Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD; Day 1

[Blueprint]

I find it odd that while premium and luxury sedans cost significantly more than economy sedans, the gap seems significantly less among CUVs and SUVs.

Because anything remotely "truck" is a money-printin' machine!!



20 years ago, contractors did not drive pickups priced at par with a Benz E-Class.

[OliverD]

You gotta think too that the CX-9 even in base GX trim would be a better buy than the CX-5 GT.

What does that even mean? Obviously the CX-9 GX buyer prioritizes interior room while the CX-5 buyer prioritizes driving a car loaded with features. I don't think that makes one a better buy over the other.

[GTABeancounter]

The RDX is really well positioned no doubt... so well that I think many prospective MDX buyers may look to the RDX as a reasonable alternative. Not something you could say about the 1st gen RDX!

A modern day CX-7 at close to $40K would probably not feel like such a rip off given what that model represented from day 1. Mazda should update the CX-5's interior along the lines of what was done with the Mazda 6 recently and rebadge it a CX-6 and the line up / pricing could make more sense.

[dkaz]

You gotta think too that the CX-9 even in base GX trim would be a better buy than the CX-5 GT.

What does that even mean? Obviously the CX-9 GX buyer prioritizes interior room while the CX-5 buyer prioritizes driving a car loaded with features. I don't think that makes one a better buy over the other.

I am mistaken, GS is the base mode. But the CX-9 GS has a ton of features that the CX-5 GT has. CX-9 GS AWD with luxury package right now is $37,715 + tax, CX-5 GT is $35,665 + tax.

Ok so I posted things in haste without looking at the facts first.

[Noto]

Mazda should update the CX-5's interior along the lines of what was done with the Mazda 6 recently and rebadge it a CX-6 and the line up / pricing could make more sense.

...with our luck, Mazda would make the 'CX-6' an X4/GLE Coupe competitor!!

Leave the numbers odd!!

[OliverD]

There might be a CX-4 on the way...

[Benhaze]

Beautiful design but still no go if it does have another under powered engine.

I too agree the RDX makes a lot of sense if the CX-5 is coming close price wise.

[2JDM]

The RDX is the one of the best values in its segment. Lots of standard features, no crazy option packages.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[mixmanmash]

The RDX is the one of the best values in its segment. Lots of standard features, no crazy option packages.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Very true.  But unfortunate that Acura sees fit to mate the RDX with a poor AWD system.  The previous RDX had one of the best in SH-AWD and now has one of the worst.

[Solstice2006]

You gotta think too that the CX-9 even in base GX trim would be a better buy than the CX-5 GT.

What does that even mean? Obviously the CX-9 GX buyer prioritizes interior room while the CX-5 buyer prioritizes driving a car loaded with features. I don't think that makes one a better buy over the other.

I am mistaken, GS is the base mode. But the CX-9 GS has a ton of features that the CX-5 GT has. CX-9 GS AWD with luxury package right now is $37,715 + tax, CX-5 GT is $35,665 + tax.

Ok so I posted things in haste without looking at the facts first.

I believe the CX-9 is priced that way due it being so old.  Wait till we get pricing on the new CX-9, I suspect the gap will be bigger.

I agree there are a couple of important omissions with the CX-5: Power liftgate, and reclining rear seats, and rear heated seats (like the Mazda6)

[OliverD]

You gotta think too that the CX-9 even in base GX trim would be a better buy than the CX-5 GT.

What does that even mean? Obviously the CX-9 GX buyer prioritizes interior room while the CX-5 buyer prioritizes driving a car loaded with features. I don't think that makes one a better buy over the other.

I am mistaken, GS is the base mode. But the CX-9 GS has a ton of features that the CX-5 GT has. CX-9 GS AWD with luxury package right now is $37,715 + tax, CX-5 GT is $35,665 + tax.

Ok so I posted things in haste without looking at the facts first.

I believe the CX-9 is priced that way due it being so old.  Wait till we get pricing on the new CX-9, I suspect the gap will be bigger.

I agree there are a couple of important omissions with the CX-5: Power liftgate, and reclining rear seats, and rear heated seats (like the Mazda6)

And no panoramic sunroof and no ventilated seats either, I don't think.

[dkaz]

There might be a CX-4 on the way...

Seems more like a CX-7 replacement, finally.

[dirtyjeffer]

i'd be curious to see how this compares to Sorento EX AWD...this CX-5 GT is almost $2k more expensive (MSRP).

[Solstice2006]

i'd be curious to see how this compares to Sorento EX AWD...this CX-5 GT is almost $2k more expensive (MSRP).

It's amazing this brand new Sorento already has discounts on it.  MSRP with freight: $37,644 (for EX AWD).  $500 KIA discount, $500 Black Friday.  Comes to $36,644. 

Mazda CX-5 GT with freight: $36,625.  Same price.

But I would think the Sportage EX AWD ($31,244 with discounts) competes more with the CX-5 GS AWD ($33,396).  Mazda only gives cash discounts.

The SX trim has the turbo, so that's a big advantage. 

[irREV]

i'd be curious to see how this compares to Sorento EX AWD...this CX-5 GT is almost $2k more expensive (MSRP).

We drove both before buying our CX-5 GT several months ago.  It really all depends on where your priorities are. 

Sorento "drives bigger", is larger overall, and is bigger inside with more cargo space...plus offers the usual Kia high content for the price.  But the Sorento's size really puts it in a different category, not as a compact crossover like the CX-5, but rather, more comparable to mid-sized SUV's/crossovers such as the Highlander, Pilot, Santa Fe, etc.  And as for the quality and enjoyment of the driving experience...not even in the same ballpark.  The Sorento has decent acceleration but very average braking response, and steering response felt rather dead to me, especially on-centre.  Handling was OK, but nothing to write home about, IMHO.  By comparison, the CX-5 shines much brighter in all of those categories, and provides a fun and engaging drive every time I get behind the wheel, regardless of the conditions.  And having now put almost 11K on ours, I can assure you that the 2.5L engine really wakes up after it's broken in.  We previously had a Tiguan 2.0L turbo, so that was our frame of reference...the N/A CX-5 does just fine by comparison, and gives superior fuel economy... we now average about 8.4L/100 kms in a typical 60/40 mix of highway and in-town driving.

As has been mentioned, the CX-5 GT does suffer by comparison with its competition in a few respects.  Some features I wish the GT had for the price are memory seats (it does in the U.S.), rear seats on tracks (to allow space trade-off in the rear between passengers and/or cargo), and a power rear tailgate.  A panoramic sunroof would be nice too (like we had in the Tiguan.)   Regardless, we are very happy with our choice...and we looked at several truly comparable compact cross-overs before buying -- Escape, Forester, CRV, RAV4, and Rogue, to be exact...along with the Santa Fe and Sorento, just for curiosity's sake.     

[dirtyjeffer]

i'd be curious to see how this compares to Sorento EX AWD...this CX-5 GT is almost $2k more expensive (MSRP).

It's amazing this brand new Sorento already has discounts on it.  MSRP with freight: $37,644 (for EX AWD).  $500 KIA discount, $500 Black Friday.  Comes to $36,644. 

Mazda CX-5 GT with freight: $36,625.  Same price.

But I would think the Sportage EX AWD ($31,244 with discounts) competes more with the CX-5 GS AWD ($33,396).  Mazda only gives cash discounts.

The SX trim has the turbo, so that's a big advantage.

yea, the Sorento has very competitive pricing on it, even without the bonus holiday cash...the Sorento also has the 0%/84 month financing on it...so the CX-5 GT, at 2.49%, costs an extra $3792 in interest payments.

the Sportage is pretty small though...i'd imagine the CX-5 is certainly larger.

[Solstice2006]

i'd be curious to see how this compares to Sorento EX AWD...this CX-5 GT is almost $2k more expensive (MSRP).

It's amazing this brand new Sorento already has discounts on it.  MSRP with freight: $37,644 (for EX AWD).  $500 KIA discount, $500 Black Friday.  Comes to $36,644. 

Mazda CX-5 GT with freight: $36,625.  Same price.

But I would think the Sportage EX AWD ($31,244 with discounts) competes more with the CX-5 GS AWD ($33,396).  Mazda only gives cash discounts.

The SX trim has the turbo, so that's a big advantage.

yea, the Sorento has very competitive pricing on it, even without the bonus holiday cash...the Sorento also has the 0%/84 month financing on it...so the CX-5 GT, at 2.49%, costs an extra $3792 in interest payments.

the Sportage is pretty small though...i'd imagine the CX-5 is certainly larger.

Hyundai really likes to advertise that 0% for 84 months.  At least Mazda (unlike Honda and others) have 0% till 48 months.  Which is the max term I would use.

[OliverD]

i'd be curious to see how this compares to Sorento EX AWD...this CX-5 GT is almost $2k more expensive (MSRP).

It's amazing this brand new Sorento already has discounts on it.  MSRP with freight: $37,644 (for EX AWD).  $500 KIA discount, $500 Black Friday.  Comes to $36,644. 

Mazda CX-5 GT with freight: $36,625.  Same price.

But I would think the Sportage EX AWD ($31,244 with discounts) competes more with the CX-5 GS AWD ($33,396).  Mazda only gives cash discounts.

The SX trim has the turbo, so that's a big advantage.

yea, the Sorento has very competitive pricing on it, even without the bonus holiday cash...the Sorento also has the 0%/84 month financing on it...so the CX-5 GT, at 2.49%, costs an extra $3792 in interest payments.

the Sportage is pretty small though...i'd imagine the CX-5 is certainly larger.

Hyundai really likes to advertise that 0% for 84 months.  At least Mazda (unlike Honda and others) have 0% till 48 months.  Which is the max term I would use.

If it's 0% why wouldn't you extend it beyond 48 months?

[Solstice2006]

level of comfort. 

Could this happen?

You have an 84 month term.  In year 4 of the term, you get into an accident, vehicle is a write off, the insurance company gives you a cheque that doesn't full cover what you owe in the remaining term.  So your left owing money, and still have no vehicle...

[OliverD]

level of comfort. 

Could this happen?

You have an 84 month term.  In year 4 of the term, you get into an accident, vehicle is a write off, the insurance company gives you a cheque that doesn't full cover what you owe in the remaining term.  So your left owing money, and still have no vehicle...

Either way you're paying the same amount of money. Technically less with the longer term if inflation is > zero. If you're upside-down on the loan you can mitigate that in other ways. Quick example for a $20k loan:

48 months - $417 a month
84 months - $238 a month

If you choose the 7 year term, put the difference in payment into an interest-bearing account. That's $179 a month. After four years you've put away about $8600 which is what you now owe. Actually you would have more than that with interest. If the vehicle is written off or if you want to sell it/trade it in for less than you owe, you have cash on hand to make that happen.