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

[Autos_Editor]

Constantly trying to improve on their designs, Mazda takes another stab at the CX-5
Read More...

[tazcubed]

Does the CX-5 come with the HUD as an option? I believe the smaller CX-3 does.

[Blueprint]

39k$ ? And people are still calling the Tiguan "expensive" 

GTs seem pretty scarce out there - GX and GS get the bulk of sales.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Did not like the seats in the CX-5 I sat in

[Danno001]

39k$ ? And people are still calling the Tiguan "expensive" 

GT with Tech package gets quite expensive. And you have to get tech to get satellite radio - why???
Misses out on some features that buyers shop for - memory driver seat, power hatch, pano roof, heated front and rear seats, ventilated seats.
I'm in the market for a SUV.

[Noto]

39k$ ? And people are still calling the Tiguan "expensive" 

GTs seem pretty scarce out there - GX and GS get the bulk of sales.

FFIL's 2014 Mazda CX-5 (given to his wife when he got the 996 Turbo; now traded in when she got the CX-3) was <$35,000 MSRP (not incl freight) and it was the GT w/ tech).  36 month lease with $0 down was $474/month all-in.

Check out how much it is now - $645/month (no discount - the $474 was with something).  Then again, the loaded Forester XT is $659/month for the same term/km allowance.

Our 2011 loaded XT was $580/month...it just seems absurd how much higher vehicle pricing as gotten.

[Danno001]

Weak Canadian dollar is probably a factor in recent auto pricing. 2014 we had just entered the weak $ trend. Today we are 30% worse.

[GTABeancounter]

39k$ ? And people are still calling the Tiguan "expensive" 

GTs seem pretty scarce out there - GX and GS get the bulk of sales.

I know this is apples & oranges, BUT this makes the base F-Pace at $49,999.999999999  look like a relative bargain all things considered. There are many "ordinary" vehicles (Accord V6 for example) that when fully optioned are nipping at the heals of luxury brands in terms of price... BUT in this case we are talking about a vehicle that a few years ago had a base price starting in the low 20's! Once you get close to $40K there really is a whole lot more competition... I guess 40 really is the new 30....

[Noto]

I guess 40 really is the new 30....

[Noto]

Wait, James, 60/40 read split??  It used to be a 40/20/40!  To lazy to check the pictures.

Also, shame they didn't give you winter tires given all that able you're driving on

The big omission to me is the lack of ventilated seats...

[Noto]

Yup, just checked the pictures... It is still 40/20/40.  Silly James

[tortoise]

Did not like the seats in the CX-5 I sat in

I don't think you've ever liked the seats in a Mazda. 

[wing]

Oops sorry  yes, I only folded one side.

Also no Tonneau cover all my xmas shopping is being revealed to the world and I'm afraid it will be stolen.  GEEZUS that peeves me off.

[mixmanmash]

Oops sorry  yes, I only folded one side.

Also no Tonneau cover all my xmas shopping is being revealed to the world and I'm afraid it will be stolen.  GEEZUS that peeves me off.

Do a ghetto tonneau cover - an ugly green tarp.  Lol.  I would put a picture of it up.  I'm sure Mazda wouldn't like that PR.

[dkaz]

The front seats in the CX-5 are decent, the back seats are pretty upright. I'm more comfortable in the back seat of my 3.

I believe a cargo cover is an available accessory, you can likely get them to throw that in as part of the deal.

[Blueprint]

I never see CX-5s in GT trim, but I see tons of these:



That's what happens when your pricing strategy ... crosses over.

[GTABeancounter]

I never see CX-5s in GT trim, but I see tons of these:



That's what happens when your pricing strategy ... crosses over.

The RDX is a much better / relevant example of what I was trying to say earlier wrt the $49.9K F-Pace.

I can see someone looking at a $40K CX-5 and easily justifying spending "just a bit more" on an RDX. Though I suppose an RDX buyer could say the same to justify an F-Pace.... and on and on until we are talking about the merits of a fully loaded Range Rover vs. a Bentayga 

[Blueprint]

I never see CX-5s in GT trim, but I see tons of these:



That's what happens when your pricing strategy ... crosses over.

The RDX is a much better / relevant example of what I was trying to say earlier wrt the $49.9K F-Pace.

I can see someone looking at a $40K CX-5 and easily justifying spending "just a bit more" on an RDX. Though I suppose an RDX buyer could say the same to justify an F-Pace.... and on and on until we are talking about the merits of a fully loaded Range Rover vs. a Bentayga 

Starts at 42k$ in 2016, was 40k$ and does feature regular incentives, making it competitive vs "mundane" brands. This will also be what Lexus RX repeat buyers will get once they see the new (over)styling.

[dkaz]

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.

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

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I never see CX-5s in GT trim, but I see tons of these:



That's what happens when your pricing strategy ... crosses over.