Last post on Aug 22, 2010 at 7:13 PM
You are in the Mazda Mazda5
What is this discussion about?
Mazda MAZDA5, Kia Rondo, Car Comparisons, Car Buying, Wagon
#450 of 859 Re: Nissmazlover seems to want to take over this thread? [bobw3]
Jun 16, 2008 (1:33 pm)
In Aug last year, we were looking to replace our beloved 1998 Legacy Brighton wagon with a vehicle that was at least as practical as the Subaru, but not as large as a mini-van. We shopped Subaru again, but could not reach an agreement on a fair trade price.
After looking seriously at a number of vehicles, we narrowed our choices down to two - a 2007 Mazda 5 and a 2007 Kia Rondo EX V6. We really liked the M5, especially it's sporty demeanor, it's 5 sp manual and it's fuel economy, but we did not care for it's rather stark interior, it's thin and unsupportive seats and it's inability to tow (the manual warned against towing).
We chose the Rondo for it's efficient use of space, it's smoothness and quiet highway ride, it's almost overload of safety features (6 airbags, stability control, electronic brakeforce distribution, anti-whiplash headrests, etc, etc) and the lovely V6. We also liked it's exterior design more than the M5 (which is a good looking car too) and the interior as well, with lots of child-resistant surfaces and comfy leather. In all, price for price, the Rondo offered more than the M5.
That said, if we had chosen the M5 I am sure we would be content with it (despite not being able to tow), but the Rondo has proven to be the ideal vehicle for us, and has had no issues in 14,000km other than an insistent Check Engine Light early on (we were not twisting the gas cap enough, we discovered). The fuel economy has been waaay better than expected, with 33 mpg on the highway consistently (that's with 2 adults,2 kids and a load of stuff aboard), at 115km/h. Our Legacy 4 cyl 5-speed could only manage 32 mpg...
Friends of ours have Rondos and M5s, and all enjoy their vehicles. In all, two great little cars that, regardless of which is chosen, should be bought by more people, rather than larger, less-efficient vehicles that in many cases, can carry no more than the M5 or Rondo (name any mid-size SUV, for example).
An M5 would be for the more sporty-minded. A Rondo is for the more comfort-minded.
What do you own, bobw3? (My own daily beater is a 1998 Escort wagon 5-sp and a 1985 Suzuki GSX-R750).
#453 of 859 Re: I'm sorry, but... [nissmazlover]
Jun 17, 2008 (6:30 am)
Just to set the record straight, the Rondo you rented in Puerto Rico based on your comments it bares no resemblance to the 2008 Rondo EX model that I own. In fact I can hardly believe we are talking about the same vehicle!
First, the Rondo you tested is a rented vehicle, so my first thought what is the mileage on this vehicle and how well has it been looked after. You want facts so here they are:
First disappointment: The LX didn't have an Aux port
Fact – aux port is standard on the 2008 models.
Second disappointment: none of us found the seats truly comfortable and their material seemed cheap
Fact – the EX has upgraded material, I find them comfortable and have had no staining problems.
Third immediately apparent disappointment: the steering. It was HORRIBLE! It felt like a rubber band
Fact – not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I find the steering precise and very direct and the leather wrapped steering wheel comfortable to hold.
since the Rondo's turning circle was significantly larger than that of the 5's
Fact – not true, lock to lock: M5 - 2.9 , Rondo – 2.9; turning circle: M5 – 34.8’, Rondo – 34.4’
We were all in agreement in saying that the suspension outright SUCKED
Fact – I find the suspension a bit on the hard side (probably because the car is so new), I’ve had four adults and luggage with no bottom out problems and soaks up bumps and potholes with no problem.
The handling also left MUCH to be desired…………………… the Rondo rolled heavily and just couldn't keep up with any speed through any curve or corner or turn. NO fun driving this thing at ALL!
Fact: I find the suspension tight and handles sharp corners with ease with very little lean and certainly no roll. I was surprised on this due to the height of the vehicle. It’s a lot of fun to drive and we enjoy the driving dynamics of the Rondo very much.
Another disappointment, even though I had the LX 4 cylinder, the fuel economy was disappointing. The 5 definitely gets better gas mileage AND it is SIGNIFICANTLY noticeable! We drove a mix of city and highway and the Rondo, with a full tank of gas, couldn't reach 300 miles of travel, whereas with my 5 that is a regular occurrence
Fact: you are comparing a fully loaded Rondo (you stated 7 people) to your M5 at home where you don’t carry that much all the time (and can’t cause it only carries six) – so not a fair comparison. My Rondo with the 2.4L gets good gas mileage, ranging from a low of 26mpg (imperial) in the dead of winter to a high of 39mpg, with my average being in the 31-32mpg range.
Another thing we definitely missed: cruise control. The Kia didn't have it. I thought this would have been standard in such a supposedly "well-equipped" car at a low price. Whatever!
Fact: cruise control is standard on the EX model. On the M5 GS it’s not standard you have to get the GT model. However, to be fair the dealer said they would install it on the GS for about $700.
The 5's looks are so much better than that of the Rondo's, and it looks infinitely cooler and sportier.
Fact: this is subjective, I have no problem with the looks of the Rondo and I think it looks great with the black trim against the Aqua silver paint job. The M5 is also a great looking vehicle.
I can't think of ANY advantage the Rondo has over the 5
Fact: I’ll give you some of the reasons I picked the Rondo over the M5:
- hinged rear doors, didn’t like the sliding doors even though they opened and closed easily
- no door pockets on the rear sliding doors, good size ones on the Rondo’s and match the ones on the front doors with large bottle holders
- had no need for the extra seating and preferred the 5-seater available on the Rondo
- with the 5-seater Rondo I get a lot of extra under floor storage in the rear
- we had to accommodate our large Golden Retriever and on the M5 with the seats folded down there was gaps around where our dog could catch a leg whereas the Rondo’s was a solid rear floor.
- Did not like the black interior on the M5, however this has changed for the new models
- To match some of the features offered on the EX Rondo you have to get the M5 GT model at thousands more. For example the EX Rondo comes standard with heated seats in the fabric model, whereas on the M5 you have to get the leather package on the GT to get it. I do not like leather in a car.
- A very important safety feature, currently not available on the M5 and that is the Electronic Stability Control system – rated as one of the best safety features in a car since the advent of the seat belts. It has to be on all vehicles by 2012.
- Leather wrapped steering wheel standard on the EX, again you have to go to the M5 GT model to get this.
- Another 5-seater advantage, I can recline the passengers seat back and able to carry 8’ items without any problem.
- Heated door mirrors standard on the EX, again you have to get the M5 GT
- Fog lights standard on the EX, M5 GT model standard
- Illuminated vanity mirrors standard on EX
- Front windshield wiper de-icer standard on EX, n/a on M5
- Greater head and foot room in the Rondo:
Front legroom: Rondo – 41.3”, M5 – 40.3”
Rear legroom: Rondo – 38.2”, M5 – 34.8”
Front headroom: Rondo – 41.6”, M5 – 40.3”
Rear headroom: Rondo – 40.2”, M5 – 39”
- Overall more passenger space: Rondo - 107.8 cu.ft., M5 - 97.8 cu.ft.
- Longer basic warranty and roadside assistance by two years!
- Separate tailgate lock on the remote
- One of my wife’s favourite items, handbag holder on the console on the passengers side
- Greater visibility on the Rondo, the M5 felt more claustrophobic
- Gas cap release on the door instead of the floor
- Preferred the Rondo’s centre console with dual compartments and armrest and the fact the auxiliary jack and power plug is hidden in the lower compartment also no handbrake in the centre but out of the way giving more room in this area.
- Overhead sunglass holder
- On close inspection I felt the quality of the Rondo was higher (both dealers were next to each other, also they are both owned by the same auto group)
In summary, they are both fine vehicles, neither one is perfect – no vehicle is! They are both excellent MPV’s (multi-purpose vehicles) and easy on the pocket book and at the gas pumps. They have the field to themselves at the moment, but I guess maybe the new Dodge Journey maybe a contender, but if its built like the Jeep Patriot and Caliber’s I looked at, I wouldn’t hold my breath. I thought their build quality was terrible, absolutely no comparison.
Drive: 2008 Kia Rondo EX, 5-seater, 2.4L, auto, Aqua Silver with gray interior
Location: Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada
#455 of 859 So, the conclusion stands...
Jun 17, 2008 (6:48 am)
I think my conclusion stands after all ...
Originally posted on Feb 07, 2008
After looking at all the responses for about a couple of years I have come to the non-expert conclusion that although the Mazda5 and the Rondo are functionally very similar it seems that they are not purchased by or they don't attract the same audience.
Young families, small kids, the Zoom-Zoom component is key (i.e. low profile tires, handling, looks, even manual transmission). They are not too focused on extremely fancy amenities i.e. leather but more into more appealing exterior and interior (i.e. electroluminescent gauges, better designed dashboard, aux input) along with versatility to haul the family around (including sliding doors).
More mature audience, no kids or no kids anymore, like comfort such as leather, V6 and superb sound, but no longer worried about how it looks (interior or exterior) as long as it is functional, oh and it needs to fit adults in the 2nd row seats. In summary: the comfort of a big car but in a compact model.
I won't go into details (again) about space and versatility and if one is better on here or there because there is no winning argument for 2 very different audiences. And the ones who have seen the space and seating versatility pics posted everywhere can attest on their own, no very long explanations needed.
There are of course audience exceptions to the rule, but that, in average, seems to be the case. I'm sure several will reply that is not true, but we are a small sample anyhow. My 2 cents