Just a heads up. While the soul red crystal looks amazing, it seems that there are some issues with the paint. A lot of owners have complained about how easily the paint chips. It doesn't appear to be limited to soul red crystal either. Some have reported issues with the machine grey metallic and the snowflake white pearl on the CX-9 as well (oddly enough, these are all of the colours that Mazda charges an extra $200-300 for). Mazda definitely needs to make some improvements here if they want to continue doing well.

 

While I haven't owned one recently, I had three brand-new Mazdas in the past, and was not impressed with the paint durability on any of them. Having said that, though, I agree that the extra-cost Candy-Apple Red (or whatever they call it) is indeed gorgeous....as shiny and glossy as anything I have seen on a Lexus or Audi. Several automakers (including GM) use that same color (and sometimes charge extra for it), but none seems to have the same deep-gloss that characterizes the Mazda version of it.

 

I have loved Mazda's ever since I had my 2014 CX-5. The trim and materials in that car were superb, but the infotainment was a bit lacking.

I would not hesitate to own another Mazda in a second. Especially in that red or blue metallic. They are even handsome in pearl white.

 

Thats a common issue with many Japanese paints in my experience.

 

Was thinking about the CX-5 today, it is a nice rig. However, cargo capacity seems to the largest problem with it. A CRV has 16 more cubic feet and a RAV4 has 14 more. It would be difficult to got with the CX-5 no matter how nice it is inside. Add in a number of missing safety features that are not standard. No standard adaptive cruise.

 

The new RAV-4 will probably be worth the wait, although the Kia Sportage is also a good alternative.

 

 

Have you actually looked at the latest version? My brother has one (a top-level SX), and it has been arguably the best vehicle he has ever owned.

 

 

 

What's interesting is that Toyota is offering its Safety Sense 2.0 on all of its base models as standard. You can buy a $20K Corolla Hatch with a six speed manual with this feature. You also get this on the base level RAV4. On the CRV you have to step up to the next trim level, EX to get these types of features.

On the CX 5 there is a startling spread in pricing to get a similar safety suite of features. You can go get a fwd CX but to get to the good stuff you have to buy the next trim level in Canada and in the US, you are already at that trim but pay an extra $625 bucks to get their version of the safety features.

In Canada you are at $37K CAD and in the US it works out to something very similar when you want this. Still the Mazda is the nicer choice for interior materials and for sporty handling and driving.

 

Depends on whether you need the additional cargo capacity or not.

 

Mazdas have been attractively styled lately, however they are compact as a result.
Hence a CX-9 is much more compact inside than a Highlander.

Traditionally, Mazdas have been a bit firm & unrefined, however I thought new CX-9 was smoother & quieter riding than Highlander, but the Mazda 2.5 Turbo can be loud & crass under wide throttle.

I'm not sure how new CX-5 compares to RAV4/CR-V, let alone the forthcoming RAV4....

 

 

Remember, like 140k people a year make the choice to forgo more cargo capacity and buy the CX-5. Remember that most crossover buyers are just previous sedan buyers, they buy crossovers for the upright seating position, go anywhere traction, more adaptable cargo area, etc. I've bought multiple SUVs in my life and I've never even looked at the cargo capacity, its just not something that's a huge deal to me.