Sometimes we think we know what we want and spend a lot of time focused on getting that specific thing. We strike out and end up with a different choice that in the end, is actually the better choice. This happens to be one of those cases.
From 2018 to the summer of 2019, my girlfriend and now wife and I were doing long-distance dating between Chicagoland and Holland, MI. We both were putting a lot of miles driving to see each other. At the time, my wife was driving a 2005 Chevy Caviler. When we met and I found out she was driving a Caviler, I knew I must do my automotive diligence in getting her out of the Caviler. In the fall of 2018, I suggested to my wife that she start saving for a newer car. She had purchased the Cavalier a couple of years before from an older couple who bought it new and pulled it behind their motorhome. As far as Cavalier’s go, it was pretty nice, but cancer had rotted away the rocker panels and the car had a thirst for Dex-Cool. By the spring of 2019, she was ready to make her purchase.
My wife had zero ideas about what type of car she would want. Because my Mazda ownership was so positive, I steered her towards the Mazda brand. We stopped by a local used car dealership and test-drove a late model Mazda3 sedan with a 2.0L and 6-speed auto. She really liked it, and once I told her it came as a hatchback, she then wanted a Mazda3 hatchback in soul-metallic-red. We spent the next two months searching all over Chicagoland and west Michigan for the perfect Mazda3 hatchback. We had looked at a couple and she decided she wanted a Touring equipped car. Her criteria proved to be difficult, and we really struggled to find her the “perfect” car. We could find countless sedans, but no hatchbacks. Towards the end of May, we were getting fatigued from all the searching, and I was beginning to suggest other options. We wanted to pay cash for the vehicle, so we had a max budget of $14,000. If we added to our budget, we probably could have found the “perfect” 3 hatchback, but we were firm on not wanting to go over.
Just before Memorial Day weekend, I had changed my Auto Trader search from “Mazda3 hatchbacks under $14,000” to “any vehicle with less than 50,000 miles for less than $15,000.” And I found it; 2015 CX-5 Touring, 42,000 miles, $14,500. I looked over the ad and could not figure out why the price was so low. The listing said it was FWD and was advertised at a large Acura dealership (the largest in the country), but I could find nothing wrong with it. I sent the listing to my wife and asked her if she could see herself in a CX-5. She said she did not want an SUV but was willing to look at it. She made an appointment to go look at it after work that day.
If you recall, my mom had a 2016 Mazda CX-5 Touring. I had talked my mom into this car in the fall of 2015. Since then, it had given her no problems and she had talked her sister into purchasing a CX-5. When we started car shopping for my wife, I thought she might like a CX-5 for the high driving position, but CX-5’s proved to be outside of our budget. My wife showed up at the Acura dealership that evening with the printed Auto Trader ad. After she drove the car, she called me and said she loved the CX-5 and that was the car she wanted. She loved the higher driving position, smallish size, and most importantly the backup camera. She said when she showed up with the printed ad, the dealership did not realize they had put the wrong price on the advertisement. They said it was supposed to be closer to $16,500 but were willing to hold this price for her. I was always told that luxury dealerships are willing to move non-luxury cars at better prices. An FWD non-luxury SUV seemed like a car the Acura dealer would be willing to move quickly. Later that week, I made my way down to Chicagoland, we went to the dealership, and my wife purchased her CX-5. She was very excited to have such a nice vehicle.
My wife purchased this seven months before we got married. In those seven months, my wife managed to rack up almost 12,000 miles driving between Chicagoland, Michigan, and Iowa as we prepared for her to move and for the wedding. She loved the car, and it served her well. However, about a month after she bought the car, she was complaining about the brakes making a weird noise. I looked over the car and did not see anything wrong with it. She was in Michigan, so off she went back to Chicago. The next weekend I was in Chicago. She was still complaining about the brakes, so I told her I would look at the car when I got there. That Friday night, after I arrived, we jumped in the car to go get a Redbox. I was driving the car hard to try to get the brakes to replicate this “noise” she kept hearing. Nothing. Frustrated, she got in the driver’s seat and started driving back to her house. We did not make it 100 yards before the car made a loud metallic scraping noise. She said that was the noise. I made her stop the car right where we were and got out to investigate.
Upon looking inside the front driver’s side wheel, I found the brake caliper tipped forward and dragging on the inside of the rim. Apparently one of the bolts holding the caliper to the knuckle had worked itself loose and when the brakes were applied, the caliper would tip forward and make contact with the inside of the wheel. When you let go of the pedal, the caliper would tip back into its correct position. When we bought the car, the dealer had completed a full brake job. Now I should have taken the car back to the dealership and complained, but instead, I went down to the local Ace Hardware and bought the correct bolt. I put it back together in her driveway and that took care of the issue.
My wife’s CX-5 is FWD. Most would scoff at an FWD SUV, but the reality is people drive compact SUVs like people used to drive FWD sedans. When people drove FWD sedans, no one complained about a lack of AWD, they actually praised the drivability in snow. People think they need AWD for safety, but the truth of the matter is a good set of tires will do you better than all four wheels moving the vehicle. After my wife purchased her CX-5, I started looking for snow tires. I found a guy in Chicagoland who had three Mazda CX-5 rims for $90. After purchasing those and a reconditioned rim from RockAuto, I had a second set of factory rims for the car. I found four Cooper snow tires on Facebook Marketplace for her Cavalier for $200. I was so impressed with the winter performance of the Coopers, that I had the same tires put on the second rims. Four winters later, I am still impressed with them. Not quite as good as the Blizzaks, but better than the Michelin Ice-X Pros and they cost significantly less. Update: Christmas of 2022 we drove from Michigan to Chicagoland in the blizzard that hit the midwest. The Coopers did great in deep snow and ice.
After we got married, the CX-5 became our “good” car. Since neither my wife nor I am from Michigan, we spend a lot of time traveling to family and friends in neighboring states. We have had a lot of seat time in this car and it works very well for traveling. We have taken it to Florida, the upper peninsula of Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota. Covid unlocked a hobby of refinishing furniture. You will find the backseat in our CX-5 to be folded down more often than in the upright position, as we always seem to be hauling something in this car. I made an entertainment center for my mother and the dimensions were dictated on the space behind the driver’s seat in our car. The extra space has served us well.
Being FWD, the government rates the car at 33 MPG highway. After 65,000 miles, we have averaged 29-30 MPG highway. Very rarely do I see mileage better than 30, which is a real shame. , My mom has 145,000+ miles on her AWD CX-5, and her mileage is just less than ours. My only complaint about the CX-5 is it has a very small fuel tank. Ours measures 13.1 gallons, which at 29 MPG, is 370 miles. Many of our trips are closer to 400 miles, which means the CX-5 will not make it there on one tank. I got spoiled with the Dart and Mazda6, both vehicles that would push 500 miles on a tank. It feels like we are constantly stopping to put fuel in this. However, mixed driving has yielded an impressive 25 MPG average for the life of our ownership, something that I am happy with.
The tagline for this chapter is “my number one recommendation.” I am known among family and friends as the “car guy.” When people have asked me for a recommendation on a newer vehicle to purchase, I always steer them to a CX-5. Everyone thinks they want a RAV4 or a CR-V, but the Mazda’s are just as reliable, just as well built, and priced less. I have successfully convinced my mother to purchase two CX-5’s (2016 and just purchased a 2023), my aunt has purchased two, and three friends have purchased CX-5’s. The CX-5 is a great all-around vehicle. Prior to Covid, you could pick up a used one for a reasonable price. Seems others have caught on to how great of vehicles they are, and used prices seem to be in alignment with the other Japanese CUV’s.
My biggest reason for liking these cars so much is the powertrains. Mazda incorporates a traditional naturally aspirated four-cylinder mated to a conventional 6-speed automatic transmission. My mother’s first CX-5 has over 145,000 miles on it. It does not use any oil, the transmission shifts like it did when new, and you would never know its mileage. The internet has shown that these drivetrains are very willing to go 250,000+ miles with very little maintenance. Mazda spent a lot of time engineering their Skyactiv (dumb name) drivetrains, and the results show. Everyone else uses turbocharged four or three-cylinder engines, some with variable compressional (Nissan), and 8-10 speed/CVT’s transmissions. The only CUV on the market that has a conventional drivetrain is the RAV4. It still uses a conventional naturally aspirated engine mated to an 8-speed automatic. Triples belong in Geo Metros and lawn equipment, and CVT’s are not as robust as a conventional automatic. I think 20 years from now, we will still see RAV4’s and CX-5’s still on the road well after the Escapes, Rogue’s, and CR-V’s have been abandoned for their failed turbochargers and CVT’s.
Recently I rented a 2021 RAV4 for work. I was eager to experience what the majority of buyers pick. After 500 miles, I was glad to give the keys back to Enterprise and go back to my eight-year-old CX-5 with 105,000 miles. The Dynamic Force engine makes 205 hp, which is 20 hp more than our CX-5. It also has two more gears than our car. I did not find the engine to feel any more powerful than our car. The transmission felt very CVT-like. I had to double-check the specs to confirm that it is in fact a conventional automatic transmission. It was not as crisp as the Mazda unit. Everyone gives Mazda flack for not upgrading these drivetrains, but why fix what is not broken? How many GM 3800 engines are on the road today well past all the 3.1L, 3.4L, 3.5L, 3.6L, and 3.9L engines that have given up the ghost? These are just good drivetrains.
I think these CX-5’s are great cars. I am not the only COAL’er to say this. Recently Steven Vettura had similar things to say about his car. As I mentioned, my mother just purchased another CX-5. Her 2023 carbon edition had an MSRP of $32,300. This included 19″ rims, heated leather seats, a moonroof, AWD, and all the current safety features one thinks one needs. A 2023 RAV4 XLE Premium AWD, which is the closest trim to the Mazda, retails for north of $34,000. If you are comparing base models, the base CX-5 comes standard with AWD, a nicer interior, and alloy wheels, and retails for $1,000 less than a base FWD RAV-4. The CX-5 is a very good value for what you are getting. I think more people would be happy in one.
While this car has not been overly exciting or has stored up passion like my other vehicles, it has been a good car. Ours just turned over 105,000 miles and we have no plans to replace it any time soon. If I did have to replace it tomorrow, it would be with another CX-5. This is not the end of my COAL, as there are still three chapters left for me. Next week we will learn what came after Saturn as my “work” car.
Thanks for the post.
That exactly the car I’d like to replace one of my cars with. Does (almost) everything well, and I think even looks better than most SUVs. And your comment about the simple(ish) drivetrain is correct, and the main reason I chose my Honda Civic Tourer (also COALed on CC)- usually, it’s those cars that hold up better than more modern rivals.
In fact, if I had my way, I’d replace both my cars (the other one is an Opel Astra COALy) with said CX-5 and… This (because all its van properties make it a perfect family car):
12345
Thanks for the post.
That exactly the car I’d like to replace one of my cars with. Does (almost) everything well, and I think even looks better than most SUVs. And your comment about the simple(ish) drivetrain is correct, and the main reason I chose my Honda Civic Tourer (also COALed on CC)- usually, it’s those cars that hold up better than more modern rivals.
In fact, if I had my way, I’d replace both my cars (the other one is an Opel Astra COALy) with said CX-5 and… This (because all its van properties make it a perfect family car):
Our daughter has a 2019 with AWD (lives near Denver and is an avid skier). It’s been a great car in every way for her. I like it as well, but find the driver’s legroom a bit tight. I’m not truly tall at about 6-1, so my 34″ legs must be at fault.
Great car, good find, and the best of luck to you!
I am always happy when someone with much more experience in modern drive trains than I comes out with well considered opinions that match my unfounded suspicions of being anti-turbo and anti-CVT.
Like the people who ordered stripped full size three-on-a tree cars in Tom Halter’s post (above), my geezer-gut says “the less complicated a system, the less to go wrong” -and- “the less extreme heat produced in a system, the less to go wrong”.
This seems especially relevant in a high spinning, hot exhaust driven gizmo whose only purpose is to make a tiny displacement IC engine seem almost as powerful as a slightly larger normally aspirated IC engine.
To me, nothing says “recommended” better than when one family has a bunch of the same branded cars in their driveway.
Interesting COAL chapter!
It seems that you, me and RL Plaut are all singing from the same songbook. Everyone says that CVTs are fine. Everyone says that small displacement engines with turbos will last just as long as simpler traditional designs. I am fine with that collective Everyone choosing them with their own money, but I will stick to more basic designs as long as they may be found. And it is a sad world where I am forced to be excited about a 4 pot with an automatic transmission, now that pleasant V6s are becoming more difficult to find.
Since Steven’s CX-5 Coal my daughter and her husband have taken delivery of a CX-5 that had been his mother’s car. I am now starting to see CX-5s very frequently, so the word must be out there about what a great alternative this one is.
I’ve mentioned this here before, but I’ll say it again. While not a fan of CUV(s), I realize that resistance is futile, especially at just over 62.5 years of age. It is not so easy getting in and out of my two coupes anymore, but I digress…
Ever since the CX-5 came out, I’ve liked its styling. If a CUV is next on the docket for my wife and I, this one is the front runner in my book. Especially if I can find a Soul Red one when the time comes. That color is just beautiful. A guy who just started in the IT department where I work has a Mazda 3 almost exactly like the one pictured except for the fact he drank the Kool-Aid and has the black wheels… personally, I’ll be happy when this fad is over, but there I go digressing again.
Regarding Turbos and CVT(s): I used to hate them. The former, because the one in my ex-wife’s ‘88 Turbo-Coupe just never ran right, and the latter, because my current wife’s (now granddaughter’s) Mitsubishi Lancer was like driving a car powered by a rubber band.
My 2016 Honda Civic EX-T Coupe currently sits in the driveway with 102,341 on the clock and I’ve had no issues. (he knocks on the dining room table as he types)
Maybe these drivetrains are less of a problem in really light cars? Anyway, unlike the aforementioned two cars, the Civic is always a delight to drive. (Ok, the Thunderbird was fun to drive when it was (rarely) running right, but I think that may’ve been because of its 5-speed transmission… way more fun than a CVT!)
Edit: Thanks for the thorough review Fierorunner. Between your extensive COAL, and that of Steve Vettura, it makes me feel more comfortable should I decide to get one of these in the future. I am a little torn though, as I’m starting to think about an electric or hybrid vehicle and I don’t think Mazda has caught up yet in that regard, but it may be coming. By the time I’m ready for a new ride, Mazda may just have something.
I realize that the 1.8 turbo VW engine isn’t exactly small by modern standards, but our experience has been pretty good when paired with a manual transmission. As for three cylinders, I tend to associate those with Kawasaki 2 stroke motorcycles from the sixties or more recent 4 stroke Triumph motorcycles, as well as Yamaha and MV Agusta … and Geo Metro. But combined with a turbo they should be fine for smaller four wheeled vehicles. I think CVT’s and automatics in general are the culprit.
Ok, I edited my comment and it disappeared again. Thanks so much for retrieving it, but can one of you guys please retrieve it again?
A kismet must be having a bad day.
Thanks guys.
I don’t see it in the trash.
I’ve accidentally deleted a comment or two of mine by hitting the wrong button after editing it. But there’s no retrieving it then. It’s gone forever.
Thanks for trying Paul.
Rick, I think I located your comment in the Spam folder… that happens sometimes after a comment’s been edited, for some reason. I restored it above. Thanks for letting us know!
I was just about to tell him that; I found it there too. We must have both approved it at almost the exact same time.
The CX-5 seems to be the bright spot in Mazda’s line-up, being loved by far more people than disliked by a few. It’s good to see another success story shared by someone with direct experience for Mazda, a small and often overlooked manufacturer.
Veering onto a slight tangent brought on by the post, it’s interesting how something done poorly by generally one manufacturer ends up predisposing many to be against the efforts of every other manufacturer doing similar.
Nissan does CVTs poorly for a while and everybody praises conventional automatics as apparently being bulletproof while conveniently forgetting all about Chrysler minivan transmissions, Hondas with V6s paired with automatics, and BMW and Audi for example having trouble getting an auto behind a V8 to last beyond 80k miles not 20 years ago…the list goes on. Aamco was in business far earlier than CVTs were available. Not every CVT is the same, there are numerous designs and implementations in existence, many manufacturers use them and when used appropriately and engineered adequately for their purpose, they seem to do just fine. Some are even called CVTs yet really aren’t, such as Toyota’s e-CVT and there are others such as again, Toyota, who mate a CVT with a more conventional first gear resulting in far different aural and mechanical characteristics of the driving experience with the majority of the benefits of CVT – fuel economy and acceleration as compared to manuals and conventional automatics.
Turbos are the work of the devil yet every big truck (both commercial semis as well as diesel pickups) have used them for decades to haul massive loads for generally far longer lifetime distances than any conventional powertrain. 70s and 80s passenger car versions with lower engineering standards and sub-standard cooling and oiling systems found many in hard-driven performance versions hold back many from considering modern systems 40 years later for their grocery getter commuter that rarely sees full throttle. I’ll admit to being a fan and having owned numerous well-used examples from various manufacturers yet have never had an issue with a car where the turbo or directly related component was at fault. Ford’s 2.7 turbo engine and its baffling failures in Ford Broncos for example are apparently due to valve train and oil pan issues. The turbos that would seem to do a lot of work don’t have issues, but you’d think that oil pans and valves would be sufficiently well understood at this point in the history of internal combustion, yet here we are.
Three cylinder engines are only appropriate for Geo Metros is the same thing that some/many commenters say about four cylinder engines and probably said about six cylinder engines decades earlier, yet the Geo Metro likely could have done with a two-cylinder engine. Plenty of good motorcycles work with one, two, or three cylinders, plenty of cars have had 3-cylinders for a long time and there is no actual technical reason why a twin could not power a “car” or that a triple is inherently inferior to a four.
Cylinder count is far less important to power than displacement or displacement alternatives such as turbo-and super-chargers. Americans are generally predisposed to higher cylinder count engines for mainly historical reasons until you go back far enough and find Ford’s four-cylinder Model T. This wasn’t meant to say that people perceive Metros as inferior but they do tend to dunk on it as an easy target or whatever, in fact their three-cylinder engines quite often rack up mileages over 300k, I’ve seen multiple examples thereof, but rarely see most other cars crack that barrier (anecdata of course, those other cars might still be providing good service somewhere :-).
GM shortcuts their diesel passenger car engines 4 decades ago and diesel is a dirty word in most subsequent mass-market diesel offerings for several decades in the US for many consumers, no matter the manufacturer, yet that same GM at the same time produces millions of diesels worldwide without particular issues, along with every other manufacturer, even ones that have never offered diesel in the US (often due to the GM fiasco and resulting public perception).
Blame should be placed where it is due, i.e. a particular company or a few particular companies that diligently seem to work to shaft their customers either on purpose (Ford Focus/Fiesta PowerShift automatics?) or inadvertently rather than a given technology all by itself. Every manufacturer has or has had issues in at least one system or process, it’s baffling we buy metal bodied cars after Lancia had an issue with rust. Just as surprising that we buy cars at all after seeing a 20 year old Chinese designed one in a crash test. Or that we still buy tires filled with air after Goodyear produces a design for decades blamed for hundreds of motorhome crashes involving dozens of fatalities or the Ford Explorer debacle.
The fuel economy you mentioned as a tad disappointing would likely be improved on a long highway trip by the means of either a CVT, a normal transmission with a greater set of gears, or yes, a smaller engine with a turbo. This is the reason you are seeing them proliferate, consumers like you and many others verbally state hoping for better fuel economy, it’s not entirely government mandates and “CAFE” rules adding these systems.
And lastly, while a FWD car with proper winter tires often CAN in fact be better in inclement conditions than an AWD one (especially a non-permanent AWD system) with all-seasons or even less appropriate tires, it rarely seems to be acknowledged that proper winter tires can in fact also be added to AWD vehicles. Many people certainly don’t “need” AWD all the time, but it’s simply not possible to have a FWD vehicle handle inclement conditions better than an equivalent AWD one IF all other parameters are the same. FWD was seen as a boon in adverse weather conditions when it was introduced due to the prevalence of generally poorly performing RWD cars and trucks, and progress tends to, well, progress. But no, not every person needs AWD every day, far from it. Frankly I’d prefer every person had proper driver training beyond what their gym coach showed them to do as tends to happen here.
Good comments, Jim.
I think folk who don’t know as much about cars as we do just hear a few negative reports about a product failing, and damn the entire species. Double damnation if it happens to somebody we know, rather than just being a story passed round in the pub.
My wife’s work colleague had trouble with the early Skyactiv engine in her Mazda, and was told she didn’t drive it hard enough(!!). But I didn’t question the technology; I saw it as an isolated failure, and having some experience of that dealer, I blamed them.
I’d heard Nissan had problems with their CVTs years ago. I’ve been in an earlier Nissan SUV when its CVT failed. I’ll admit I was wary of CVTs as a species after that, but the one in our Mitsubishi ASX has been absolutely faultless. Not the technology’s fault but the manufacturer’s.
Likewise Ford’s Powershift transmissions (have to be careful typing that). Dual clutch technology isn’t necessarily more failure-prone. It says more about the manufacturer’s ethics in producing this box in this form than about the technology.
But many folk know less about cars than I know about spacecraft, and damn the technology as a whole for the failure of a few manufacturers’ implementation of it. Give some of those people a YouTube channel, and the problem grows out of all proportion.
I love Mazdas and have also recommended them to family and friends and “sold” a few of them, but I’ve never owned one myself. It’s amazing what Mazda accomplishes with far fewer resources than pretty much every other automaker. Across the board, Mazdas look and feel a little more special than the competition and have competitive spec sheets.
(I’m a long-time lurker here and have been reading COALs and their comment sections for years, but this is my first comment!)
Welcome to the commentariat, Nick!
Since my comment got lost, I’ll try to be more concise. Perhaps Akismet doesn’t like when I get too wordy. 😉
Thanks for this review Fierorunner. This, and Steve Vettura’s COAL about these makes me want one even more. Both of your COAL(s) are like a long term test drive, so that helps.
Despite not being a CUV fan, I have liked these since they first came out. Clearly, they are the most stylish of the lot, although some of the other manufacturers are stepping up in that regard. My wife and I are considering a CUV when it’s time to buy a new car, as getting in and out of the two coupes we have is not getting any easier as we age.
There was more to my lost comment, but it was my usual digression into the off topic. Mostly it was about how I don’t hate CVT(s) or turbos anymore, after enjoying my 2016 Honda Civic EX-T Coupe. But I’ve commented on that subject here before.
Mazda 3 hatchbacks litter the roads here also badged Axella ex JDM and close behind them in numbers are CX5s, My sister recently bought a 2022 CX5 in red they like it and it goes all over the country with a double bike rack fitted, Good cars all except for diesel models which expire in droves Mazda got something wrong with those but the gas ones are great and no hated CVT.
Great article, I enjoy your write-ups. I was beside a new Mazda CX-50 today and it was a really sharp looking vehicle. If I was in the market right now, I would check out the Mazdas in person for sure.
Also, about 25 years ago I lived in a very snowy area and had a 1986 420SEL. It was unstoppable with chains. I passed many a stuck 4×4.
From your description the CX5 is the GLC of SUVs. Just yesterday I surfed the net for CX5 ads and reviews. I came to the conclusion it would be the one SUV I can agree to. The the conventional 6 speed automatic has a trick up its sleeve: it uses the direct clutch in every gear and not only saves fuel it also gives a better drive feel. Of course I am biased because I loved my ’86 MAZDA 323 hatch so much.
I found your paragraph about the winter tires interesting as well. My wife’s 2010 Ford Focus rolls on Cooper Weathermaster ST winter tires meanwhile in their 7th season. They give decent traction but they underperform in steering in snow. That is compared to the Blizzaks on my FWD sedan. Blizzaks are hard to beat in any comparison. Michelin X-Ice were on my son’s ’08 Sonata. They came close to the Blizzaks but transmitted tread derived noise and vibration to the steering wheel. I also had General Tires Altimax Arctic on my ’05 Pontiac Vibe. They compete with the Blizzaks and X-Ice in terms of traction, braking and steering control on snow with a little more road noise. I agree that dedicated winter tires are preferable to AWD as an investment in winter driving safety.
Thanks for this episode of your COAL series!
I had Blizzaks on my Dart and completely agree with you that nothing really beats them. If I had to do it all over again, I would probably put Blizzaks on the CX-5.
I definitely recommend the Blizzaks, we get a lot of ice in Central Oregon and our CX-5 handles very well with Blizzaks. As alternative the Toyo Observe we got from Les Schwab also worked well on ice during the 2016-17 snowpocalypse.
I can second the virtues of the CX-5 and Mazda’s approach in general. We got a late 2016 CX-5 in March of 2017 after our beloved Mazda5 was totaled. While the CX-5 is not as well packaged or smooth riding as the 5 it holds us and our stuff, and is an even better snow and dirt road car. It was also our first new car in almost 25 years.
Mazda’s choice of NA engines instead of turbos and conventional automatic in place of DSG or CVT may cost a few hp or mpg but seem to save a fortune in repairs since we avoided the Ecoboost and Powershift woes of Mazda’s Ford platform mates. So far we have almost 6 years and 50,000 miles with zero repairs, although we do use a lot of rear wiper blades. Amusingly my mother in-law recently raved about it after borrowing our CX-5 when their Audi Q3 was once again in the shop.
They are simple, great looking, high quality vehicles. My 2016 will turn 8 trouble-free years old this summer and should be with me for a long time to come. Despite whatever Mazda has planned (or not planned) for the model in the future, they need to keep cranking them out with occasional updates. The CX-50 quasi-replacement has no clear advantage over it, is selling in small numbers, and I’ve seen numerous mentions of quality issues from its new Alabama plant. No such issues with the Japan-built CX-5
I live in an area populated by many, many luxury cars and CX-5s are absolutely everywhere. Oftentimes you will see one in the driveway with an Audi, Lexus, Mercedes, etc. People really seem to recognize it as a reasonably priced near-luxury alternative.
Great post, count me in as yet another skeptic of the modern rush towards turbos and CVTs or DCTs and added complexity. Chapman was onto something with “simplify and add lightness”, it’s a shame most manufacturers have forgotten that.
Big fan of Mazdas myself, two of my COALs were from the brand and both were great. I considered a similar aged CX5 very seriously to replace the 2 but eventually went in a different direction due to budget.