Author Topic: First Drive: 2013 Mazda CX-5 (Read 22528 times)

Autos_Editor · « **on:** March 13, 2012, 05:05:20 am »

Mazda's new fuel-efficient compact SUV handles surprisingly well on the race-track, reports Grant Yoxon.

Read More...

JohnnyMac · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2012, 07:28:42 am »

As good as this vehicle might be I just don't see it selling in large numbers. The pricing is decent but when you can buy competitors with more power for less I'm not sure people will give this a shot. What this CUV needs is that Mazda diesel engine with 170 hp and over 300 ftlbs of torque. I'm sure this is one of the better handling CUV's but that's not usually what CUV owners are interested in.

JohnM · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2012, 07:44:12 am »

I think Mazda is pointing this at their niche market of more enthusiastic and knowledgeable drivers. It is different enough and probably good enough to succeed with that group.

The fuel efficiency numbers are very impressive for this kind of vehicle and it will be interesting to see a real world test.

Definitely a step forward in automotive design with a lot of features other manufacturers will adopt in the future. 13:1 compression was previously race car/av gas territory so Mazda deserves praise for this development.

I wonder if this level of compression precludes use of some of the engine developments made by other manufacturers?

Cheers,
John M.

sweetadad · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2012, 07:59:26 am »

I don't know about you all, but I think they tried to mimic a Hyundai Tucson...but the Tucson has the cx5 beat in HP and price ( and transmission too). But the compression ratio on this engine is something that MIGHT set it apart.

visx · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:02:40 am »

I think a lot of compact car and SUV buyers are looking for fuel economy. And some also wish for better handling. If you have best in class for both, why won't it sell? I don't think most compact buyers are looking for powerful compact SUV.

Winterpeg · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:06:06 am »

I think Mazda will do well with this cuv. As for myself, would like to see more "vroom-vroom", "zoom-zoom", getty up, etc. between the front wheels.
Well there's always Christmas.....

lebowski · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:23:49 am »

This looks like a great CUV - it would be at the top of my list if I were looking.

2 things that stick out, one good, one bad:

1) Kudos to Mazda for offering a 40:20:40 split folding seat. It's a rarity in this segment and a huge boon for skiers who want to transport 3 passengers without a mileage-killing roof-rack.

2) It requires premium fuel. If I owned this car, it would be hard to justify feeding high-octane juice to an engine with such modest output.

visx · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:27:39 am »

Quote from: lebowski on March 13, 2012, 08:23:49 am

2) It requires premium fuel. If I owned this car, it would be hard to justify feeding high-octane juice to an engine with such modest output.

I think it does NOT require premium fuel. I have the same engine in my Mazda 3. It uses regular gas. I am pretty sure the NA version of CX5 uses regular

Mike · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:30:45 am »

I can't say much as to not give away next weeks comparison test. But I spent last week in the CX-5 and we put it up against the 2012 CR-V, 2012 RAV4, 2012 Rogue and 2012 Tucson. There will also be an in-depth separate review on the CX-5

The two teasers I will give are:
1) SkyActiv is not marketing Hype
2) HP means little in this class

Mike · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:31:21 am »

Quote from: visx on March 13, 2012, 08:27:39 am

Quote from: lebowski on March 13, 2012, 08:23:49 am
2) It requires premium fuel. If I owned this car, it would be hard to justify feeding high-octane juice to an engine with such modest output.

I think it does NOT require premium fuel. I have the same engine in my Mazda 3. It uses regular gas. I am pretty sure the NA version of CX5 uses regular

Yup, it takes regular. Had to look it up to make sure I didn't give Mazda Canada back a vehicle filled with the wrong fuel

nlm · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:48:39 am »

I really hope this steals sales from the Rogue, a vehicle that I dislike so much I don't want to see any more on the road!

The CX-5 looks like a Tribute makeover to these eyes. As someone else posted, well done on the 40/20/40 rear split; it's so much more versatile I wish it was standard for anything with a hatch/cargo area.

Jaeger · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:51:51 am »

Quote from: Mike on March 13, 2012, 08:30:45 am

I can't say much as to not give away next weeks comparison test. But I spent last week in the CX-5 and we put it up against the 2012 CR-V, 2012 RAV4, 2012 Rogue and 2012 Tucson. There will also be an in-depth separate review on the CX-5

The two teasers I will give are:
1) SkyActiv is not marketing Hype
2) HP means little in this class

Looking forward to that. I will say that I think this is the best looking Mazda by far.

Jaeger

lebowski · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:56:36 am »

Quote from: Mike on March 13, 2012, 08:31:21 am

Quote from: visx on March 13, 2012, 08:27:39 am
Quote from: lebowski on March 13, 2012, 08:23:49 am
2) It requires premium fuel. If I owned this car, it would be hard to justify feeding high-octane juice to an engine with such modest output.

I think it does NOT require premium fuel. I have the same engine in my Mazda 3. It uses regular gas. I am pretty sure the NA version of CX5 uses regular

Yup, it takes regular. Had to look it up to make sure I didn't give Mazda Canada back a vehicle filled with the wrong fuel

I stand corrected - thanks for clarifying. I re-read the paragraph and see Mazda corrected the problem, ostensibly making low-octane usable.

"the CX-5 is powered by a 2.0-litre gasoline engine with a skyscraper compression ratio of 13:1. Higher compression ratios mean more power, but they are also prone to pre-ignition or knock without really high octane fuel. [...] Mazda solved this problem by attaching a four-into-two-into-one exhaust manifold, a header in hot rodder terms, to evacuate the hot exhaust gases. It is a simple solution that works."

OliverD · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2012, 09:31:28 am »

On paper, it appears to have the same amount of cargo space as my beloved Mazda 6 wagon. I'm assuming the cargo area is a bit taller and narrower though. Local dealer has a blue GT and the interior space looked like it was perfect for my needs. Unfortunately, without a manual with AWD and a higher trim level, I'm not sold.

DomD · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2012, 09:35:22 am »

Quote from: sweetadad on March 13, 2012, 07:59:26 am

I don't know about you all, but I think they tried to mimic a Hyundai Tucson...but the Tucson has the cx5 beat in HP and price ( and transmission too). But the compression ratio on this engine is something that MIGHT set it apart.

What about the Tucson transmission is better?

greengs · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2012, 09:39:11 am »

Quote from: Mike on March 13, 2012, 08:30:45 am

I can't say much as to not give away next weeks comparison test. But I spent last week in the CX-5 and we put it up against the 2012 CR-V, 2012 RAV4, 2012 Rogue and 2012 Tucson. There will also be an in-depth separate review on the CX-5

The two teasers I will give are:
1) SkyActiv is not marketing Hype
2) HP means little in this class

I'm guessing the CX-5 beats the rest easily when it comes to driving enjoyment. And I agree, there are a lot of vehicles not just in this class that have HP ratings that seem to be there just as a marketing tool.

jj72 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2012, 09:44:40 am »

Prefer the looks of this over the current Mazda 3. My biggest concern is the power. Its adequate with the driver but what about loaded up with passengers and gear?

whaddaiknow · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:03:49 am »

Quote from: jj72 on March 13, 2012, 09:44:40 am

Prefer the looks of this over the current Mazda 3. My biggest concern is the power. Its adequate with the driver but what about loaded up with passengers and gear?

+1
Great looking vehicle. Not a huge fan of the interior colour scheme, though (all grey and dull)
With the 5 on the market, Rogue offers little in comparison.
As fun and good looking as it may be, I don't see a good case for it. Great entertaining the driver but 2.0 under full load going uphill? The novelty will wear off fast. Not a good all rounder. Just my opinion.

Looking forward to the comparison test next week.

aaronk · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:04:50 am »

Had we not bought a Santa Fe a couple of years ago this would be our first choice for a family vehicle. Great looking inside and out, roomy enough inside for 4-5 with cargo space behind the seats, and most important, athletic handling. Its not a big SUV, which makes it perfect for more congested traffic or urban areas and still offers the slightly higher ride height that the new consumer seems to be looking for.

I don't think people will miss massive horsepower if they are getting anywhere close to the advertised 7-8L/100 Km. There is a good number of people selling Explorers and Trailblazers in order to get better fuel economy, this is just the ticket.

redman · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:12:10 am »

There seems to be Sky-Active up Mazda sleeve yet, with there regenerative braking technology i_Eloop supposedly to launch here at end of summer and a possible Sky-Diesel for 2013 teaser for North America topping with Sky-D and i_Eloop as seen in the Mazda Takeri concept.

http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/env/engine/i-eloop.html

http://mazdatakeri.com/

I for one am tired hearing about a small efficient diesel coming year after year by almost every automaker and watching that year come and go followed by statements such as "we found diesels do meet our feasibility studies" or some cr#p like that. Call me cynical but I can't see oil companies or gov't promoting anything that uses up to 1/3 less of revenue generating fuel. An other way to discourage diesel acceptance in N/A comes in 2 ways. A) Make diesel option large displacements as to offset the fuel saving costs (as seen in pickup trucks in N\A) and/or add such a high premium for diesel well over and above manufacturing costs as to offset any saving for non commercial users.

Sorry about the diesel rant, but I'v seen this show and tired of all the smoke and mirrors.

Glad to see that someone has started the ball rolling on making and marketing better handling vehicles (Kudos to Mazda). Subaru use to do this but unfortunately decided to "Americanize" their ride for a few years. Mazda's are definitely pointing in the right direction for me if not there yet.