Mazda CX-5

[gongrhey]

i wont say its ugly, but i find the front a little lacking with details.

But everything else (the body) is very BMW-ish which is a good thing.

i agree, the snub-nose front seems to be lacking in details. i haven't seen it in the flesh only in pictures but in some front angles i find it not too appealing but the sides and the back are good-looking. its just me as looks are subjective, that's why i'm raring to finish my rotation next week and have a personal look at this car.

[Walter]

mga sir...just for comparison. i am thinking of buying CX7 / CX5 if its more economical on fuel.

My ride: Tucson 2009 A/T
Daily route: binan laguna to the fort taguig (almost 80km vice versa monday to friday).
speed of 80-100km (SLEX) 60-80km(C5)
every monday fill up to full tank (almost 42 liters) and before i fill up again for full tank i have travelled 400km ++,

any comments on your ride. tnx

Better to get a diesel, Hyundai Tucson, Kia Sportage, Kia Sorento, Mitsubishi Montero Sport, Toyota Fortuner / Innova, etc.

[inov8]

@sircris
if choosing between cx7 & cx5, for me cx5 hands down - fuel efficiency, newer technology, higher driving position (if that's
important to you), resale value (cx7 will no longer be continued or maybe replace with totally new one), etc.

as for sir walter's suggestion of getting a diesel one, well your savings could be around P60-70 compare to gasoline @ approx 12km/L FC. But my problem with the Fort is it's replacement could be just around the corner, maybe within next year, same with Mitsu, a little later maybe. As for the two korean brands, I don't think they're at par with CX5's overall package.
that's just my opinion.

I have test driven both CRV & CX5, I'm very well pleased with the CX5 and almost consider getting one to replace my Gen3 CRV, until rainy season comes coupled with a almost "off road" condition of metro roads... Now I'm waiting for the Trailblazer.

[jut703]

skyactive =engine, transmission & platform/body design.
displacement in relation to curb weight doesn't make any sense anymore(generally) in determining how good or bad the FC will be, it's a thing of the past.

well, even "some" 1.6L engine or less won't get that FC on moderate to heavy traffic, peace

Like I said, the CX-5 has a modern engine, and is obviously built on a more modern platform. I'm not denying any claims that for a 2.0 CUV, it's pretty efficient (most 2 liter cars get around 5-8 km/L in city traffic). But I also won't believe that it can get 10 km/L unless supporting details are provided (avg. speed, route, traffic conditions).

And no, just because you've got a modern car, you can immediately shun the laws of inertia. Put the CX-5's engine on a Mazda 3 and I'm sure the Mz3 is gonna get marginally better FC because it's a lighter car. So yes, ceteris paribus, weight still matters.

[jut703]

mga sir...just for comparison. i am thinking of buying CX7 / CX5 if its more economical on fuel.

My ride: Tucson 2009 A/T
Daily route: binan laguna to the fort taguig (almost 80km vice versa monday to friday).
speed of 80-100km (SLEX) 60-80km(C5)
every monday fill up to full tank (almost 42 liters) and before i fill up again for full tank i have travelled 400km ++,

any comments on your ride. tnx

If you wanna get technical, then yes, the CX-5 will be more fuel efficient, but not by a margin significant enough to warrant a change of car just because of fuel consumption.

If you're really keen on changing your car to a more fuel efficient SUV, I'd suggest getting a Sportage R-eVGT diesel. At 1.29M, it undercuts the CX-5 by over 100k. I'd consider that a bargain, especially since the CX-5 and Sportage are similarly speced.

I've driven the Sportage's similar cousin, the Tucson R-eVGT and the CX-5. The CX-5 definitely feels more car-like and has better handling. Looks are subjective but I prefer the look of the CX-5 over the Sportage, both in and out.

The Sportage's main ace though is its engine. It's got an immensely torquey and powerful 177 HP R-eVGT engine that's both fast and fuel efficient. Here's an SUV that can truly get 9-10 km/L in pure city driving. Diesel's much cheaper than unleaded too. Only downside is that diesels are more expensive to maintain than gas-fed cars, but the difference isn't big enough to offset the fuel savings and the cash outlay savings.

With that said though, if your choices are limited to purely gas-fed CUVs, the CX-5 is among the best for me.

[veed]

anyone knows where to source a leather seat cover compatible with the seat airbag?

[sachiel]

If the owners encounter heavy traffic at around 1.5 to 2 hours to get to your destination, let us know of the FC. There are times when I think that I might get good FC before my refill, here comes the heavy traffic to wreck my record!

[Retz]

Have you seen one in the flesh pare?

It looks good in the flesh imo. This is a sporty look compared to CX-7 which is sporty and executive look combined imo. One thing I noticed with CX-5 is the bigger LCD screen compared to the smaller LCD of CX-7. I'm not sure though if it has video out for rear camera integration.

[Vertigo]

It looks good in the flesh imo. This is a sporty look compared to CX-7 which is sporty and executive look combined imo. One thing I noticed with CX-5 is the bigger LCD screen compared to the smaller LCD of CX-7. I'm not sure though if it has video out for rear camera integration.

Unfortunately the head unit is not capable to integrate a backup camera.

[Vertigo]

My current average mileage all city driving....

14L/100KM