mmarshall

A Condensed-Review of the 2016 Mazda CX-5

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=CX5

IN A NUTSHELL: Competent and athletic by compact SUV standards, but not as athletic as a Mazda sedan.

CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, Nissan Rogue, Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tuscon, Ford Escape, Dodge Journey (the Journey is comparably-priced but slightly larger), Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrrain, VW Tiguan, Subaru Forester. Mitsubishi Outlander.
































OVERVIEW:

Lately I've seen a lot of interest in the compact Mazda CX-5 SUV/CUV (a newer, smaller, subcompact CX-3 CUV is also now available). So, even though I did not receive a specific request for an MM Review, I was out shopping today at J.C. Penney's (long one of my long-favorite stores for Men's Big and Tall clothing), and there were a couple of Mazda shops nearby (one of them huge and almost brand-new). So, after finding exactly the long pants and pocketed knit-shirt I was looking for (at a half-sale price and additional coupon-discount), I headed on over to the big Mazda shop to check out the CX-5. While I had no reason to do a long, detailed Full-Review, I figured I'd at least familiarize myself with it and do a shortened, Condensed-Review. I had, of course, seen it at the January D.C. Auto Show, but didn't spend much time looking at it, since I had other priorities then.

Until Ford sold off the company, Mazda, long known as the "Poor Man's BMW" and for offering driver-centered vehicles with a well-engineered chassis, was pretty much hamstrung by its Ford ownership as to what kind of vehicles they could offer, and what source/platforms those vehicles came from. This, of course, limited the first Mazda SUV, the Navajo, to being a cookie-cutter rebadged 2-door Ford Explorer Sport, the square-box Mazda Tribute SUV to being an (almost) cookie-cutter rebadge of the Ford Escape, and the Mazda CX-9 and CX-7, while not rebadges per se, to being sourced from Ford platforms. The Navajo and Tribute, of course, are long gone, the CX-7 was discontinued to make room for the newer CX-5, and and the latest version of the CX-9 is now, for 2016, an all-Mazda platform/design. With the newer designs, free from Ford influence, come more traditional Mazda driving characteristics.

Which, of course, includes the compact CX-5 (the CX-9 is considered a mid-size SUV, and the former CX-7 an odd in-between size). For 2016, in the American market, the CX-5 comes in three trim levels, similar to other Mazdas.....Sport ($21,795), Touring ($25,215), and Grand Touring ($28,570). All three versions come with a choice of FWD or AWD. Low-line Sport FWD models get a 2.0L non-turbo in-line four of 155 HP and 150 ft-lbs. of torque and a traditional 6-speed manual transmission. All other versions get a non-turbo 2.5L in-line four of 184 HP and 185 ft-lbs.of torque. The 2.5L four was added after first-year CX-5 complaints of low power, and that is why the 2.0L is restricted to only FWD and the manual-shift on the base Sport version, which put less drag on the engine. The other versions, FWD or AWD, also get a standard 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic transmission. One question Mazda may need to answer, though, is why the 6-speed manual transmission is not available with the larger engine...this, in a (supposedly) driver-centered vehicle. I was very impressed, though, with the way Mazda, on its web-site, designed and configured the CX-5's current Build-Your-Own feature (as of the end of March, 2016). IMO, it is one of the best I've seen in years, so, unlike with most reviews, I also posted it here so you all can try it for yourself and see how nice it is.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/conf...rom=&zip=22182

As usual (when possible), for the review, I sampled several different interiors and, for the test-drive, chose an AWD Touring model, as I felt that many would be probably sold that way, and it struck a good balance between the base and high-zoot versions.

In fact, while I was at the dealership, I might (?) have saved one of the CX-5's there from being stolen. A white Sport (base) model was sitting out on the back part of the lot, unlocked, so I used that one to check out the base interior. I noticed something odd about the under-dash cubbyhole, and when I looked closer, somebody had left the electronic ignition-fob sitting in it. As all CX-5s have push-button start, some unscrupulous or dishonest person could have got right in, and (assuming it had gas in it) started it right up and driven off (a number of new vehicles, are, in fact, stolen from dealerships every year...it is a significant problem). So, I put the fob in my pocket, examined a Touring interior on one that was also unlocked (and also a red Grand Touring CX-5 in the showroom), then walked into the sales managers's office, handed him the fob, and explained where I found it. He was embarrassed, but grateful, and offered me an extra discount, over and above the norm, right there, on the spot, for any vehicle in the lot...including even a high-demand/short-supply manual-transmission Miata. I, of course, thanked him but declined...my business, there, at the time, was checking to a CX-5.


MODEL REVIEWED: 2016 Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD

BASE PRICE: $26,515


OPTIONS:

Crystal White Pearl Paint: $200


DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $900 (about average for a vehicle this size)

LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $27,615


DRIVETRAIN: AWD, Transversely-mounted N/A 2.5L in-line four, 184 HP @ 5700 RPM, Torque 185 Ft-lbs. @ 3250 RPM, 6-speed Sport-Shift transmission.


EPA MILEAGE RATING: 24 City, 30 Highway, 26 Combined


EXTERIOR COLOR: Crystal White Pearl

INTERIOR: Sand (Beige) Cloth



PLUSSES:

Excellent Build-Your-Own feature on the web site.

No more Ford influence...a straight Mazda machine.

Reasonably-priced, along with most of its competitors.

Surprisingly strong torque from the 2.5L four in Sport mode.

Smooth refined automatic transmission.

Well-done brakes and brake pedal location.

Decent ride comfort for the class.

Generally good underhood layout for DIY'ers.

Good interior headroom and space efficiency.

Generally comfortable seats.

Decent interior material-quality and hardware.

Roomy cargo area.



MINUSES:

Manual transmission not available with the larger 2.5L four.

Manual prop-rod for the hood.

Rather dull, Ho-Hum paint-color choice.

Unimpressive extra-cost paint job.

Moderate (but not obtrusive) road noise.

No body-side moulding for parking-lot protection.

No gauge for engine-temperature (idiot lights instead).

Dash video-screen somewhat complex.

Manual-shift-mode pattern opposite that of most other vehicles.



EXTERIOR:

Mazda SUV afficionados who are long-accustomed to the classic wedge-shapes of the CX-9 and CX-7 will probably not immediately recognize the CX-5 somewhat different body shape (or that of the smaller CX-3) as part of the Mazda SUV family, though the CX-5's grille and headlights do bear a resemblance to Mazda sedans. The generally boxy, more traditional shape of the CX-5 means good interior space efficiency (more on that later). Most of the trim and materials outside seemed of good quality, especially the solid-feel door-handles. Sheet-metal grade/solidness seemed about average for the class, and I wasn't terribly impressed with the optional White Pearl paint job...to my eyes, it looked more like the basic white on kitchen appliances than something Mazda would charge $200 extra for. There is the usual array of silver/white/gray/black/blue/red that everybody and their brother is painting vehicles nowadays. There are no body-side moldings to protect from parking-lot dings.



UNDERHOOD:

Open the fairly solid and heavy hood, and you prop it up with a manual-rod. IMO, hood-struts or springs should be standard, at least with heavy steel hoods...lighter aluminum or plastic hoods can get by with the manual rod. Under the hood is a nice large insulation pad, but it has only limited effectiveness. The basic general layout under the hood is decent for do-it-yourselfers. The transversely-mounted 2.5L in-line four fits in quite well, though there is substantially more space behind the engine block to work (harder to reach for short people) than in front of the block, where it is tighter. A large plastic engine cover blocks top-access, but things can generally be reached down the sides. The battery is to the right, in the rear, uncovered, and generally easy to reach unless you are short in stature. As usual, the dipsticks, fluid-reservoirs, and filler-caps are generally easy to reach.



INTERIOR:

The interior, in general, is not bad at all for the class, with some good attention to detail and trim/hardware quality that is as good or better than most of its competitors. As usual, IMO,the two-tone interior looks better than the dark monotone. I'd like to see a wood-tone trim-option, but there is none that I could find. In general, the leather seats feel somewhat more comfortable than the cloth, though the bolsters on the leather seats could be an inch or so wider to accommodate big frames like mine. Without a sunroof, there is plenty of headroom, both front and rear, for 6' 2" guys my size, even with caps on (I don't recall sampling one with a sunroof). The two primary gauges are quite clear and easy-to-read...the smaller bar-graph gas gauge, somewhat less-so. The steering wheel is quite well-designed, with the usual buttons, and has a nice feel to its leather cover. The sun visors are thinly-covered in ivory fabric, and the headliner is a similar very thin fabric with a hard feel. The buttons/controls are mostly easy to use, except for playing with the video-screen, and the big chrome-ringed climate-control rotary-***** have a nice slick motion to them. Legroom is generally adequate in back, but, of course, depends on where the drone seats are adjusted. I found that, even with the front seat bolsters all the way down for headroom, you sit up very high in this vehicle and look out over the hood in front of you. The glove box latch has a light, tinny feel and sound to it, but actually catches solidly, and securely holds the lid closed.

Interior gripes? Yes, here are a couple. The bean-counters managed to slip in small, hard-to-see idiot lights instead of an (IMO) proper engine-temperature gauge...blue light for cold-engine (under 140 degrees F) and red light for overheating. The stereo sound quality was OK, but nothing to write home about. The video-screen (as in many vehicles) could have been less-complex. And the (- / +) pattern for the automatic transmission's manual bump-shift feature, like that in older BMWs, is opposite the pattern most drivers in other vehicles are accustomed to. So, until you get used to it, care has to be taken that you are actually shifting the way you intend, and that it won't overspeed or cause a major shift-shock to the drive-train. Some purists, BTW, actually claim that the Mazda/BMW pattern is correct per racing specs......I'm not getting involved in that argument, since this is not a racing vehicle.



CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:

Open the generally solid liftgate, and, because of the body-shape and seat-design, you are treated to a quite roomy cargo compartment that can accommodate tall items. The rear seats, of course, fold down to expand the already generous cargo area. The floor of the cargo area has a thin black fabric covering; the walls, black plastic........not terribly plush, but then again, this not a luxury-class vehicle. Under the floor is the usual temporary spare tire and jacking tools.



ON THE ROAD:

Start up the 2.5L four with an ignition button (some vehicles in this price-range stll use a conventional key/switch), and the four comes to life with a noticeable amount of noise, though it is more of an audible purr rather than a harsh unrefined sound. The parking-brake is released with an electronic switch, rather than a foot-pedal or yank-handle. On the road, in normal driving mode, the engine will get out of its own way, but is clearly not a drag-racer. Hitting the console-mounted SPORT mode-button makes a big change in the engine's power-mapping and torque-curve, also delaying the transmissions full-automatic shift-points......you get pushed back significant into your seat in the lower gears. (Score one for Mazda's Zoom-Zoom advertising). My opinion is that, in the sport mode, the engine is actually running more than 185 ft.lbs. of torque, regardless of the official specs....it actually feels more like the low 200s, even with the weight and drag of AWD. The 6-speed automatic transmission performed smoothly and seamlessly (bumpy, clunky shifts, especially first-gear downshifts, used to be a Mazda problem years ago), although one must take care to use the aforementioned opposite-pattern manual-mode correctly.

The steering/chassis is generally (but not totally) traditional Mazda. Steering response is rather quick, but the high center of gravity and boxy shape allow noticeable body roll with quick steering inputs. Ride quality, like most Mazda products, is on the firm side of comfortable, but there is enough compliance to take most bumps without harshness....and if you want a smoother ride, with slower steering response, get a Honda CR-V. Wind noise was generally well-controlled, but road noise (like on other Mazda products), while not obtrusive, is noticeable, especially on porous road surfaces. The brakes are generally quite well-done.....not only effective but with a well-located brake pedal that didn't snag my big, size-15 circus-clown shoes when going from gas to brake.



THE VERDICT:

With the CX-5, Mazda has produced a well-designed compact SUV that not only competes well against its competitors, while also preserving some of the traditional Mazda driver-centered characteristics. In sport mode, the engine delivers, and steering response is generally quick, though some body roll, a non-Mazda feature, is present. The interior is space-efficient, has a pleasant enough look, and is made of generally good materials. Best of all, the price tag, except perhaps for loaded top-dog Grand Touring versions, is quite reasonable and affordable for what you get. Consumer Reports gives it a very good reliability rating...substantially better than average.

But it's not perfect.....though, compared to some vehicles, I didn't really find that much to complain about. The first thing I'd do is toss the present gauge-panel and add conventional fuel and temperature gauges. Then I'd add a little more sound-insulation in the wheel wells. But all other stuff is quite minor, and some, like body-side moldings, can be added aftermarket. But, folks, if you want a good compact car-based crossover SUV at an affordable price.....this is definitely one of the good possibilities.

And, as always......Happy car-shopping.

MM

dseag2

Nice review, thanks! This SUV has been mentioned quite a few times when I've asked "what should I consider?"

mmarshall

Glad you enjoyed it. A number of viewers seem to have shown interest in it.

chromedome

How would you compare it to a Rogue or a CRV? I thought the Rogue had the nicest interior and the best default equipment but the CX5 had the most car-like handling. Nice review, I just wished more reviewers paid attention to the tiny details like you did, especially when it comes to ergonomics and control layouts.

bagwell

Nice review MM, it's one of the SUVs I'd definitely consider if I needed one.

take percentage of a manual transmission would not be worth it for Mazda to make available. CRV isn't available w/manual at all. (HRV is)

mmarshall

Thanks. Yes, it's a good alternative that many potential buyers don't consider. But, though not necessarily a deal-breaker, I myself would find the CX-5's red/blue engine-temperature lights annoying (Subaru does the same thing in some of their American-spec vehicles, not JDM). I'm a firm believer in coolant-temerature gauges, for several reasons.

That was my initial thought, too, but Mazda is supposed to be more driver-centered than their competitors....and some drivers just like to row their own gears. Of course, it is no secret that in many parts of the country, especially those areas with a lot of money that have a lot of new-vehicle sales, that traffic is so dense, and stop-and-go driving so pervasive, that a traditional 3-pedal vehicle is probably unfeasible.

mmarshall

Thanks. Actually, as far as details go, this was one of my shorter (Condensed) reviews. I didn't go into quite as much length as I do in a typical MM-Full-review. But glad you enjoyed it.

Comparing it to a CR-V, IMO it's hard to beat the way Honda screws a vehicle together at the factory......they come out like a Swiss watch. Fit/finish is first-rate....althuogh not quite as impressive as in earlier years. And the CR-V has a little more ride-comfort on the road. But it doesn't quite have the CX-5's steering response (both of them will show some roll), and the CX-5's sport mode wrings a lot of response out of that 2.5L four in the lower gears, significantly more so than the Normal mode. (there is no Eco mode)

On the Rogue, keep in mind that there are actually two different Rogues...the old carryover model from previous years is known as the Rogue Select, and will still be sold at Nissan dealerships until the supply runs out. I did a full-review on one several years ago, and was generally not impressed. It was dull and plain inside, and drove like an appliance. The latest Rogue is a much newer design, better-done inside, more pleasant inside and out, but I have not actually test-driven one yet, so I can't testify as to its road-manners. Also, lately, Consumer Reports has not given Nissan products a very clean bill of health in the reliability department....and even once-stellar Honda, though still very good at screwing vehicles together at the plant, has shown some drop in long-term reliability.

chikoo

I beg to differ. The Mazda is also screwed together extremely well. In fact in my ownership history of owning 2 Mazdas and 2 Lexuses, and the other family members owning Hondas (Pilot, Accord, Odyssey), and close friends owning Toyotas (Camry & Corollas), the Mazda were the ones that stood out and got their attention to what it offered. BUT nobody wanted to buy a Mazda because resale value sucks compared to a Honda. Simple as that. that was the ONLY reason why they did not buy it. Frankly speaking I moved on to Luxury names because it does give me the sportiness of Mazda (and even better) but also some snob value. I know it is vanity, but at least I am not vain enough to not even talk about it.

mmarshall

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that Mazdas weren't well-built...in general, they are. And Consumer Reports also gives some of them very good reliability ratings. But, from what I have seen over the years, even though Honda is no longer at the top of the reliability charts, they still assemble a vehicle, at the factory, Like a Swiss Watch. Their quality control, and the care they show on the assembly-line, has always impressed me, even with their declining long-term reliability.


Mazda itself was going to do a luxury division themselves (Amati), but, at the time, their Ford owners nixed the project. The now-discontinued Mazda Millennia (which introduced the Miller-Cycle gas engine) was supposed to be the first Amati, but instead, when that division was cancelled, sold as one of two Mazda sedan flagships, next to the 929, which was also discontinued.

As far as snob value goes, each to his or her own, but, in my book, I don't buy a vehicle to impress others, or to keep up with the Jones'es. I buy and drive what suits me, what I like, what I can afford, and what i think will suit my driving needs/wants.............and then spend the next six months on Car Chat defending my purchase LOL.

ST430

Thanks for the great review MM! Would love to see you do a "comparo" sometimes of all the same class vehicles: RAV4 vs. CRV4 vs. CX5 vs. Santa Fe sport . If it was your money, what would you buy today for a comfortable CUV (don't really care about "sporty" pretensions)?

mmarshall

Anytime. Glad you enjoyed it.

While a nice idea, that would, for several reasons, generally be unfeasible for me, as a simple free-lance reviewer who is not formally part of the auto press or an organization like Consumer Reports. First, I can't be at three or four different dealerships at the same time. Second, dealerships don't always have exactly what I'm looking for (or what the review-request is for) in stock ,and I sometimes have to chose from what is available (assuming that vehicle isn't pre-sold or promised to someone else). Third, auto magazines and organizations ask the manufacturers directly to send them specific test-vehicles, and can collect and test several of them at once....I don't have that capability. Fourth, when those magazines test vehicles, they usually hook up test-instrumentation to them to test acceleration, braking, skidpad, slalom figures, etc..... I don't have that equipment, and the means to use it, from a typical dealer or private environment.

Of course, I CAN (and sometimes do) make comparisons between vehicles, based on my previous review or other experience with one of that vehicle's competitors...or on something in another class of vehicle.


Depends on how much you want to spend, and/or how much potential unreliability you are willing to risk. I've always been impressed with the comfort level of the Lexus RX...but the RX is a little larger than most CUVs, and IMO the NX is a significant step down in both comfort and refinement on the road. The Buick Encore is quite plush and comfortable inside, with a low noise level and smooth ride despite the short wheelbase, but IMO it looks stubby and awkward, and the Mickey-Mouse 1.4L turbo engine, IMO, is somewhat underpowered. The Lincoln MKC, based on the Ford Escape platform, is also quite comfortable on the road, but is rather pricey, and its overall build quality isn't the best. Cadillac also has a new CUV coming (smaller than the upcoming XT5), but we probably won't see it for at least another year yet (I'll review it when it arrives).

Among lower priced CUVs, in general, they usually won't equal the comfort of the more expensive ones (which is to be expected), but the Honda CR-V has a reputation for having a smooth ride for its class, excellent assembly quality (though not quite as long-term reliable as in the past), and of satisfying millions of customers....it sells like Happy Hour at Clancy's Bar. It does tend to have some road noise, though, depending on which exact tires are mounted on it at the factory. I've noticed, in the Kia line, that there's a big difference between the Sportage and Sorento in quietness/smoothness and refinement...some versions of the Sorento ride like a luxury sedan, but they cost a lot more...close to 40K or more in some instances.

If it is (primarily) comfort you're looking for, I would definitely avoid the very smallest and cheapest of the CUVs....such as the Honda HR-V, Nissan Juke, Mazda CX-3, Their short wheelbases, light weight, cramped quarters, and general lack of insulation don't bode well for very pleasant driving, particularly if one is tired at the end of a long working day and has to drive home in one over bumpy roads. They are also quite low-powered, except for the Juke's 1.6L turbo, which does give you some kick in that small lightweight vehicle.

if you want a relatively small but well-built CUV with the quietness and refinement of a V6, besides the aforementioned Lexus RX, the Acura RDX offers the 3.5L V6 standard. You'll pay significantly more for an RDX than something in the RAV-4/CR-V/CX-5 class, but the lower-priced (and even some of the higher-priced) CUVs don't offer a V6. Some of the RDX's added price, however, may be taken off by dealerships willing to deal on that generally slow-selling vehicle. If you like a plush well-done interior and the best in fit/finish, the Audi Q5/Q3 are options, but somewhat pricey. I'd avoid the Infiniti QX50 (the former EX35)......It's a nice vehicle and quite well crafted, but has an overly-cramped back seat and cargo area from a classic and too-short droop-roof.

(Yes, I know that's a long-winded answer LOL, but sometimes vehicle-buying isn't a simple matter, and can't always be answered in just one or two sentences.

As I say, though, in my reviews......Happy Car-Shopping.

mmarshall

Next planned review: 2017 Cadillac XT5. They have not reached the D.C. area yet, but are expected shortly.

chromedome

Going slightly off topic, your mention of the Rogue Select is the first time I've heard of that model. For the rest of the world, the US Nissan Rogue is the X-trail, and that name has been around for 3 model generations. The Rogue Select might be a US-exclusive model because it looks nothing like previous X-trails. I've driven a bunch of X-trails over the years and the latest one is surprisingly fun to drive with good standard kit, although I'm not a fan of crossovers or SUVs at all.

Anyway, thank goodness everyone else uses the same names globally - CRVs, CX5s and RAV4s are the same models worldwide.

Sulu

Another name to throw in the mix: Qashqai, which, if I remember correctly was a slightly smaller (?) version of the Rogue sold in the UK. Don't remember its relationship to the X-trail.

mmarshall

Here is the info on the Rogue Select from Nissan's own U.S.-market database. It was sold for a year or two alongside the newer Rogue (they re-named it Select when the newer model debuted), and is essentially being sold as a leftover, last-generation 2015 model until supply runs out...then there won't be any more, and the newer version will have completely replaced it. As Sulu pointed out, there is also the Nissan Qashqai, sold in Europe, which is not exactly the same as the newer-generation Rogue, but very close to it and done on the same platform.


http://www.nissanusa.com/crossovers/...card.vlp.image

http://www.nissan.co.uk/GB/en/vehicl...s/qashqai.html

Also, on the X-Trail, did you mean the XTerra? That was a now-discontinued compact, truck-based, body-on-frame SUV that was primarily intended for hard-core off-roading. It competed basically with the Jeep Wrangler.




Remember, though, that Nissan has been under French ownership now for a number of years. Their basic marketing comes down from Renault.