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 Mazda 5 vs Kia Rondo
717 messages, Last post on Jul 03, 2009 at 10:51 AM
You are in the Mazda Mazda5 Forum. Your Host is Karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: conwelpic (Nov 11, 2007 6:19 pm)  Given the availability time for the 2008 mazda5 in NA (US and Canada) reality seems that the Mazda5 is not a Mazda business priority (marketing-production-sales) for these 2 markets (i.e. cash cow like the Mazda3) Take a look of the numbers for Mazda in general, a different story. Also, my theory is that there may not be more significant sales of 2007 Mazda5s during this past month because potential owners are waiting for the 2008 (with all the new improvements/enhancements) to come. MAZDA reports double digit sales increase for third straight month http://media.ford.com/mazda/article_display.cfm?article_id=27150&make_id=227 Also, in other markets Mazda5 is a big seller and award winner, so if I were Mazda I would ship my production to those markets instead (which I think they are doing anyway  ): Mazda5 Awards Worldwide http://www.mazda.co.za/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1163398491496&pagename=Page&sit- - - - - e=MSA&c=DFYPage |
|
|
|
|
Here's another comparative review of the Rondo and Mazda5 (why are all the comparative reviews thus far from the Canadian press?): New breed of minivans shrink to broaden their appeal. The Mazda5 gets the edge over the Rondo. I mostly agree with everything that was said in this review, although I would come to a different conclusion (I bought the Rondo over the Mazda5, after all). This review was of the 2007 Mazda5, not the more feature-rich 2008 version. Plus, the review never mentions looks, which I think the Mazda5 wins by default due to the Rondo's unconventional aesthetics--some think it's butt ugly; others like the looks; I just think it's bland or odd (I'm not sure if I stated that before, but that's what I think now).
|
|
|
Replying to: medicineman (Nov 24, 2007 8:11 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bowserh (Nov 26, 2007 4:37 am) Hey, I have two eyes. I know the Rondo doesn't conform to how "cool" vehicles look these days. I know it won't win many beauty contests. Having said that, I would have never purchased the Rondo if I had truly thought that it were ugly. To me, the Rondo is bland more than anything else. My wife and sisters, though, think that it's cute. What's that? Did I just hear a collective gasp from every male car enthusiast on the planet? BTW, I'm not suggesting that all women will have the same opinion. I'm just saying that women don't see cars the same way as guys do. A guy tends to see his vehicle as an extension of himself, thus the more sleek or muscular it is, the better. I don't see too many women giving a rat's butt about this or caring that much if others like their ride. When I was shopping for a vehicle earlier this year, I was looking for a mini people hauler primarily for utilitarian reasons. This is actually a redundant statement, because why else would anyone consider vehicles like these? If it also happened to look way cool, that would have been a bonus rather than a necessity. Naturally, I cross-shopped the Rondo with the Mazda5, which I admit is more of a head turner than the Rondo. Utility, however, was the trump card. To me, the Rondo seemed more useful than the Mazda5. What sold me on the Rondo is that it can seat up to seven people (the Mazda5 can hold six) and it has a greater variety of possible passenger/cargo combinations due to its 2-3-2 seating scheme (the Mazda5 is 2-2-2). I think it's more useful having bench seats in the second row rather than two bucket seats. When seating four to six people, the Rondo has more useful cargo space than the Mazda5 due to the amount of unused seating that can be folded away. Do I need seven seats? If I needed seven (or six) seats, I would've purchased a minivan. But I knew that I would occasionally find the up-to-seven seating useful, which has proven to be true. Granted, I wouldn't want tall adults sitting in the third row (isn't that the usual disclaimer for third row seating in non-humongous vehicles?), but my two 13-year-old nieces didn't complain at all while sitting back there and happily listened to their iPods. In a pinch, the third row is useful; if you need that capacity all of the time, look elsewhere. The Rondo is all about versatility and value, with no pretensions at being hot or sporty. To some, this is its greatest weakness; to others, this is its greatest strength. My personal view is, no one demands hottie looks or exceptional performance from practical vehicles like a minivan, so why would one expect this from the Rondo? To knock the Rondo for this seems to somehow miss the point. Functionality is the Rondo's raison de être and this has been achieved in the Rondo with a remarkable deftness. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that looks or performance are never important--but what would be the point of buying a vehicle like this if it didn't first and foremost fulfill your utilitarian requirements? For potential buyers, if you can't get over the Rondo's looks and you find the Mazda5's utility to be sufficient, I would suggest the Mazda5 for its relative hot looks and relative sportiness.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: spectraman (Nov 30, 2006 9:59 pm) Anyone who makes blanket statements putting a Kia down vs. other Asian car products is a clown. The Pacific Rimmers all make very good automobiles. |
|
|
Replying to: medicineman (Nov 26, 2007 7:45 pm) Well done laying out your reasoning for the Rondo. My wife and I have recently purchased a Mazda 5 and I can pretty much concur with your reasoning. I thought I would offer my reasoning behind the Mazda5 purchase. I must mention that I did not get to do an in-depth look at the Rondo as you will see. My wife originally wanted to get a minivan for our soon-to-be family and we set out to do some research and looking. She was very much wanting a Honda Oddesy, but I had concerns over the price, gas mileage, and the fact that it would barely fit our garage. Our next step down would be the Mazda MPV and then a step down from that was the Rondo and Mazda5. I had briefly looked at the 5 and Rondo, and we went to look at all 3. Out first stop was the Mazda dealer where my wife found an MPV that she really loved. Long story short, I hated the ride and size, so we drove the Mazda5. She really enjoyes how the 5 drove and took the entire test drive. That test drive basically sealed the deal. And I think it's a reminder of the fact that we all have different priorities. I tried to get her to also drive the Rondo to cross shop, but the large rear doors of the Rondo and it's looks were not for her. She also was concerned about the Kia reputation, though I have done the research and driven several newer Hyundai/Kia vehicles and did not see any quality concerns. I know my story is a bit one-sided, but that's sometimes how it goes. Do I think that the Mazda5 is that much better than the Kia? No. I think it's nice to have have such contrasting choices in the market. I am glad for the 5 as I really enjoy tha handling and the sliding doors are already extremely handy. As far as versatility, I think that on paper, the Kia shows more seating configurations, but I am not sure how big the difference is in reality. The biggest plus I saw for the Rondo was the ability to have 5 people and all the cargo space. In my case, more than 4 people is rare, and we have found that 2+2+1 in the MZ5 is more comfortable than 2+3 in a mid-sized sedan (my family has a 2001 Nissan Maxima). In our case the relative comfort of 2+2+1 trumps the extra cargo room of 2+3. Honestly, the biggest selling point for us on the MZ5 for the driving dynamics. It's still not quite int he league of say the Mazda3 or perhaps a sports sedan like a BMW, but it drives on par with my parent's 2001 Maxima (with a much better ride). One of our first distance trips was through the winding back roads on the Washington Palouse, and the bolstered seats were very nice and supportive as my wife's smile and confidence in cornering grew along the trip. My short impression of the Kia was that the handling was not nearly as sharp, but that the ride was smoother. this is an important trade-off for people, as roads are seldom smooth (especially in this area). Overall, you have to find the vehicle that fits you and your needs. I have no qualms recommending the Mazda5 to anyone looking for an efficient sport tourer. That said, if family or friends asked for a recommendation, I would say to look at the competition before settling. In basic terms, the MZ5 and the Rondo are both comfortable 4-seaters with some extra room for 2 or 3 more on occasion. There are a few things that one offers over the other as well. The big difference is the available V6 in the Rondo. It may be nice for some, that we wanted a 4. Also, the Rondo offers stability control and it is not available on the MZ5. Again, not a big deal for me, but worth noting. The MZ5 provides LATCH points for the 4 rear seats and I believe the Rondo only offers them in the middle row. Probably not a huge deal, but a bit of an oddity. Another small, but notable difference is that the Rondo 2nd row headrests need to be removed to fold flat, where the MZ5's do not. Also, the MZ5 has very hand storage cubbies under the 2nd row seats. We use these frequently and find them very useful. One thing I did not get to check and would offer as a question to the Rondo owners: How are the headlights? The Mazda5 headlights (Standard, not HID) are some of the best I have ever seen. Most headlights are good, but there is a rare model (the late 90s Toyota Camry comes tome mind) that have poor headlight performance. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bowserh (Nov 26, 2007 4:37 am) Anyone who makes blanket statements putting a Kia down vs. other Asian car products is a clown Keep on mind that KIA quality was not born overnight so the stigma of poor quality and poor design still exists (please note I said stigma). Just see KIA and its models some years back and you will note that the "clowns" still have a reason to be "clowns". OK, not pinpointing to Korean cars, Remember Datsun? or even Toyota during their early times? Japanese quality? not really (my dad owned a 1969 Datsun and that thing broke down at least once a week) Now, talking about Asian cars, would you buy a Chinese car today?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWy_fASSiQ |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mrbwa1 (Nov 27, 2007 7:24 pm) Everything that you've said makes sense to me. I just wanted to add a small comment to something that you've said: "In our case the relative comfort of 2+2+1 trumps the extra cargo room of 2+3." For the Rondo, you can choose either option--people can sit 2+2+1 or 2+3. It's exactly this kind of available choice, this kind of configurability, that enamours me to the Rondo. But if we're just talking about comfort, it's probably somewhat more comfortable for two people to sit on bucket seats in the second row rather than on bench seats. Like you've implied in your post, the perceived advantages that one vehicle may have over the other are not as great as the enthusiasts on either side would like you to believe. And quite honestly, if I had chosen the Mazda5, I would be content with that, too. About the headlights in the Rondo, I'm not sure what to say about it. It gives off light and I can see. A handful of people have stated that the low beams don't seem to extend out far enough and have a sharp cut-off. I think one guy has noticed that the headlights dim or flicker on some occasions.
|
|
|
Replying to: medicineman (Nov 27, 2007 11:30 pm) The low-beams DO extend out far, it just appears that they have a sharp cut-off since they are so intense (the fog lamps are unnecessary in anything but foggy conditions). And they are quite wide too, allowing a clear view to the sides of the road (necessary where I live for spotting moose in the ditches). The high-beams are nothing short of amazing - I have been able to light up road signs just over a mile in the distance (according to my odo) and they shine an even wider beam. I like the slightly blue tint of the lights as well, not as overtly blue as some other cars (like Land Rover). We also shopped the MZ5, but the Rondo won since the MZ5 is not rated to tow anything. At all. Zip. Brian Newfoundland
|
|
|
Replying to: bgw (Nov 28, 2007 4:05 am) Thanks for the comments! I really think that the Kias have come a long ways in even just a couple years and it's nice to have that competition. I appreciate the headlights comments, and it sounds like they are about the same as the MZ5. Broad lighting pattern with a sharp cutoff as well. I did also forget to mention that the Kia was rated for toeing. This is definitely a big deal (though not in my case). We just got the 1st snowfall this week and more is expected tonight, and first reports from the wife are that the Dunlop Wintersport 3ds are holding their own. Hopefully I'll get a change to test them out tonight, as we have our Soon To Be Parents class. I must admit that it's a bit depressing to see the black steelies on the MZ5 after only having it about a month, so summer will be a welcom change with the mags back on! |
|
You are here:
Forums
Vans & Minivans Mazda Mazda5 Mazda 5 vs Kia Rondo
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mazda MAZDA5
2009 Kia Rondo
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
