Ask the Car People.SM


Mazda CX-5

404 messages,  Last post on Apr 27, 2013 at 8:56 PM

You are in the Mazda CX-5 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mazda CX-5, SUV

    

Messages Page 1 of 41

#1 of 404 2013 Mazda CX-5 by m6user

Feb 14, 2012 (9:57 am)

Went to the Chicago Auto Show yesterday and looked at the OUTSIDE of the new CX-5. Pretty impressed as it looks better in person than the pictures which were pretty good themselves. I say outside because they were locked up! These vehicle are due on dealer lots next week so I couldn't believe they were locked. The new Escape was open for viewing and touching and isn't due for several months.
 
Wish I could report more on the CX-5 but I think Mazda could have really generated more interest by letting people touchy-feely. It seemed to be a popular vehicle to look at just the same from what I could see of the crowd interest in it.

#2 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [m6user] by bpizzuti

Feb 14, 2012 (10:18 am)

Replying to: m6user (Feb 14, 2012 9:57 am)
It'd probably generate more interest if the FE was a little higher with the slushbox (face it, the target market for this usually shows little interest in those 3-pedal thingys).

#3 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [bpizzuti] by m6user

Feb 14, 2012 (10:29 am)

Replying to: bpizzuti (Feb 14, 2012 10:18 am)
You're right but the "35mpg" in a suv does get people attention. No different than Cruze advertising "42mpg" and then people find out they have to pay extra for it. I think the 26mpg in the city is the real enticer here not the hwy mpg. Really looking forward to mag reviews of this in final form.
 
Don't really know why the big difference in the two trannies mpg. Now days it seems that manuals/autos are usually rated the same or just 1mpg difference.
 
I was really disappointed I couldn't get in the vehilce. The rep at the auto show said it had a preproduction interior. Strange with thousands of these things due in dealers in a week or so that they couldn't pull one of the the car carriers to show.

#4 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [m6user] by bpizzuti

Feb 14, 2012 (10:57 am)

Replying to: m6user (Feb 14, 2012 10:29 am)
Dunno, they didn't show up at NADA with one. Ford brought the new Escape AND the Focus ST, Subaru brought a friggin BRZ, but no Mazda.

#5 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [bpizzuti] by aviboy97

Feb 15, 2012 (8:07 am)

Replying to: bpizzuti (Feb 14, 2012 10:57 am)
Dunno, they didn't show up at NADA with one. Ford brought the new Escape AND the Focus ST, Subaru brought a friggin BRZ, but no Mazda.
 
Those cars are 6 months away at the earliest. Ford has a big problem with dealers right now because they are busy showcasing their upcoming products that are so far away and it is devaluing the current models. No one wants a 2012 Escape or 2012 Fusion knowing in the fall there are new designs on the way. Ford was stupid for disclosing new specs and designs so far in advance.
 
In regards to Mazda, there is no reason to showcase the CX-5 at NADA. The car hits the US shore this week. Why bother at NADA when they have been touring the North American auto show's?

#6 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [bpizzuti] by aviboy97

Feb 15, 2012 (8:11 am)

Replying to: bpizzuti (Feb 14, 2012 10:18 am)
It'd probably generate more interest if the FE was a little higher with the slushbox
 
26/32/28 and 25/31/28 are not high enough? Look at the city and combined mileage. Higher than anyone else, and 3 more MPG's than the new CR-V.
 
Considering that the new EPA estimate window stickers now show the combined mileage estimates is large bold print and the city and highway estimates in small print, I believe the CX-5 will stand out. People will be drawn to the combined number, not the highway number. That's a major plus for the CX-5.

#7 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [aviboy97] by bpizzuti

Feb 15, 2012 (8:53 am)

Replying to: aviboy97 (Feb 15, 2012 8:11 am)
26/32/28 and 25/31/28 are not high enough?
 
When the stick is so dramatically higher and yet the slushbox was touted as more efficient than any stick, CVT, or DSG out there, no, it's not enough. They made some sort of drastic change to push the stick's mileage up to 35 MPG territory, and no one seems to know what it is, and I want to if it was done in the tranny or the engine...and if the engine, why wasn't it done to the automatic? The way gas prices are inching up, this is very important to some.

#8 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [bpizzuti] by aviboy97

Feb 15, 2012 (9:39 am)

Replying to: bpizzuti (Feb 15, 2012 8:53 am)
When the stick is so dramatically higher and yet the slushbox was touted as more efficient than any stick, CVT, or DSG out there, no, it's not enough.
 
So, let me get this straight.....a 3 mpg difference between the 6-speed manual and 6-speed auto is considered "dramatically higher" for highway economy, but when comparing the 6-speed auto to any other automatic from the competition, a 3 mpg advantage in overall fuel economy average is "not enough"? How does that make sense? If anything, the average fuel economy is far more important than highway economy.

#9 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [aviboy97] by bpizzuti

Feb 15, 2012 (9:48 am)

Replying to: aviboy97 (Feb 15, 2012 9:39 am)
And just who does the CX-5 beat out by 3 MPG with the automatic? Last I checked it's right in-line with the 2013 Ford Escape and 2012 Honda CR-V, who are the primary competitors. If you try and throw up 3 year old designs I'll laugh in your face.
 
Highway FE is what gets advertised, for obvious reasons. That alone makes it important.

#10 of 404 Re: 2013 Mazda CX-5 [aviboy97] by m6user

Feb 15, 2012 (10:05 am)

Replying to: aviboy97 (Feb 15, 2012 9:39 am)
If anything, the average fuel economy is far more important than highway economy.
 
That depends. To the majority of people probably yes but to many the hwy mpg is more important as they use these vehicle as commuter vehicles. Many commutes are 95% hwy and sometimes fairly long so when people start figuring the cost of their commuting versus another vehicle the hwy mpg stands out as very important. You as a Mazda salesperson should understand that versus telling people that it isn't important. You'll notice that most advertising stresses the 40MPG HWY on these commuter cars so obviously the manufactures think it's important as well.
 
You shouldn't pooh-pooh legitimate questions. On one hand you say a couple of mpgs doesn't matter and then try to make your point by saying the combined mpg is a couple of mpgs better. Can't have it both ways.
 
When the Mazda3 Skyactiv slushbox gets better mpg than the stick and then the CX-5 comes and gets substantially less(yes 3mpg is substantial to the consumer, maybe not to the salesman) hwy mpg with the automatic people want to know why....not a "aren't you satisfied with what you're getting".
 
I have the same question with the new Acura ILX 2.4L stick. It is a smaller car with the same engine as the TSX but is going to be rated according to Acura press at about 20/29. The TSX with the same engine and a slushbox is rated at 22/31. How does that makes sense? Same with Mazda's numbers....it doesn't make sense and we would like someone to explain the reasons. If you don't know just say so but don't belittle the question.
 
I've also yet had anyone explain to me why the Mazda3s slushbox gets worse mpg than the Mazda6 with the same drivetrain but is a smaller, lighter car. I asume it is a gearing change in the tranny and maybe a little aerodynamics but darned if anyone I've talked to at Mazda dealer ships has a clue. I've even had a couple of salespeople say "Gee, I never noticed that. That's a good question". I don't how you can stand around on a salesfloor all day and not notice some of these things and not have some decent answers.

Messages Page 1 of 41

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