Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Vans & Minivans Mazda Mazda5 Mazda5
1355 messages, Last post on Nov 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM
You are in the Mazda Mazda5 Forum. Your Host is Karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: idavidson (Jan 13, 2007 6:16 pm) 
|
|
|
Wow... like spring today! Hopefully real life won't intrude and we'll see you at the chat! The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule |
|
|
My wife and I saw a 5 the other day in a parking lot for the first time. We were taken in by the beauty of this vehicle, and it's smaller size is appealing to us now that our kids are older and will be moving on soon. Because of this, we won't have a need for a vehicle as large as our current '03 MPV. My main concern with the 5 is its small powerplant and whether or not its underpowered. Every editorial I've read says it is underpowered, while many people who own them say the manually equipped version is actually fairly peppy, while the auto is just okay. We would have to have an auto as my wife would be the primary driver and she absolutely refuses to drive a manual. We haven't test driven one yet, but I doubt I'd be impressed with such a small engine. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Mazda decided to go with such a small powerplant in a vehicle that weighs roughly as much as the MPV. A better choice would've been to go with the tried and true 3.0 V-6. Add VVTI and you've basically got a rocketship minivan that would get incredibly good fuel economy. The other thing we must consider is the fact the our MPV will be paid off in 2 years and will still have relatively low miles (about 50K by then). Do we keep our PeeVee and have NO car payments, or start all over again with a new set of payments and a vehicle we possibly may not be happy with? Now if Mazda were to get smart and upgrade the engine to the 3.0 VVTI then it might be worth taking the plunge....
|
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Mar 17, 2007 5:38 am) However, if the new set of payments doesn't hurt your budget and you're willing to have the less space in the Mazda5 to have the better handling and looks, go for the Mazda5. What sort of MPG is the MPV getting now? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Mar 17, 2007 5:38 am) With the exception of the crunching noise I, and others, get from the suspension on below freezing temperatures when first using the car, I am completely happy and satisfied with my 5. I LOVE my car. I am also happy with the power it has, as well, and can't understand why so many reviewers say it's underpowered. I mean, what the heck do they want this family vehicle to do? I have an '06, Touring automatic and I find it very peppy around town, and just fine on the highway. For the first time, the other day, I managed to peel out of a corner when merging onto a highway - it was so much fun and I was pleasantly surprised with my 5 (tires squealed and chirped in acceleration and the it went FAST and I immediately thought of all those naysayers who say it's underpowered and laughed them off  ). The ONLY time I have had an issue with my 5's power was when I was in a very HILLY North Carolina Mountain neighborhood with 5 other adults packed in, 4 of which were overweight (each of the 4 weighing well over 200 lbs.). Yes, the 5 struggled up those steep hills and I wondered if it was going to make it. But, it was fun! heehee That's the ONLY time it felt underpowered to me. When I drive on the highways on long trips, I routinely drive anywhere between 80 to 85 MPH, if I'm not caring about fuel economy, and, at times, go 90 to 95, and once reached passed 100mph. It was completely effortless in my 5 and the car did not feel strained - and this was with two adults, two children and luggage packed in. In conclusion, I think the 5's power is more than adequate and think that American car journalist have become jaded with all of the 240+hp machines that are made nowadays. There is no need for such power in most of those vehicles. Fun, yes, but not needed. The 5 has ample power and it's perfectly suited for the vehicle - and I like to drive fast. It all depends, though, on your opinion. So, you should definitely take a test drive and find out for yourself. I like the MPV, but I like the 5 much better. Edmunds themselves said it was a better overall package than the MPV. Plus, though the MPV does look nice, I think the 5 is better looking. To this day, after having the car for 1 year and 8 months, I still stare at it and am impressed with its looks - especially when I have it washed.  (FYI, highest mileage I ever got on my 5 was on a trip to DC from NY and I made 250 miles to HALF a tank, which would mean a full tank would have been around 500 miles. It fills up anywhere between 13 and 14 gallons, so that would make the highway MPG rating at least: 35.71. I doubt the MPV gets that.) |
|
|
|
|
From previous message: "and can't understand why so many reviewers say it's underpowered. " It isn't just the reviewers, many drivers today are on a power trip worse than what happened just before the 1974 oil crisis. Seems like today no one is satisfied unless they have at least 300 HP under the hood. I had a 1988 MX-6 with the 3-valve 4 cylinder engine and it put out approx. 122 HP and I and everyone who rode in it felt it had more than enough power. And we now have a Toyota Matrix with 130 HP that is just fine as a utility type vehicle. Won't win any drag races although when it is empty it can leave a few cars behind from a light. I also drive a 5 year old E-class MB with the 3.2 liter 220 HP engine and if I had any more power on a a daily basis than that, I would be in serious danger of causing harm to myself or others. And that is a pretty heavy car..! I drove a MB SL500 with 305 HP a year ago and it has way too much power for people who don't know how to handle a car. This power race is insane and the extra oil needed to produce the gas for these ravenous engines is not helping with the goal of reducing how much oil we import. Bottgers and others: Take an extended test drive and try some hilly roads and on-ramps and then judge for yourself whether the engine in the "5" is good enough for what you NEED. More folks ought to think about how much power they NEED.. Off the soapbox..
|
|
|
Replying to: microrepair (Mar 21, 2007 10:23 am) I also wonder whether the people saying there is not much power in passing are down-shifting. They are right, going up a steep hill in 4th the 5 starts to decelerate quickly. But then I find that if I manually down shift to 3 the car can easily accelerate up that steep hill. |
|
Thanks for the input, but I think you'd better check your mileage again. I'm sure it gets better mileage than the MPV, but there's no way the 5 gets anywhere close to 35 MPG. My PeeVee gets around 20 city, and 24 highway.
|
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Mar 22, 2007 4:27 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: maltb (Mar 22, 2007 10:38 am) Nevertheless, I do know how to compute more accurate fuel economy, and the BEST MPG I calculated from my 5 was definitely 32.30. I had 420 miles on my 5, from a long highway trip, and the gas tank was empty (light on and everything, but still could have gone further if I wanted to risk it). I filled up with 13 gallons and this would give me 32.30 MPG. STILL pretty darned good and better than any MPV - and not THAT far from 35MPG. Thanks.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Vans & Minivans Mazda Mazda5 Mazda5
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mazda MAZDA5
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
