step outside of a big family full of Toyota and Honda.

 

[Unobtanium]

SWMBO has a 2015 CX-5 with 42k miles on it. No issues.

I'm driving a '06 Ford Escape Hybrid with 275k miles. The Escape is reported to be designed by Mazda and carries the MRZ motor. IIRC the current Escape motors are Ford licensed MRZ Mazda motors built in Mexico.

Will the CX-5 go 300k miles? I intend to find out. But if you want insurance against your money I'd stick with Toyota or Honda. Lacking forward thinking (CVT, really?) and as profoundly uninteresting (read boring) as they are, they're likely a better bet until Mazda's SkyActiv has more time in the saddle.

Right now I'd seriously avoid Subaru, who seems to think burning a quart of oil every 1,200 miles is SOP. When leaded fuel was the norm that indicated the cylinders needed to be honed and the pistons re-ringed. I've run aircooled VW's over 100k miles that didn't burn oil any where near that bad before I put new jugs on them. Not feelin' the love at all on really poor execution of an inherently stable platform. Full disclosure - we've owned 3 Subaru's.

On the other hand SkyActiv is a lot of proven hotrod mechanical ideas and a bunch of new techno ideas all rolled into one synergistic piece of hardware. (I'm talking about the vehicle, I could care less about the infotainment etc. add-on fluff.) I'm at a point in my life I can risk a purely capitalist decision to support a small innovative collection of bad to the bone, hardcore engineers that love to drive and build cars for real people. If it blows up at 100k miles I'll likely not give them another chance. If I get 200k miles I'll definitely buy another. If it approaches 300k miles I'll buy my kids a new model when they give me grand children.

Then might I suggest the new Viper, Porsche GT3, or if you're on more of a budget, the Lotus Exige?

 

[craigo]

Is you Ford Explorer AWD?

As far as CX-5 goes, here we saw someone with major SkyActiv-MT manual transmission problem at 53,000 miles. We saw several who had failed SkyActiv-Drive automatic transmission at only several thousand miles. We saw guys had SkyActiv-G 2.5L engine replaced due to unfixable oil leak. We saw a guy fought with Mazda North American Operations to get his whole new CX-5 replaced due to unsolvable airbag warning. I understand these could be just isolated cases, but we also have to remember that there're more CX-5 owners who don't post here even if they have major problems! And consider there're only ⅓ number of CX-5 owner's for each CX-5 MY than Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4, and with only 4 model years, we know these major problems, not related to complicated high tech issues for modern vehicles, are also likely under-reported as there're far less CX-5 owners than those Honda's and Toyota's. When I was with VW Passat forum for many years, and Passat is not well-known for good reliability, I'd seen all kind of problems but none of them involved engine or transmission replacement during warranty period!

On the other hand, we saw many CX-5 owners having good experience so far. This makes me think that the reliability for Mazda is a hit and miss thing. Most people may get good quality CX-5 but a few others may not. This could be traced by the problems to be a small car manufacture like Mazda. They have less power to control suppliers who actually make parts for Mazda. So sometimes a bad batch of parts caused problems like some of the automatic transmissions installed in 2015.

Only a year or two ago Honda was dealing with significant vibration problems in the CRV's engine. One fix was to raise idle speed, which impacted fuel mileage. Those threads generated hundreds of pages of complaints and eventually Honda even had to adjust the tailgate (a contributing factor) among other things.

No car or maker is perfect and it is unreasonable to assume it ever will be. The longest threads here are people posting pics of their ride and the longest complaint thread is for folks 1-2 mpg off EPA. Not bad!

 

[Unobtanium]

Only a year or two ago Honda was dealing with significant vibration problems in the CRV's engine. One fix was to raise idle speed, which impacted fuel mileage. Those threads generated hundreds of pages of complaints and eventually Honda even had to adjust the tailgate (a contributing factor) among other things.

No car or maker is perfect and it is unreasonable to assume it ever will be. The longest threads here are people posting pics of their ride and the longest complaint thread is for folks 1-2 mpg off EPA. Not bad!

This is part of why I am so pleased with my CX-5. I had looking into the Pilot, the RAV 4 V6, and the Subaru Forester, and each one seemed to have serious fleas.

CR-V looks like a miniature minivan, and I don't hate myself enough to own one.
Pilot has vibration issues due to DoD in their V6.
RAV4 V6 had a ton of transmission issues.
Foresters are totally gutless except for the 2.0XT, and that one takes premium fuel and it's still honestly not a very fast vehicle, so what's the point? The non-2.0XT's also seem to be suffering some oil burning issues.

The CX-5 has a weak windshield and is shy of its mpg rating, but it does compare right dead-middle of the pack (RAV,CRV,etc.) in real-world testing and my own experience, so...just the rating is BS. The actual performance is very comparable, while being peppier and handling better, and still boasting near identical ground clearance as the others.

The CRV and RAV have pathetic AWD systems. The CX-5, I used to dog on it, but actually having disabled the rear diff and seeing how much of a role it plays, I am very impressed! As well as how well it manages torque in corners, etc. It's pretty competent!

Anyway, all things considered, I still think that the CX-5 offers the best compromise for what ultimately amounts to a compromise vehicle that does nothing well, and everything decently. The CX-5 does these things more-decently than the rest, IMO

 

[Conrad 16.5]

This is part of why I am so pleased with my CX-5. I had looking into the Pilot, the RAV 4 V6, and the Subaru Forester, and each one seemed to have serious fleas.

CR-V looks like a miniature minivan, and I don't hate myself enough to own one.
Pilot has vibration issues due to DoD in their V6.
RAV4 V6 had a ton of transmission issues.
Foresters are totally gutless except for the 2.0XT, and that one takes premium fuel and it's still honestly not a very fast vehicle, so what's the point? The non-2.0XT's also seem to be suffering some oil burning issues.

The CX-5 has a weak windshield and is shy of its mpg rating, but it does compare right dead-middle of the pack (RAV,CRV,etc.) in real-world testing and my own experience, so...just the rating is BS. The actual performance is very comparable, while being peppier and handling better, and still boasting near identical ground clearance as the others.

The CRV and RAV have pathetic AWD systems. The CX-5, I used to dog on it, but actually having disabled the rear diff and seeing how much of a role it plays, I am very impressed! As well as how well it manages torque in corners, etc. It's pretty competent!

Anyway, all things considered, I still think that the CX-5 offers the best compromise for what ultimately amounts to a compromise vehicle that does nothing well, and everything decently. The CX-5 does these things more-decently than the rest, IMO

Are those fleas standard or optional?