Ask the Car People.SM


Rondo vs Outlander/Rav4/Santa Fe/Mazda5

271 messages,  Last post on Jul 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM

You are in the Kia Rondo Forum.

What is this discussion about? Kia Rondo, Mitsubishi Outlander, Hyundai Santa Fe, Toyota RAV4, Mazda MAZDA5, Car Buying, Wagon

Messages Page 26 of 28

#242 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [mrbwa1] by bobw3

Dec 03, 2007 (3:21 pm)

Replying to: mrbwa1 (Dec 03, 2007 1:45 pm)
From the manufacture webpages:
 
Rondo:Legroom (front/middle/rear) 41.3 in./38.2 in./31.3 in.
Mazda 5 Leg Room, front/2nd/3rd row (inches) 40.7/35.2/30.7
 
cargo room behind the 2nd row
Rondo 31.7
Mazda5 44.4
 
So there is more legroom in the Rondo, but the opening in the 2nd row of the Mazda5 between the two seats might make is seem less cramped than with the Rondo's 2nd row bench. Plus I doubt if the Rondo's 3rd row passengers will feel any of the AC from the 2nd row vents, but they would in the Mazda5 again, because of the 2nd row captain chairs will allow air to flow between them to the 3rd row.
 
You do get more cargo space behind the 2nd row of the Mazda5, so if you're using it mostly as a 2 row vehicle, then I'd rather have the additional cargo space. It's like my Honda Fit. The Versa has more 2nd row legroom than the Fit, but the Fit has more cargo space behind the 2nd row. Since our family of 4 fit in the Fit just fine, I went with the Fit for the better cargo space.
 
So it depends on if you want the extra legroom inches of the Rondo or extra CuFt of the Mazda5.

#243 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [mrbwa1] by 08outtie

Dec 03, 2007 (4:18 pm)

Replying to: mrbwa1 (Dec 03, 2007 1:45 pm)
I agree, some car designs create legroom for front and back occupants by virtually making the occupants to sit straight up. Imagine you are sitting on a stool at a bar, your legs are dangling towards the floor instead of resting your feet on the floor with your knees banded at 90 degree.
 
With legs elongated and extended downwards, less lateral room is required. The side effects are less comfortable sitting position and tall ceiling. I first noticed this trend of designing also with the Toyota Echo and Matrix. For a relatively small vehicle, there seemed to be a lot of legroom and headroom. However, the styling really suffered as it looked like a loaf of bread with the tall roof line. Subsequently, I noticed the Honda fit, Mazda 5 and Nissan Versa were designed with the same tricks to create legrooms.

#244 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [bobw3] by conwelpic

Dec 03, 2007 (5:54 pm)

Replying to: bobw3 (Dec 03, 2007 3:21 pm)
cargo room behind the 2nd row
Rondo 31.7
Mazda5 44.4
 
Mazda figures on 2007 for storage was very strange and same on the Canadian site, but now they seem more realistic with the 2008 information as they now state 70.9 cu.ft. with the 2nd and 3rd seats folded which makes more sense when I had actually measured both vehicles. The Rondo is 73.4 cu.ft. for the same area.
 
Passenger cargo room 97.7 cu.ft. for the Mazda 5 and 107.8 for the Rondo. The Rondo 5-seater has storage through to the dash on the passengers side as you can recline the back of the back seat but the 6/7-seater set up is basically the same on both vehicles.

#245 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [08outtie] by mrbwa1

Dec 03, 2007 (6:23 pm)

Replying to: 08outtie (Dec 03, 2007 4:18 pm)
There are definitely more and more cars taking up this design philosophy and I think it works well. as far as the differences between the Rondo and Mazda 5 goes, I just don't think they are that much different. I t somewhat reminds me of the late 80s with cars like the Ford Taurus competing with the Honda Accords at the time. The Ford was a little bigger here and there and offered V6 power, but still decent fuel economy. The Accord was known as a good handling car, but the truth is that the Tauruses weren't that bad. Rondo vs Mazda 5 is that same kind of thing. Each offers it's own take. My wife and I love our 5 and would highly recommend it. That doesn't mean I would discount the Rondo. For us the sliding doors sealed the deal. We worried about the Rondo's relatively large rear door in the tight parking lots often seen here. Also, Our garage is rather small (both in depth and width), so the sliders made more sense there.

#246 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [conwelpic] by bobw3

Dec 03, 2007 (7:02 pm)

Replying to: conwelpic (Dec 03, 2007 5:54 pm)
I'm not sure about the behind the 1st row cargo space, but the 2008 Mazda5 webpage shows 44.4 CuFt vs 31.7 for the Rondo, so that's about 13 CuFt more, or about the size of a small car's trunk. To me that's a lot of extra space for our family of 4's stuff.
 
And while our Fit has upright seating, it's not any more upright than a minivan or SUV seat, so I'm fine with that.

#247 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [bobw3] by medicineman

Dec 03, 2007 (9:25 pm)

Replying to: bobw3 (Dec 03, 2007 7:02 pm)
I don't really trust the volume measurements given out by Mazda or Kia. The best thing to do is to get out the old tape measure and to measure both vehicles. Of course, who has done that? Not me.
 
I've read in another forum about someone selling a washer and dryer set. The seller recounted how the buyer came by in a Rondo and was surprised that the buyer could fit both in the cargo area behind the first row. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that would be even remotely possible in my own Rondo, so you learn something new every day.
 
When comparing cargo space, you have to remember the different seating arrangements in each vehicle. The Rondo is 2+3+2 (or 2+3 in the five seater) and the Mazda5 is 2+2+2.
 
Let's say there are 4 people in the vehicle and you want to store stuff behind the second row. In the Rondo, you have the option of folding down one seat in the second row to free up additional cargo space. That option, of course, isn't available in the Mazda5. You can probably make use of the space between the second-row bucket seats in the Mazda5, but that space obviously isn't as large or useful as the space created when folding down one of the second-row seats in the Rondo.
 
Now let's say there are 6 people in the vehicle. When I was checking out the Mazda5 earlier this year, it appeared to have more space behind the third row seats than the Rondo. You can probably store a bulky stroller behind the third row in the Mazda5, whereas I can just fit an umbrella stroller behind the third row in my Rondo. With the Rondo, however, you also have the option of folding down one of the third-row seats to free up additional cargo space. In the Mazda5, all seats would have to be deployed.
 
As for how well seven people actually fit in the Rondo, I've posted about this before in much detail (my motto is, why say something in ten words when you can say it in a hundred?). That was in another forum, though. Long story short, sitting in the middle of the second row is comparable in comfort to sitting in one of the third-row seats. That's based on my subjective reading of the whine factor of my passengers. I think we can all agree that, for either vehicle, four people can sit in relative luxury and the additional seating is really for occasional use only.
 
I've sat in the third row in both vehicles and my take is this: the Rondo seems to have more leg room and the Mazda5 seems to have more head room. This is after making adjustments in both vehicles so that the leg room is optimized in all rows.

#248 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [08outtie] by bgw

Dec 30, 2007 (6:04 pm)

Replying to: 08outtie (Dec 03, 2007 4:18 pm)
08outtie makes the statement about the Rondo's interior design - "The side effects are less comfortable sitting position". I have to disagree. For me, this makes for a MORE comfortable seating position, and it is one of the reasons I bought my 07 EX V6 Rondo. Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either.

#249 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [bgw] by coolmazda5

Dec 30, 2007 (6:34 pm)

Replying to: bgw (Dec 30, 2007 6:04 pm)
Originally posted by bgw:
Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either
 
Hmmmm, not all of the Rondo owners buy them because they have comfortable sitting. I own 2 Mazda5s and I wish they had 1-2 inches of extra legroom for the driver, yet it pays off with the rest of its space design. All cars have their little or big griefs, it is not just about sitting.

#250 of 271 Re: 2008 Mazda5 for North America. Updated Pics [bgw] by 08outtie

Dec 31, 2007 (1:16 am)

Replying to: bgw (Dec 30, 2007 6:04 pm)
I apologize for the confusion. In my previous post, I was referring to the interior-room design trend in general across all the newer vehicles. I didn't mean to say that the seats in Rondo were less comfortable than any others. I actually only sat in a Rondo for a couple of minutes in the showroom, so I could hardly attest to how comfortable it is.
 
I bought an 08 Mitsubishi Outlander earlier in December. The 7 seats were very handy as my family just came to town for Christmas and I was able to caravan all 7 of us. However, my sister gave the third row in the Outlander a level 9 in UN-comfortableness with the scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst back seat ever. The third row in the Outlander was low to the ground, so my sister basically had her knees touching her chin when she was back there. The cushioning in the third row was also not good, which made my sister went "ouch" everytime we went over a bump on the road. The upside was that the second row in the Outlander continued to have better than good legroom and headroom whether the third row was in use. This was the area where Mazda5 and Rondo cannot match.
 
The sixth and seventh seat in the vehicle are really just for occasional uses only, so the comfort in the second row seats are a bigger concern in my case. The second row in the Outlander is so much bigger than Mazda5 or Rondo. That is why I got the Outlander instead. In addition to that, the 4wd on the Outlander is also one of the deciding factors.
 
It is funny that I cross-shopped these three vehicles. The outlander is an CUV, the Mazda5 is "almost" a mini-van and Rondo is "almost" a station wagon. I thought I was having a weird shopping list. But after I saw this discussion thread, I guess I'm not alone cross-shopping these three cars.
 
Cheers and happy new year.

#251 of 271 2008 RAV4 vs 2008 Outlander by batman47

Dec 31, 2007 (6:55 am)

In road test review made by Edmunds in four vehicles, i.e. Mitsubishi Outlander (V6), RAV4 (V6), Honda CR-V (4-cyl), and Nissan Rogue (4-cyl) reported that the RAV4 (V6) was the winner of this road test. The test, however, has shown an involuntary bias in the criteria for this evaluation.
 
Owners of the RAV4 have reported the poor payload capacity of the RAV4 that may demonstrate the lack of meat in the construction of the vehicle. The max payload capacity of any RAV4 is the equivalent of 7-persons weight (approximately 150 lbs each). So if you load your RAV4 with 7-persons the roof rail and the roof box are just decorations. Camping or picnic with 7-person is unpractical in a RAV4, i.e. no cargo for the usual stuff. Let’s us now see the Outlander (V6) where its payload capacity is enough to carry a total weight of 9-people (150 lbs each). This is to say 7-people as passengers and the weight equivalent of 2-people as cargo. The roof rail and roof box make sense here. This situation is much better with the Outlander ES 2.4L which its payload capacity is equivalent to 10-people weight. Making some allowances for the engine weight of both vehicles (RAV4 (V6) and Outlander (V6)) the Outlander has more than 80 lbs of meat. This weight difference in material of construction makes the Outlander stronger for carry more cargo than the RAV4.
 
Road test in the future should test the drivebility of the vehicle with maximum payload capacity no find out if the vehicles still responds as expected. In my research for a 7-seat SUV I was almost ready to order a RAV4 (V6) but after going into the details of both vehicles plus some comments of RAV4’s owners about the poor payload capacity of the Toyota I am now more inclined to order an Outlander ES 2.4L. I am not in the business of towing anything (boat, motor home, etc) so at a price of MSRP $23,100 I think the Outlander ES 2.4L suit my requirements (although the vehicle is 5-seats only).

Messages Page 26 of 28

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement