Trying to decide between 2016.5 CX-5 GT or a 2017 Touring?

X

xscarlet

so I've been trying to decide between two cars a 2017 cx-5 touring or a 2016.5 GT and I still cannot decide which one to get. the 2017 is nice but the 2016.5 has a tiny bit more ground clearance which would be great for camping. I'm most concerned about reliability as I heard the 2016.5 can have some brake issues with the back brakes. wondering what would be the best option?
 
I have a 16.5 GT and had no issues since I bought it new in 10/31/16. Just over 88k. I heard a lot of good things about this 16.5 1/2 year. I've had no issues with brakes. I did recently have by back discs and pads replaced. Thought it was odd that the backs went first but apparently it's how Mazda has the brake system setup in regards to weight distribution.
 
The rear brakes had some issues with the calipers and the way they worked with the EPB Electronic Parking brake. They might have been replaced already, mine haven't (55k mi). Just be sure to read up on them before servicing because not following the procedure will wreck them.
It's also true that these crossovers use a rear bias for the braking distribution and the rear pads wear quicker than the fronts.
 
What's the mileage on each one. If they're close I'd go with the 16.5. That year is basically rock solid.
I have a 16 Touring that was purchased in April of 2015 and have had zero problems. It's almost 10 years old. Plus I've never had any problems with the rear calipers.
 
wlong01 said:
What's the mileage on each one. If they're close I'd go with the 16.5. That year is basically rock solid.
I have a 16 Touring that was purchased in April of 2015 and have had zero problems. It's almost 10 years old. Plus I've never had any problems with the rear calipers.
Click to expand...
they are both around 70k miles think the 2017 has slightly more.
 
Mazdiod2 said:
The rear brakes had some issues with the calipers and the way they worked with the EPB Electronic Parking brake. They might have been replaced already, mine haven't (55k mi). Just be sure to read up on them before servicing because not following the procedure will wreck them.
It's also true that these crossovers use a rear bias for the braking distribution and the rear pads wear quicker than the fronts.
Click to expand...
ah I see okay interesting and good to know for sure!
 
SBMongoos said:
I have a 16.5 GT and had no issues since I bought it new in 10/31/16. Just over 88k. I heard a lot of good things about this 16.5 1/2 year. I've had no issues with brakes. I did recently have by back discs and pads replaced. Thought it was odd that the backs went first but apparently it's how Mazda has the brake system setup in regards to weight distribution.
Click to expand...
ohh I didn't know that! the only mazda I've had was a protege and I miss that car so much lol was definitely nothing compared to an suv
 
2016 and earlier had the rear brake caliper problem. 2016.5 did not IIRC.

With the one you're looking at being a GT, I think the LED daytime running lights had issues if so equipped.

Both vehicles you're looking at sound pretty nice low mileage examples. The 2017 body style looks more modern. The 2016.5 suspension will handle better but ride more firm.
 
Sounds like you can't go wrong with either one. My personal opinion - I prefer driving my 16 over my 19. The 16 seems more nimble, responsive (not in acceleration but in handling). The 19 blows the 16 away in acceleration being it's a turbo.
 
SBMongoos said:
I have a 16.5 GT and had no issues since I bought it new in 10/31/16. Just over 88k. I heard a lot of good things about this 16.5 1/2 year. I've had no issues with brakes. I did recently have by back discs and pads replaced. Thought it was odd that the backs went first but apparently it's how Mazda has the brake system setup in regards to weight distribution.
Click to expand...
The rear pads are much smaller, so it stands to reason they would wear faster. Ideally they are sized to, on average, wear at the same rate as the fronts.
wlong01 said:
Sounds like you can't go wrong with either one. My personal opinion - I prefer driving my 16 over my 19. The 16 seems more nimble, responsive (not in acceleration but in handling). The 19 blows the 16 away in acceleration being it's a turbo.
Click to expand...
I found the same going from '14 to '17. You need suspension mods on Gen 2 to get Gen 1 handling feel, but you'll probably lose comfort in the process.
 
My '17 GT has been solid except for the belt tensioner seepage. Short drives mostly. 55k miles.
GPS SD card went bad. Replaced easily.
I agree. Both are good choices.

BTW, I believe '17 is slower due to being heavier from extra noise mitigating materials.
If you don't care about tranquility.... 16.5 might be a better choice.
 
Other than perhaps more pad wear to rear from Electronic Brake Force Distribution still on stock calipers on my ‘15. EBD on many makes causes more wear on the rear pads. I see the same on my Infiniti and Lexus as well and consider it normal these days IMO.
 
HyFlyer said:
2016 and earlier had the rear brake caliper problem. 2016.5 did not IIRC.

With the one you're looking at being a GT, I think the LED daytime running lights had issues if so equipped.

Both vehicles you're looking at sound pretty nice low mileage examples. The 2017 body style looks more modern. The 2016.5 suspension will handle better but ride more firm.
Click to expand...

I understand that the 16.5 GT doesn't have the DRL issue. According to Mazda.
 
N7turbo said:
The rear pads are much smaller, so it stands to reason they would wear faster. Ideally they are sized to, on average, wear at the same rate as the fronts.

I found the same going from '14 to '17. You need suspension mods on Gen 2 to get Gen 1 handling feel, but you'll probably lose comfort in the process.
Click to expand...
Thought it was odd I had to replace the rotors though. I should have stated rotors and not discs above.
 
If driver assistance features are important to you, the 16.5 Adaptive Cruise does not work below ~16 mph. The 17 has full range adaptive cruise. Neither has acceptable lane centering functionality.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

A
Trying to Decide Between CX-5 or CX-9
Replies
11
Views
2K
davmac
D
F
Looking to buy a used or CPO 2016 CX-5 GT or T
Replies
8
Views
2K
bmninada
B
F
My Thoughts on a 2017 CX-5 Touring
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
Xeler8ing
X

New Posts

Back