When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
We moved to the heart of the city and needed to consolidate to one car. Before this I had a WRX and a track prepped Mini Cooper, and my wife had a CR-V that was up there in miles.
We settled on a CX-5, as it was the only CUV I didn't absolutely hate after test driving (in fact, I'll never admit it to my wife, but I actually enjoy driving it), with a promise that when we get more room and a second parking spot, I get to buy another sports car, and my wife keeps the CX-5.
We moved to the heart of the city and needed to consolidate to one car. Before this I had a WRX and a track prepped Mini Cooper, and my wife had a CR-V that was up there in miles.
We settled on a CX-5, as it was the only CUV I didn't absolutely hate after test driving (in fact, I'll never admit it to my wife, but I actually enjoy driving it), with a promise that when we get more room and a second parking spot, I get to buy another sports car, and my wife keeps the CX-5.
haha that seems fair. I love the WRX's - never had one but have friends with them and they're all huge fans.
I agree I think, the CX-5 drives generally quite nicely even if it doesn't have tons of power. My fear is that the CX-3 would be even less power and drop below the threshold of what seems acceptable but I've never driven one. Did you drive the CX-3 when you were choosing?
haha that seems fair. I love the WRX's - never had one but have friends with them and they're all huge fans.
I agree I think, the CX-5 drives generally quite nicely even if it doesn't have tons of power. My fear is that the CX-3 would be even less power and drop below the threshold of what seems acceptable but I've never driven one. Did you drive the CX-3 when you were choosing?
I didn't drive the CX-3 because we needed at a minimum a car that could do what her CR-V could do. However, this past summer I had one as a rental car for two weeks while in Puerto Rico, and I didn't mind it - but it was definitely cramped for two people and luggage. It's a tall subcompact hatch, and doesn't pretend to be anything else.
If I had to choose between a CX-3 and a Mazda3 hatch, I'd take the Mazda3 all day long.
Needed a great seating position and range of motion for adjustments, and have had good experiences with a couple of prior Mazdas.
Tried out pretty much every crossover/SUV type car on the market in the past 10yrs. Some failed to have the seat properly centered and aligned with the steering wheel. Some failed to have supportive enough seats. Some seats were plenty supportive and long enough (on the upper leg), but failed to have sufficient range of adjustments. Some had crappy fuel efficiency, or bad track records on maintenance, or were significantly costlier to insure.
In the end, relatively newer models of the Mazda CX-5 were spot-on. Supportive enough seats, with long enough support on the upper leg and sufficient adjustability. Wanted an AWD, plenty of room for four adults and gear, with reasonable fuel economy, but not overly large. Loved the layout, size, features.
CX-5 -- the right compact size; not too large, so smaller turning radius and length equates to ease of entry/exit around town.
Japanese designed, built in Hiroshima plant.
Decent fuel economy, though not stellar.
Handling is fairly sporty, high enough for better visibility (compared to Miata and 3-series).
Plenty of power and acceleration.
Grand Touring model is well-appointed, quiet while driving.
Relatively low maintenance and insurance costs.
And, the seating arrangement is right: centered, supportive, firm enough, long enough, adjustable.
The CX-3 wouldn't meet all of these needs. Some other similar type models on the market wouldn't be so fuel efficient or low maintenance. Liked the Jaguar E-pace and F-pace, but were generally double the price of the similar CX-5. Liked the Land Rover Evoque, but again at 2x the CX-5 price for a roughly similar platform. Like the Subaru Forester, but the seating was off. Liked a couple models of the Jeeps, but was skittish about the reliability; didn't want to go with a Wrangler; wanted better fuel economy. Thought the CX-5 was a better value than the Toyota RAV-4, the Hyundai Tucson, the Kia Sportage. Loved the Nissan Rogue, but seating was uncentered and had insufficient adjustability. Liked the Lincoln MK series crossover/SUVs. Seating in the VW Tiguan was spot-on, but was skittish about maintenance track record and costs. Loved the BMW X1, but at 75% more than a similar vintage and ~3-5x expected maintenance costs over similar life. Love the Alfa Stelvio, but being a new entrant and Alfas having the maintenance reliability track record they do ... Well, in short, the CX-5 was hard to say "no" to.
And, in the end, I like the look of the CX-5.
Who knows? Perhaps in 150Kmi on the CX-5, the Jag and Alfa will have proven themselves "winners" in all categories, and then I'll move to one of those. We'll see. Though I suspect Mazda will have "upped" their game as well.
Last edited by GAsierra; 02-14-2021 at 12:10 PM.
Reason: spelling
Needed a great seating position and range of motion for adjustments, and have had good experiences with a couple of prior Mazdas.
Tried out pretty much every crossover/SUV type car on the market in the past 10yrs. Some failed to have the seat properly centered and aligned with the steering wheel. Some failed to have supportive enough seats. Some seats were plenty supportive and long enough (on the upper leg), but failed to have sufficient range of adjustments. Some had crappy fuel efficiency, or bad track records on maintenance, or were significantly costlier to insure.
In the end, relatively newer models of the Mazda CX-5 were spot-on. Supportive enough seats, with long enough support on the upper leg and sufficient adjustability. Wanted an AWD, plenty of room for four adults and gear, with reasonable fuel economy, but not overly large. Loved the layout, size, features.
CX-5 -- the right compact size; not to large, so smaller turning radius and length equates to ease of entry/exit around town.
Japanese designed, built in Hiroshima plant.
Decent fuel economy, though not stellar.
Handling is fairly sporty, high enough for better visibility (compared to Miata and 3-series).
Plenty of power and acceleration.
Grand Touring model is well-appointed, quiet while driving.
Relatively low maintenance and insurance costs.
And, the seating arrangement is right: centered, supportive, firm enough, long enough, adjustable.
The CX-3 wouldn't meet all of these needs. Some other similar type models on the market wouldn't be so fuel efficient or low maintenance. Liked the Jaguar E-pace and F-pace, but were generally double the price of the similar CX-5. Liked the Land Rover Evoque, but again at 2x the CX-5 price for a roughly similar platform. Like the Subaru Forester, but the seating was off. Liked a couple models of the Jeeps, but was skittish about the reliability; didn't want to go with a Wrangler; wanted better fuel economy. Thought the CX-5 was a better value than the Toyota RAV-4, the Hyundai Tucson, the Kia Sportage. Loved the Nissan Rogue, but seating was uncentered and had insufficient adjustability. Liked the Lincoln MK series crossover/SUVs. Seating in the VW Tiguan was spot-on, but was skittish about maintenance track record and costs. Loved the BMW X1, but at 75% more than a similar vintage and ~3-5x expected maintenance costs over similar life. Love the Alfa Stelvio, but being a new entrant and Alfas having the maintenance reliability track record they do ... Well, in short, the CX-5 was hard to say "no" to.
And, in the end, I like the look of the CX-5.
Who knows? Perhaps in 150Kmi on the CX-05, the Jag and Alfa will have proven themselves "winners" in all categories, and then I'll move to one of those. We'll see. Though I suspect Mazda will have "upped" their game as well.
Well you certainly did your homework. Great summary. I initially was looking at the CX-30 and posted here, but was a bit too small/tight for my needs. I was impressed by the CX-5's reliability, handling, entry level luxury and timeless good looks. I haven't driven it too much yet and if would have given it more thought I would have taken a nice long trip on the Interstate to New Paltz NY (about 90 miles each way) Saturday to get a better feeel for handling and seat comfort - but so far, so good. Not impressed with current mixed riving ~23mpg (using winter blend gas doesn't help) and the dealer experience.
Well you certainly did your homework. Great summary. I initially was looking at the CX-30 and posted here, but was a bit too small/tight for my needs. I was impressed by the CX-5's reliability, handling, entry level luxury and timeless good looks. I haven't driven it too much yet and if would have given it more thought I would have taken a nice long trip on the Interstate to New Paltz NY (about 90 miles each way) Saturday to get a better feeel for handling and seat comfort - but so far, so good. Not impressed with current mixed riving ~23mpg (using winter blend gas doesn't help) and the dealer experience.
We've taken ours several times on the 4 hour drive between Miami and Orlando/Tampa, and it's been extremely comfortable for the drive. Range definitely improves once it's on the highway though - for in-town driving in Miami, I'm lucky to get 250 miles from a tank, but when I take it on longer drives, I come close to 400 miles.
I was impressed by the CX-5's reliability, handling, entry level luxury and timeless good looks ... Not impressed with current mixed riving ~23mpg (using winter blend gas doesn't help) ...
For me on the 2016.5 CX-5:
.
Mixed-mode driving = ~26mpg -- Of course it's heavily dependent on one's mix of driving, how heavy on the throttle a person is, how much overall highway time is part of the mix, the terrain, etc. On the Mazda 3, I've often gotten 22-23mpg for the same essential driving style and mix of roads. IIRC, the old Miata (1.8L) averaged about 26mpg with a mostly-city mix of roads.
Highway trips = a bit over 30mpg -- With more than 95% at 70-75mph and <5% tooling around for gas/food/lodging. At 65mph, it bumps up another couple of miles per gallon. Not all that bad for a "SUV" ... though, I also was hoping for a bit better. Still, it seems comparable to most of the more fuel-efficient cars of similar type. Noticeably better than most of the bigger, heavier ones. Seems to roughly match the EPA estimates for fuel-efficiency (from the window sticker).
City-heavy trips = ~23-24mpg or so -- A bit better than the EPA estimates, but many of the "city" streets I do are fairly low speeds and a sedate pace with the other traffic around (not a lot of hard accelerating). Almost exclusively flat, for the "city" roads.
Lead-foot "bomber" mode = single-digits mpg -- Nothing like seeing how 100mi of appallingly "heavy" use of the throttle and "Sport" mode weighs on the fuel-efficiency, though. Great performance, very zippy acceleration, but jeez it does start chugging the gas. Thankfully, I mostly drive like a "granny" anyway, so it's little loss.
@bobm , what was your previous Audi A4 AllRoad's fuel-efficiency, again? (Can't seem to find where you posted that.) Not exactly a crossover/SUV, but still. What was the engine configuration in that AllRoad? 4cyl or 6cl? Turbo, supercharged, or normally-aspirated?
Mixed-mode driving = ~26mpg -- Of course it's heavily dependent on one's mix of driving, how heavy on the throttle a person is, how much overall highway time is part of the mix, the terrain, etc. On the Mazda 3, I've often gotten 22-23mpg for the same essential driving style and mix of roads. IIRC, the old Miata (1.8L) averaged about 26mpg with a mostly-city mix of roads.
Highway trips = a bit over 30mpg -- With more than 95% at 70-75mph and <5% tooling around for gas/food/lodging. At 65mph, it bumps up another couple of miles per gallon. Not all that bad for a "SUV" ... though, I also was hoping for a bit better. Still, it seems comparable to most of the more fuel-efficient cars of similar type. Noticeably better than most of the bigger, heavier ones. Seems to roughly match the EPA estimates for fuel-efficiency (from the window sticker).
City-heavy trips = ~23-24mpg or so -- A bit better than the EPA estimates, but many of the "city" streets I do are fairly low speeds and a sedate pace with the other traffic around (not a lot of hard accelerating). Almost exclusively flat, for the "city" roads.
Lead-foot "bomber" mode = single-digits mpg -- Nothing like seeing how 100mi of appallingly "heavy" use of the throttle and "Sport" mode weighs on the fuel-efficiency, though. Great performance, very zippy acceleration, but jeez it does start chugging the gas. Thankfully, I mostly drive like a "granny" anyway, so it's little loss.
@bobm , what was your previous Audi A4 AllRoad's fuel-efficiency, again? (Can't seem to find where you posted that.) Not exactly a crossover/SUV, but still. What was the engine configuration in that AllRoad? 4cyl or 6cl? Turbo, supercharged, or normally-aspirated?
With my Allroad I was getting about 28 in mixed driving and about 33-34 on straight highway averaging about 75mph or so. I used premium - Shell or BP - 93 OCTANE.It's a 4 cylinder turbo. There are days when I slap my head and say the the heck was I thinking swapping out that car, other days not so much....
02-07-2021, 02:06 PM
Why'd you go CX5?
