The problem with history is it won’t stand still. I arrived at this conclusion while reading the Road & Track road test of a 435 horsepower ’69 Corvette posted this week on this inestimable site. Truth be told, I re-read the piece as I bought that issue of R&T when it hit the newsstand long, long ago in a different world and another age. For some inexplicable reason I can recall some events from fifty years ago in incredible detail, while other times I struggle to recall my cell phone number. You know what they say about aging, but that applies to other people, not ourselves, am I right?
In any event, I remember with clarity the disappointment that met the C3 Corvette when it was first tested by the Road & Track crew. Of course in those days you could guarantee that anything designed in Detroit would be met with skepticism at R&T, which seems odd on the face of it, but truth be told one of the Crown Jewels of the automotive press establishment would not succumb to hometown boosterism until some decades later. Given that advertising revenue was the lifeblood of a magazine back in the heyday of the printing press, it seems strange that such iconoclasm should not only survive, but prosper.
https://www.roadandtrack.com › new-cars › reviews › a9794 › 1968-chevrolet-350-hp-corvette
In tune with their anti-‘Murican cars brief, the road test mavens concluded that not only did the newly styled Corvette fail in any bid to be an actual improvement over the old one, in some ways it had regressed. In fact, they hauled out the argument of style for style’s sake referenced in these pages last week. The charge was that the ‘Vette had been reworked not to materially advance the platform, but as a styling exercise. If we’re ready to promote the notion that technological change is always moving the needle forward, then as R&T implied, ‘fuhgettaboutit’. The editors noted that instead of making the car more efficient, it had in fact gained both length and weight while providing less space for both passengers and cargo than the C2; apparently all of the highly touted Corvette skunk works engineering prowess had been used up making vacuum activated headlight covers and another actual panel covering the windshield wipers that lifted up into the airstream when the wipers were in use. Also, there were fiber-optic glow points in the console that told you which of your lights were functioning.
Apparently, little attention had been paid to the chassis. I suppose that the Chevrolet engineers figured they had provided an IRS setup to the USA back in 1963, so their work was done. GM management most likely lost exactly zero sleep over the Chevy flagship as essentially it had no competition aside from a few Cobras trickling out of Carroll Shelby’s hangar. The rumored mid-engine ‘Vette proved to be vaporware. And after all, why spend resources when you have the market cornered? So, I’m not sure what R&T had in mind . . . I take it back, of course I do; they wanted a Ferrari or Aston Martin, you know, something with aluminum castings, a brace, at least, of overhead cams, and an alloy body like those beaten into shape by heavily muscled artisans on tree stumps somewhere outside of Modena or Newport Pagnell. All of this, of course, for $6 grand, or roughly half the price of the aforementioned exotics. We won’t even bring up running or maintenance costs for the exotic Italian and Brit compared to the mechanically un-exotic Corvette because that just gets depressing. But R&T knew what it wanted and never apologized.
Headlights up, windshield wiper cover down.
As for the 427 ‘Vette tested the following year, you have to wonder if R&T put it through its paces just to be provocative. The year before they’d been handed a 435 HP 427 and promptly handed it back, deeming it to be useless as a transportation device. Today we would scoff and say, of course, that was the point, but R&T was consistent in its refusal to be tainted or tempted by something so base as 1/4 mile times. Apparently, they could watch a grossly overpowered two-seater burn its rear tires down to the the cords without jumping up and down cheering like any normal American would do. Something about this smacks of a sort of elitism, or maybe they really were principled. On the other hand, take something like the Ferrari Daytona mentioned in this space some weeks ago: its performance window (and fuel consumption) was similar, save for a top speed basically unusable in most of the USA without fear of imprisonment. R&T raved about the Daytona. Of course, as transportation devices both are so unsuitable for normal traffic and road conditions as to be ridiculous if viewed objectively. Objectivity? What’s that? We’re car geeks.
Which brings us back to the notion that history is a mercurial thing; those early C3’s panned by Road & Track at their birth are now highly sought after Classics. We’re not talking about restomods engineered with an eye to updating them into something usable and safe . . . we are referring to R&T’s actual unusable transportation devices fifty-odd years down the road. They are no easier to drive and are no less functionally outrageous today and no doubt that’s part of their appeal to a certain audience. Of course with fifty years of development and hindsight humankind has progressed to the point where we now recognize the foolishness of delivering vast quantities of horsepower to the untrained masses, right?
Well . . .
To recap, the documented above Unusable as Transportation Device developed 435 horsepower from its 427 cubic inch V8 and ran a 14.3 quarter mile at 98 mph. Today we have two electric four door sedans, a Lucid Air Sapphire and a Tesla Model S Plaid that develop 1200 and 1020 horsepower, respectively. The Lucid Air runs the quarter mile in 9.1 seconds @ 151 mph. The Tesla manages 9.3 @152. The conventional run-of-the-mill internal combustion powered W-16 Bugatti Chiron beat the Tesla with a 9.3 @ 156, but it finished a few car lengths behind the Lucid. However, at the end of the quarter mile the Chiron will accelerate pretty much into infinity with a top speed of 305 miles per hour or thereabouts, a capability that of course would come in handy during your morning commute.
Granted, the Tesla costs $120,000, the Lucid $250,000, while the Bugatti starts at an affordable $ 3,299,995, so, depending on your income level, you may not see many on your block. But perhaps the question should be asked: how many people are capable of handling that kind of power? I realize that many driver’s aids exist in modern cars designed to keep you between the white lines, but eventually the laws of physics must apply. I suspect that the number of drivers capable of handling over one thousand horsepower are quite limited, and most of them are normally found driving around modified circles in Indianapolis, Monte Carlo, and Darlington. The rest work for Hollywood. In 1969, it’s doubtful your average Yuba City Dentist who might have been able to afford a 427 Corvette would have been qualified to drive it in anger. Is your average San Fran hedge fund manager any more qualified to handle a Lucid Air? At least the dentist would have been required to acquire the skill to negotiate a Muncie four-speed, a clutch, and sometimes unpowered steering. With a Lucid, you just mash the accelerator pedal. And after all, the Corvette and Bugatti are sports cars and so we might assume that their buyers have some idea what to expect; the Tesla and Lucid are four door sedans that carry five people including Grandma in comfort, ostensibly. Do Tesla and Lucid warn potential buyers of the hazards of hitting 150 mph on Wilshire Boulevard?
The horsepower wars are an interesting intellectual and engineering exercise, but eventually someone has to ask about the moral and practical implications. The 187 horsepower that my current vehicle churns out is the most horsepower of any car that I’ve ever owned. Our Geo Metro had 49, and yet somehow we survived to tell the tale and didn’t even realize we were underprivileged. If the Geo (and Simca, Saab, Lancia, Plymouth, Aerostar, et. al.) were underpowered, we nevertheless managed to survive with dignity intact, thank you. The makers of our current vehicle now offer an optional turbocharged model that develops 250 horsepower (still less than a quarter of the Lucid and Tesla quoted total) if you fill the gas tank with 93 octane. Why would I spend the extra money for the turbo? I don’t have any trouble keeping up with Seattle traffic (pause for laughter) and I can comfortably cruise at 85 should I wander into the underpopulated eastern counties of the state of Warshington (sic). Am I so bereft of meaningful experience that I have to resort to the cheap (well, not that cheap) thrills of warp speed acceleration?
I dunno. I do know that Brave New World hand-wringing aside, at some point you come to realize that today’s high-tech is tomorrow’s Jeopardy question. I wasn’t actually around at the time, but I suspect that in 1932 the Duesenberg SJ would have been looked on with awe and many would have concluded that nothing would ever match its engineering excellence and soul-shattering speed. Today we still look at it in awe, but mostly because it is so big and unfamiliar. We can appreciate it as a period piece and marvel at the quality of its workmanship and design, but my modest compact Mazda SUV could beat the SJ in both 0-60 and the 1/4 mile while providing a level of comfort and safety unthinkable in 1932. It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to project that in ninety years if humankind still exists after the Singularity that any entity curious enough to look at the Lucid Air will consider it quaint. It may be impossible to relate to, as the 2112 mode of transportation will eclipse our poor early 21st century offerings; it might not look like something from Blade Runner, but it will be as far removed from the Lucid as the Lucid is from the Duesenberg.
But now I’ve revealed the actual subject of this COAL, not that I’m being coy, but I’m trying to make my long-winded point, which, if I remember right, is that nothing is so constant as change. In other words, don’t pay too much attention to history (although I incorporate many of its unchanging lessons seriously) because next week it may have been revised, again. Even our own point of view changes on some kind of sliding scale: in the course of my lifetime I’ve shifted my beliefs all over the map in many areas, but I’m not going to traverse that minefield in this forum save to mention that twenty years ago I held the burgeoning class of sport utility vehicles in contempt. My reasoning went that they were inefficient poseurs and gasoline swillers: too big, too tall, poor handling, and not really that great for off-road use. What exactly was the point, then? Essentially, I believed that the SUV manifestation was that decade’s Brougham Era.
So what do I drive today? A Mazda CX-5, or, in other words, an SUV. It may be that I’ve drunk the kool-aid, or it may be that my own needs and priorities have shifted, or it may be that the product itself has improved exponentially. Twenty years ago I was too busy to spend my days wandering about the wilderness of the Pacific Northwest; today, I spend a great deal of time on Forest Service roads seeking the grail of solitude, along with, ironically, thousands of other hikers. Given my automotive druthers, I’d be driving a Miata (so long as I could find a suitable crane to get myself in and out of it). But now I tend to need available AWD and ground clearance, or at least I think I do–I confess that I often see normal sedans at the trailheads, although usually not when there’s a foot of snow on the ground.
Your faithful servant on Mt. Rainier.
In any case, when the time came to replace the esteemed Mazda 3 Hatchback described here last week, I realized that I was going to have to bite the bullet, swallow my pride, change my flag, and embrace the current idiom, aka the SUV. The question was, how far down the primrose path was I willing to wander? I mean I could jump in with both feet and sign up for a Jeep Wrangler, or I could compromise and get what serious off-roaders disparagingly called a ‘cute-ute’. As the new vehicle was going to be our sole mode of transport, a Wrangler wasn’t at the top of the list as driving one around town and on the interstate is officially listed in the DSM as a form of masochism, or sadism if you are carrying passengers. That narrowed the list down, but only slightly.
Fortunately, I’d had occasion to drive or ride in most of the candidates for the honor of gracing our humble garage. I scratched a few from the ticket early on. The best-sellers, both Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V, left me cold, the Toyota because of its forced styling and, when I checked out the local dealers, an unfathomable pricing scheme; the Honda because of wonky styling and its 1.5 turbocharged four, which was rumored to have oil dilution issues, and, oh boy, I’d had my fill of Honda and oil issues. Until Tesla took over the title, the Subaru Outback had been the champ-een of Tapioca Beach, ubiquitous and unlovely. I never contracted the Subaru virus; I hate to ramble on like some Victorian aesthete, but Subarus are not so much styled as decorated–someone at Subaru HQ draws a box and then pencils in some trinkets and black moldings. Kia and Hyundai were considered, but I could never get a handle on Kia pricing and although the Tucson was attractive, it failed to shoulder its way into the top three.
The top three? I misspoke. Actually it was the top two. I liked the VW Tiguan, and although the press was mixed about its virtues, at least it looked good and had some useful features. I went so far as to investigate two dealerships to see pricing and what was available. In the end, though, I had to go back to Mazda. After our bulletproof Protégé and 3, it seemed foolish to look elsewhere. At the same time, it wasn’t that the CX-5 was a middle-of-the-pack offering; it always finished first or close to it no matter what test you bothered to reference. It’s true that it may not have been the most capable offering off-road, but I wasn’t going to be rock-crawling at Moab, was I? I just needed something that could negotiate Forest Service roads and manage to find its way through the sometimes abundant Cascade Mountain snow.
I spent some time looking at specs, attempting to find the best combination of features, keeping in mind that I really did need it for light off-road duty. In the end it came down to the fact that the Touring edition had P225/65HR17 tires while the Grand Touring had P225/55VR19’s. That extra bit of sidewall on the 17 inchers could be critical when it came time to take on the sometimes brutal mountain roads of the PNW. The leather upholstery and other gee-gaws of the GT didn’t tempt me–I could add the ‘Preferred Equipment Package’ (Bose stereo, sunroof, power tailgate, Homelink) that got me to 80% of the GT without the stuff I didn’t want.
Mazda Styling’s finest hour.
All that was left to do was to e-mail my homies at the U-District Mazda dealer, tell them what I’d chosen, and see what they had in stock. They gave me the lowdown and the usual reasonable quote that same day and so with mixed feelings we cleaned out the beloved 3 and took it on its final journey, bidding it a sad farewell. Linda was a nurse at Childens’ Hospital in Seattle for forty years and it so happened that our salesperson had a grandchild who had recently passed away there. Tears were shed and bonds were formed while I stayed in the background. It wasn’t the car-buying experience you expect to have, but then none of the staff at U Mazda had ever fit the car sales stereotypes. Sadly, U Mazda, the very first Mazda dealer in the USA, sold out to a competitor during Covid and so that relationship is now in the past, but it lasted over a twenty year period, which is a rare thing in this day and age.
The Last Homely House.
Linda drew the straw for color choice, and selected a dark blue metallic CX-5 Touring AWD with all the equipment described above. The seats were upholstered in a leather-look vinyl with faux suede inserts that prove to be cool in the summer and warm in the winter and after three years show little sign of wear. On the other hand, they are black and require frequent vacuuming should one suffer from OCD. The cargo compartment proved to be on another level compared to anything that came before it, save the Aerostar. It holds not only a Fender Twin Reverb and a Vox AC-30, but also the Fender Deluxe and half my current collection of git-tars. The sad thing is that old band of mine is no more, scattered by the eight winds to various parts of the country in the wake of Covid, so in a sense I’m all dressed up with nowhere to go. Of course the trunk can be used to carry all sorts of novelties, including carpet rolls.
Trunk sans amplifiers.
I can’t begin to list all the features, partly because after three years I still don’t know how to use them all. Suffice to say that the windshield wipers know when it’s raining, the headlights know when to dim themselves, the steering wheel vibrates when I get too close to a white or yellow line, the mirrors light up and the car beeps a warning when someone is in my blind spot. The cruise control is of the active variety and so adjusts its speed depending on what’s happening in front of you, but can be overridden with a poke at the gas pedal. Should the car in front of you slow suddenly, the CX-5 will brake itself, which scared the bejesus out of me the first time it happened. In the entertainment arena, Bose has provided a stereo with ten speakers that is so much better than any sound system in my house that it’s slightly embarrassing. Apparently the CX-5 deems that I have grown feeble as the tailgate rises and lowers with the touch of a button, no questions asked. A sunroof allows whatever scarce Pacific Northwest light is available into the cabin, thus keeping the vampires at bay whenever we visit Forks on the Olympic Peninsula.
Room at last!
I’m certain if I were to peruse the owner’s manual again I would find more forgotten features, but of course the Mazda is still a transportation device that will stand or fall on what it’s like to drive. Needless to say, it isn’t a Miata, but given its bulk, height, and weight, it still acquits itself well on the road. I’m not going to try to convince you that it’s a sports car, but neither is it a wallowing walrus that bobs down the road like a ’58 Buick (and I would know, as my Dad owned one). The brakes don’t quite inspire the confidence that was one of the 3’s prominent characteristics, but they still do the job. The Mazda does excel in fairly high speed cruising (once I leave the eternal gridlock of the greater Puget Sound), as it is extremely quiet and tracks like a Casey Jones piloted locomotive, plus, wonder of wonder, you can see over things, which is a greatly underrated quality that largely explains why so many are attracted to SUV’s. I drove our daughter’s newish 3 sedan a few weeks ago and was reminded how frustrating it can be to feel buried in a sea of cars and trucks.
The Princess of Tapioca Beach.
As for reliability, it still has only around 34,000 miles on it, so it’s just getting broken in. I service it when it tells me to, which may mean more oil changes than strictly necessary, but I do plan to keep it for awhile and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as B. Franklin was wont to say. Fuel consumption, amazingly, is nearly identical to our much smaller Mazda 3, so the argument that SUV’s are wasteful of resources begins to dim. However, its current tires likely won’t last much past 40,000 miles, but that’s par for the course with original equipment rubber. Otherwise, there are no tales to tell, as in typical Mazda fashion it goes about its business with no drama and no unscheduled dealer trips. As for filling its original brief, Forest Service roads strike less fear in it than they do in me. I’ve yet to feel it bottom out and it’s reassuring to feel the rear tires kick in when needed, something that occurs seamlessly and unobtrusively. My sole concern is my 2.5 liter SkyActiv four is equipped with cylinder deactivation . . . I never really feel it in operation, but I know it’s there and I’m also aware of CD’s less than stellar history in other makes and models over the years. Only time will tell. Nevertheless, I only read today that Consumer Reports ranks the CX-5 in its top ten most reliable vehicles. But, in summa, the CX-5 is a capable machine that is still a joy to look at when I approach it in a parking lot. It has confirmed me as a Mazda-phile . . . in the marque from Hiroshima I have found a suitable end to my long, strange automotive trip as outlined in these pages.
Mazda fusion reactor, or maybe a DOHC four?
(**Heavy sigh**) Here I am at the other end of my Cars of a Lifetime . . . whether or not another car will follow depends on a number of factors, chief of which is whether I’ll be around to play the new car field in the future. Should I continue to survive and thrive, it seems reasonably certain that any vehicle replacing the CX-5 will be either plug-in hybrid or electric: high on the list is the rotary assisted PHEV due soon from Mazda; I just might own a Mazda rotary yet! I try to keep abreast of automotive developments and stand fascinated by the imminent migration to electric vehicles. Many questions are yet to be answered, but what seemed unlikely, questionable, and debatable five years ago now has an air of inevitability.
And so the time has come to wrap us this series and bid you all a very fond farewell. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to stand on my soapbox and expound my thoughts, theories, and idiosyncrasies without too much fear of the hook, and I appreciate very much the kind words and encouragement that so many of you have given. Some of my family have followed the series and have remarked how civilized and thoughtful the response in the comments section has been. This is a rare group, and I’m proud to be a small part of it. Thanks, too, to Paul N. for the opportunity and his patient encouragement.
Here’s wishing a memorable holiday season to all, and to all a good night. Happy trails, and catch you all on the flip side, and in the words of one B. Dylan: “I’m glad I fought, I only wish we’d won!” . . .
The late Jean Shepherd understood I think better than most that car magazines and other “lifestyle” publications were basically selling fantasies. Horsepower wars among supercars and Corvettes notwithstanding, sixties buyers mostly settled for base V-8s; the average Chevrolet had a 283 and Powerglide.
The magazines had slightly different fantasy lifestyle profiles, but even for those who generally looked down on American cars (and Road & Track typically did in the sixties), the Corvette and domestic muscle cars served an important function in helping readers develop a lifestyle-appropriate degree of snobbery, so that if they were ever magically transported to a world of effortless affluence, they wouldn’t embarrass themselves by ordering a Schlitz instead of the right sort of 25-year-old single malt whiskey.
Not that the C3 wasn’t flawed, sometimes in ways that were hard to accept even given the price, or that it didn’t have some regrettably silly gimmicks (hidden wipers!), but that wasn’t entirely the point either. (A lot of magazine readers couldn’t have afforded a $6,000 Corvette any more than they could a 911 or Ferrari.)
I tend to agree with the idea that Road & Track, together with the other car magazines of the time, sold fantasy. It’s interesting to ponder, too, how fragmented the car enthusiast audience was (and is). For instance, no one who read Road & Track would admit to reading Hot Rod, and vice versa; obviously they were pointed at completely different demographics. It would be interesting to do a study of how those demographics were made up. The R&T and HR comparison is obvious, but there were all those other mags, from Motor Trend to Car and Driver that had their own dedicated and carefully nurtured followings. When I was a kid I knew one other person who read R&T. Aside from our two copies each month I sincerely doubt that the drugstore sold any others. Why I chose R&T is another question but it was likely because of my interest in racing. When Jim Clark won the Indy 500 in 1965 I was already a racing fan but his story led me to Formula One and the only place in most of America, especially rural Idaho, where you could read about F1 races was in R&T. From there I learned about the world of cars outside the U.S. and then R&T proceeded to shape my world view and tastes. Interesting process to contemplate. I then went on to live in Europe, but by then my tastes had been set. And of course, 80% of the cars I read about in R&T I wouldn’t be able to afford, but then eventually I could afford some of them and I chose from the R&T approved list. I’ve come to realize as the years have gone by to some degree how my tastes were formed, or manufactured, really. My intention isn’t to be too hard on R&T as I don’t regret the turn that I made, but I do realize that I was manipulated to some extent.
For instance, no one who read Road & Track would admit to reading Hot Rod, and vice versa;
I did! Loved them both.
Actually, if you go back to the early-mid 50s, the two weren’t as far apart, as contrary to popular belief, hot rods were not all about drag racing or salt flats back then, but about making cars (commonly older ones) better performing all-round. HR magazine was quite interested in road racing back then, and two of the editors built their own racing “hot rod” to compete in the Carrera Panamericana. In fact, drag racing was just barely getting going then.
I’ve been re-reading 1955 Hot Rods, and their tech editors were top-notch, and there were lots of articles about improving suspensions, brakes and all-round handling as well as performance.
I read HR in the 60s and early 70s; a good complement to RT. 🙂
Well, I’m gob-smacked, as they say. But I never read the ’50’s Hot Rods. I would have only read a few around ’65 before the R&T virus took hold!
Very interesting series, thanks! I like your SUV. My neighbor has a CX-9 and it is a good looking vehicle as well. I have never considered a Mazda, and I can’t explain why. They seem to check a lot of boxes for me. I live in a city of 1M people and I cannot tell you who or where the Mazda dealer is……maybe that is part of their problem? I can rattle off about any other make you need directions to. I may not know the dealership name (some of them seem to change annually), but I can tell you where they are.
Mazda was never on my map until I read the Giant Test (wait, that’s another magazine!) of the whole compact car field in Car and Driver back in 2002 or thereabouts. The rave review of the Protégé impressed me enough to make me take a look, and I haven’t looked back. Mazda is without a doubt a minor presence in the U.S. market so it’s not hard to see why they’ve been overlooked, historically. I’ve read too that their dealer network has been less than stellar. I can’t speak to that as the three in our area that I’ve had anything to do with have been pretty good. All three have been remodeled and made much nicer in the past five years, so it could be there is a push from Mazda corporate.
I Googled it…..we have three Mazda dealers in my county. I had no idea. Two of them are what I would call “off the beaten path”, away from other dealers. One of them, I should have noticed by now. It is sandwiched between a Cadillac dealer and a Mercedes dealer, in a suburb I don’t go often.
Wow, between the Cadillac and Mercedes dealerships. Pretty heady company. Are they owned by the same group?
“… You know what they say about aging, but that applies to other people, not ourselves… :
Of course. We have only always been young, or younger; none of us have any experience being old, or older. That’s for other… older people. It seems we only acknowledge elder-hood when it hits in the head like a cast iron frying pan.
It’s actually a shock. I’ll see a photo with me in the off-focus background and think “that old f*rt is me?” When did that happen?
I loved the late C1 Corvettes, mainly due to the TV show “Route 66”, tolerated the improved (I guess) C2s, and then dropped out of C-love after that. The fact I could not afford any of them was immaterial.
And when I could afford a Corvette, I got a 170 hp 1978 Datsun 280Z instead and never looked back.
I agree that the CX-5 is the one to have and I am glad you are happy with it. I’ve always had a soft spot for Mazdas but have only had one – for 24 years and counting. I just had an series of services done on the Miata, water pump, timing belt, new radiator, and valve cover gasket. None of these repairs were critically needed, but well … at least I can get these issues addressed so I can feel better about the car being in good shape.
I told my mechanic I wished he could address aging human medical issues as well as automotive issues. He smiled, nodded, and admitted that he did not have an answer to that.
Thank you for creating these entertaining COAL posts. I hope we all see in the not-too-distant future an additional Steven Vettura COAL concerning either a plug-in hybrid or an all-electric vehicle.
“I’ll see a photo with me in the off-focus background and think “that old f*rt is me?” When did that happen?”
Oh yes. I’ve had two of those Moments. The first was a photo taken behind me in church about twenty years ago, and I was like “Who’s that guy with the big bald patch?” I had no idea I’d lost THAT much hair! Second time was a photo taken when our writing group was “on location” (out of our usual meeting cubbyhole in the library), and I got to see how fat I was.
To see ourselves as others see us can be a startling thing.
Oh, hell yeah. Seeing photographs of yourself is probably the world’s best diet plan . . .
I always assumed that I’d only submit to aging kicking and screaming, but now I realize that takes too much energy. But as you say, it’s shock. Even now I don’t really think of myself as being old, even though I demonstrably am. Maybe in another ten years I will have resigned myself.
For me it was the C2. I first went over 100 mph in my bosses ’67 327. That was a revelation. I still think the C2 is one of the most beautiful American cars ever made. Truth be told, I think those early C3’s look pretty good, too, but then it all went to hell by the mid 70’s.
I had a lot of good times in various first generation Z’s . . . can’t fault your choice!
Glad to hear about your Miata. Maybe I’ll run out of excuses and buy one yet. And let me know if your mechanic figures out the human medical angle. I’m ready to try a new avenue. They keep giving me new doctors that look like they just graduated from high school.
Thanks, RL, and when and if I ever get a battery car, CC readers will be the first to know.
I have been struggling to find a new car that interests me, but I will admit that I find some appeal in today’s Mazda lineup.
Luddite that I am, I keep reading bits and pieces here and there that suggest that modern tech being used to meet new and improved CAFE targets (direct injection, cylinder deactivation, yada yada) is closing the curtain on what has recently been the era of the longest-lasting cars of all time. For a buy-and-hold guy like me, this is some concern. These predictions are either accurate or they are not, only time will tell. But it is not like there are alternatives to new cars for someone who wants a new car.
This has been an enjoyable series. You are around my age so the choices made at different life stages resonate with me. Beyond that, you are an excellent writer and teller of tales and I have always looked forward to these Wednesday morning sessions. So go buy some more cars!
Thanks for the encouragement, JP. I’ll check my bank account, but I have the feeling that a new car is a ways off in the distance!
I concur that all the new tech makes for uncertainty so far as reliability goes. I keep waiting for things that go bump in the night, or under the hood, but no problems thus far. That has to be an argument for electric cars–there’s so much less to go wrong, although with all the safety and autonomous driving systems proliferating there’s certainly room for problems.
I keep an eye on the Mazda forums to see if cylinder deactivation in the 2.5 SkyActiv has shown any tendency towards failure: there’s nothing yet, and we’re going four years on from its introduction. No news is good news. But there are all those other systems . . . you have to think that something will go wrong eventually. But I’ll remain optimistic given the record of my past Mazdas. Fingers crossed!
Our daughter has a CX-5 with about 80,000 trouble-free miles on the clock. I think these compact “SUV’s” are an ideal vehicle for many folks. The Mazda stands out due to driving characteristics beyond mere acceleration, and the fit/finish of the car in general is superior to anything near its price.
It supports her very active outdoor lifestyle, though she steals our 4Runner (an SUV without the quote marks) to get closer access to some trailheads for her 14’er climbs here in the Rockies.
One quibble… I’m tall, but not overly so at 6’1″ and 34″ inseam. There’s not enough legroom for me to comfortable drive her nice wagon. The car is essentially a half-size too small for me, but it is very impressive.
Your daughter’s 80,000 mile CX-5 is definitely encouraging. I take that information to heart. I do wish I had a 4Runner to borrow for some of our trips. Or a Wrangler or Bronco.
Size certainly dictates the individual’s response to many vehicles. I seem to be close in size to the mannequin they used to design the CX-5 interior, but I’m 5’9″ with a 32 inch inseam. I do yearn for the memory seats of the next trim level, though, as I have to do a lot of adjusting after my wife drives the Mazda. And I don’t think she’s quite as comfortable as I am even after her adjustments. I guess you can’t please all the people all of the time simply because we’re all such different shapes and sizes.
The CX 5 is on my shortlist to replace my currant sedan. This kept me glued to your COAL even trough the Corvette related paragraphs.
My main point is about the fuel consumption. I put a trailer hitch bike rack on my sedan and with a bike on that my fuel consumption is no better than that of a frugal SUV.
Also my brother in Germany bought a CX 5 because it was better in how it drives and how it feels inside compared to most SUVs in this class. And I do like the styling.
It’s been a very interesting COAL series to follow and I enjoyed every article in it!
Thanks, Wolfgang! Sorry about the Corvette digression. I do have a tendency to digress.
We’ve been pleased with the CX-5’s fuel economy. In the summer we often average over 30 mpg on a tank, but with the cold weather of the last month it’s dipped down to around 26. Should be fine for light towing or hauling bikes, I would think.
I was surprised how many Mazdas I saw in Austria, Italy, and Germany this fall. I imagine the styling does have something to do with that, but as someone said, Mazda seems to be the most European of the Japanese Manufacturers . . .
Lots of insight here. Speed in and of itself no longer interests me, everything is fast now.
Modern vehicles have so many layers of electronics between the driver and the road that
driving them really amounts to a VR experience anyway, IMO.
As regards the Mazda, it sounds like a good vehicle, but most things are at least good
anymore!
Speed is nice if you have a place where you can use it safely, but there are so few places where you can that it seems shortsighted to provide such an excess that really has no purpose.
And yes, driving is without a doubt becoming a VR experience with all the assists and safety aids. I often appreciate all that, but it does add a layer between you and the road; it becomes a different experience.
I agree that most cars are good these days. One thing I don’t like are CVT’s and I end up driving rentals with them fairly often. They’ve improved over time, but I still don’t like them and wouldn’t buy a car that had one.
I’ve never owned a Mazda in 47 years of car ownership, nor a crossover, but these are mighty appealing. But whatever the car, I will miss your COAL series. As a once avid R&T reader, especially from about 1968 to 1978, your commentary is spot-on. And as someone who once knew the horsepower ratings of just about every car on the road (correction, every car tested by R&T) I couldn’t tell you what the exact horsepower is of any of the three cars we own. Though none of them is a Rolls Royce, they all have sufficient power.
Thank you, dman. I read R&T from about 1965 to sometime in the ’80’s. I think the writing suffered after the early 80’s. After the Bonds, Henry Manney and Rob Walker were gone there was less to enjoy and it became more bland and mainstream. Maybe the cars became less interesting.
I used to be quote all that tech info, too. My wife has read some of these pieces and said that she was surprised that I was interested in all the number stuff because I am so not like that in any other part of my life . . .
And my Mazda, like the Rolls, also has sufficient power!
This has been an exceptional COAL series, not just in the variety of vehicles but also in the writing itself along with the detours from the obvious subject matter. While I haven’t commented much throughout I have enjoyed them immensely and looked forward to each new installment.
I arrived at a similar conclusion regarding power and performance a couple of years back when still choosing to review new cars here, many of the newest are simply too powerful and “capable” in the hands of most of the average public and their level of driver education and I ended up finding much unanticipated (and often unexpected and counter to common “journalist/blogger” opinion) delight in the most mundane of vehicles that I was loaned. Not that I usually found myself in over my head (well, red mist is a real thing that can result in much foolishness!), but just questioning what really is the point in some cases in regard to longer term ownership after the first day’s thrill wore off. Also, owning a very common EV now that frankly is far faster off the line than many if not most of the hallowed “performance” cars of not very long ago takes the bloom off that particular rose somewhat, only exacerbated by the precisely zero atmospheric losses in performance of EVs here at 5000′ of elevation along with never ending traffic, aging knees and back etc… Witness the subsequent sale of one of those performance cars from my stable and little desire for another. The old adage of “Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go” is slipping by the wayside, speed (or at least acceleration) is cheap and ubiquitous now.
I’m the one guy out there that somehow didn’t enjoy the CX-5 as much as I thought I would (or maybe I was conditioned to be expected to love it due to all of the other raves I had seen and it couldn’t live up ?), in my case one of the turbo models I reviewed here. It was a fine car, and yes the styling is excellent and the mechanicals as I recall were without fault, and perhaps it IS at the top of its particular class, yet for me it was perhaps overhyped, or at least some of the common bits shared through the line were not quite as impressive in a top-spec/price example (Pro-tip: don’t look at or buy more than you honestly need). Conversely I enjoyed the Mazda3, CX-9 and CX-30 tremendously and am also a prior multi-Mazda owner, the CX-5 likely IS excellent compared to others, but maybe I expected it to beat sliced bread etc…and yet I would and do heartily recommend it to others realizing that my own opinion is not uniquely superior and I never thought it objectively wasn’t very good (it is).
So, in closing, hopefully we do see you around these hallowed COAL seams in the future, in the meantime enjoy the Mazda and the memories dredged up by writing this series. Thank you.
Thank you kindly, Jim. I appreciate the kind words from a writer I respect.
Like you, I’m perplexed at the horsepower escalation. Certainly with electric cars it seems to be an easy feature that comes with the territory, but then you look at the conventional internal combustion engines that also have become more and more powerful when there are fewer and fewer places to use it. Maybe we’ll have a generation of suppressed drivers who have to act out in other ways. Can’t be healthy . . .
Glad to have another perspective of the CX-5–anytime something is lauded in the press we have reason to be skeptical. I can only compare ours to others in the same class and price range and of course I carry my own agenda and biases. And after all, it’s still only a car and maybe we begin to expect too much with the introduction of a new model.
I hope to have the opportunity to drone on again on these hallowed pages! Thank you again for your support.
Thanks for a terrific COAL series; you’ve brought a lot more than just your cars here.
I am going to offer an alternate take on yours concerning R&T and the C3 Corvette. First off, they stated quite clearly that the reason they gave back the 435 hp ’68 was because it overheated. That’s legitimate. And their criticisms of certain detail aspects of the C3 are quite valid, for a magazine devoted to high function, among other things.
Having reread both the ’68 review you linked to as well as the ’69, I don’t see them nearly as negative as you do. They very clearly noted a number of improvements too (visibility, higher cornering power, etc.), and the few critiques are fair and valid, in my opinion.
Comparing the Corvette to the Daytona is of course an apples to oranges thing. But let’s just say that Ferrari didn’t indulge in putting a new more stylish but heavier and less functional body on the Daytona chassis after a few years. Nor did Porsche and others. Their cars almost invariably were focused on improving their function as high-end sports cars, not about gee-gaws like hidden wipers and engine instruments that were less visible due to new dash styling.
As to the collectability of the C3, its values are still very modest. Hagerty values a 300 hp ’68 coupe at $28k, not a whole lot more than my ’66 F100 or a Beetle; a comparably-equipped ’67 coupe is valued at $70k. It rather seems the market agrees with R&T’s assessment, that the C3 was not a meaningful improvement, and its stylish body involved some trade-offs.
“R&T was consistent in its refusal to be tainted or tempted by something so base as 1/4 mile times. ”
Actually, R&T always gave 1/4 mile times very high billing, and put them on the little “highlights” box at the top of the articles, and not 0-60 times.
In all of its reviews over the years, R&T consistently gave the Corvette high marks for offering world-class performance and handling at a price that was unbeatable. I do not see any negative bias to it, unless not salivating over its latest styling gimmicks is a considered a bias, which it actually isn’t, in terms of the terms definition.
For that matter, I disagree about R&T’s perceived anti-American bias. Yes, they made it quite clear that they were not fans of American full size sedans, finding them unnecessarily large, which contributed to poor handling, steering and braking. But if you go back and read some of the reviews we’ve done here, they were quite positive about most of the ones that they did test, like the ’66 Toronado and Riviera. Of course they were critical of the Toro’s pathetic drum brakes, a very valid critique.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/1960s-vintage-reviews/vintage-road-track-review-1966-buick-riviera-gs-lighter-and-faster-than-the-fwd-toronado/
We also ran a review that R&R did of a ’68 300 hp 327/PG Chevelle; they liked it very much indeed!
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-rt-road-test-1968-chevelle-malibu-327-an-unusually-satisfactory-car/
It seems that there’s a tendency to stereotype all the car magazines from the 60s and 70s; I’ve found that rerunning many of the reviews from these various magazines shows that while they did have certain priorities or preferences, generally speaking an objective reread of these reviews shows a lot less of the bias than they are often attributed to having.
Of course they knew their audience; R&T’s roots were strictly in sports cars and racing in the early 1950s. And their founder John Bond had some strong opinions about certain engineering issues, including some obviously impractical and odd-ball ones. So yes, they generally avoided big American cars, for obvious and stated reasons (Their sister publication Car Life did that). But R&T gave the downsized ’77 GM big cars glowing reviews, comparing them favorably to the W116 Mercedes sedans. And that was hardly the only one.
I would actually like someone to show me an example of R&T’s “anti-American” bias, in the actual meaning of that word (essentially an unfair prejudice). They were clear about their preferences and judged cars accordingly.
I recently went through every contemporary ’66 Toronado review I could find, and I don’t think I saw one that DIDN’T make an issue of the brakes (as well they should have!). So, that was by no means a criticism exclusive to R&T.
That said, I do feel that at times R&T was rather contemptuous of American iron, with a number of notable exceptions. It was not the same kind of bratty snark you’d find in a C/D or Car review (or even Car Life, which could be surprisingly snotty in a deadpan sort of way), but a fair number of their older reviews of American cars included some kind of polite apology to loyal readers for taking the time to even test what obviously weren’t proper sports cars, with the clear implication that these were not their usual sort of thing. That tone had almost completely disappeared by the early seventies and was definitely absent in the eighties and nineties, during which R&T tended to be even-handed to a fault, but it shows up at points in the fifties and sixties.
I don’t disagree. But there’s a key difference between “bias” and “stated preference”, and it seems to me that R&T clearly falls into the latter.
Bias is different; as if in you’re comparing a group of cars from various countries and you consistently prefer the British, or German, or French, or specific brands, despite the apparent objective reasons to not do so.
R&T had a very clearly stated preference (in regular passenger cars) for those that were smaller and more efficient and exhibited a balance of dynamic qualities. On the basis of that, their “polite apology” for testing a larger American car is not really a bias, in my reading of the definition, or the one in the Oxford Languages dictionary:
bias: 1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. 2.. a systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation.
This is the point of my original comment. Clearly stated preferences is different than bias, which the reader is forced to ascertain its existence, if they are able to discern it.
Thank you, Paul.
I don’t disagree with your perspective of bias versus stated preference in R&T. As I mentioned above, my intention isn’t to throw shade at R&T given my long and valued experience as a reader. I’m no doubt exaggerating the editorial bent in this piece for effect and to reflect how it influenced my own enthusiast experience. In the end, R&T was willing to be critical of an American institution, and that was a valuable lesson for an American in the mid-60’s and there’s much to be said for that. And to some degree, I’m reflecting my own point of view as the C2, as you say, will probably always be regarded as more important (and aesthetically superior) to the C3 and I was disappointed that the new car didn’t meet the standard set by its predecessor.
When contemplating the American/European debate in R&T I have to go back to Henry Manney (whom I believe was the best writer in any American car magazine). He said something to the effect that Europeans always ridiculed American cars but when it came to by they purchased whatever bore the closest resemblance to the hated Yank. That, however, was in the ’60’s and that would change as the 70’s progressed. Manney had a Mustang, which gave him no end of problems as I recall, but then so did his Fiat 600. When someone wrote to him and asked which Exotic they should buy for high speed transport in Nevada he counseled him to forget that nonsense and buy a Citroen DS. This from someone who actually owned a Ferrari 250 GTO. In other words, he had no use for dogma and always seemed to keep his objectivity. And then there was the time Rob Walker bought a Mustang II!
But here I’m supporting your point of view rather than the one I express above. My point is that R&T indelibly influenced my taste and attitudes about cars, and that’s one of the reasons that none of the cars in my COAL series was what might be considered a conventional American car, even the Plymouth Reliant (small and FWD) and the Aerostar (a strange mix of new and old design–aerodynamic, but based on a truck platform). Those are some pretty strong points of view I picked up from R&T. You can argue that I misinterpreted what R&T was trying to say, which could be accurate as I was a teenager at the time with little experience in understanding subtleties. I’m assuming there were many who were in the same boat, though.
I did read the road tests mentioned above when they were first published. I remember the Toronado test with mention of the brake debacle, and also the Riveria test that came shortly after, where they extol many of the Buick’s virtues in comparison to the less conventional Toronado, but also that they were disappointed that the car had grown in size. I recall the Malibu test, which was a carefully optioned car with just the right things to make it appeal to the enthusiast. It’s also doubtful that many came optioned that way, which is a sort of subtext.
In a way R&T may have been the prophet crying in the wilderness and most of their misgivings came to pass in the 70’s when Detroit seemed to completely lose its mind. But then they were willing to give encouragement when the general downsizing began.
In any case, I hope I underlined the cultural phenomenon of that opposition that was rare in those times in America. Critics, of course, are not lacking in our day, but the quality of the criticism too often falls very short. Maybe I should write a piece about my R&T journey that explains all of this much more coherently than I’m doing now!
I’ve owned one Mazda in my lifetime. I’ve had it for 11 years. It has everythng I need. A fine 6 speed shifter, a quick heater, flawless A/C, and a C/D player! I repeat – a C/D player! No nanny features beyond an airbag. It’s an ’01 Miata that never breaks, although it’s mainly a warm weather plaything. And, I can still get in & out of it at my age of 81, but WILL make a few old man grunts when no one’s close by. I can’t imagine going from zoom-zoom to zing-zing with electricity in the future. But the future’s of little practical interest to me.The automotive past as related to us by the eloquent, & amusingly told stories such as this one is just one of the few treats to which I look forward. Thanks all. Ron.
Another Miata! The fact that you can still get in and out of it at 81 is encouragement to us all. Let us know if you do make the transition from zoom-zoom to zing-zing. That would be a great read . . .
And thank you for your kind words, Ron.
I’ve enjoyed your COAL series, thank you for taking the time to tell the stories.
We purchased a 2021 CX-5 for my wife, replacing the Ford Flex that I loved. I echo all your comments, very capable and quite comfortable even for my 6″5′ frame. Fuel consumption is exceptional, and a few little warranty items aside, it’s been a fantastic car for going on 2 years, hauling my wife’s paddleboard (and the car is not too tall to load it on the roof) and is capable on the many gravel roads and the snow around here. For us, the Mazda represented a really good value even though we have no Mazda dealer within 40 miles. So far, no regrets.
Thanks for the series Steven
Thank you, Kevin. Glad to have someone else join the Mazda choir! Hope you continue to have good luck and service.
Commenting on your “I struggle to recall my cell phone number”…
Of all the things I miss, I miss my mind the most.
Let me know if you see mine, Phil!
I work at a Mazda store and I won’t buy one. When doing deliveries for the brokers (fleet department), I often drive some distance and have put a lot of miles on the cars. Thus I have a lot of wheel time in the CX5’s and have driven every trim with both the NA 2.5 and the turbo. I find it to be one of the worst vehicles to actually sit comfortably in. The center arm rest is way too short and tapers off at the front, making it difficult to use unless you are over 6′ tall. The driver window controls are too far forward and you have to reach to use them. The steering wheel has a strange way of tilting and doesn’t ever seem to have a good position. The HVAC controls are way too low on the dash and the center console design is just terrible. So bad, that on longer trips I normally take my large iced tea with. The cup holders are so far back and with the already mentioned terrible arm rest, the entire set up is just bad. The engine’s seem to be set to one of two settings: Barely touch the gas and the car lurches forward. If not that, it feels like the car has an anchor behind and sluggish. Bottom line for me is that you really have to be a Mazda fan to buy one and I sure don’t feel like the handling is very good either.
In the article you mention Subaru as well. Again, working in the fleet department, I handle the company cars (courtesy deliveries). In the past three months, we’ve had a lot of Subaru’s turned in on Volvo’s. I didn’t keep exact count, but it has been somewhere in the number of 15 Subaru’s turned in. Only one lady liked hers and it was the Outback. The rest have been Foresters and nobody liked them. One lady said she would light it on fire if she wouldn’t get in trouble. The last guy to turn one in (last week) said his company will never buy them again and he said they just spent “another” $4,000 on the car. I have more stories from customers as well, but this has gotten long enough already.
I do find it interesting that, ergonomically speaking, some things that work well for one person will be unsuitable for someone else. I mentioned above that I must be close to the size of the mannequin they used to design the CX-5’s cabin. I seem to do okay with the things that are irritants to you. I have the same problem with Fender Stratocasters. I love the one I have, but it drives me nuts because I’m always hitting the pickup selector. I love the feel and all the Strat tones but I always hated playing it in public because I was constantly changing pickups unintentionally. So I get it.
Interesting to hear the Subaru stories. I have heard some horror stories, too, but then some seem to love their Subbies. I don’t care for the styling, but I really don’t like the CVT’s. I realize that most people are fine with them, but not me.
Interesting you mention the problems with Subarus. I know there are mixed opinions on the accuracy of Consumer Reports data, but one pattern I started noticing a few years ago is that for the first 3-4 years, Subaru overall reliability is well above average/above average, but then starts to drop to below average by years 4-6 or so (it varies by model and year – I’m looking at 2019, 2020 and 2022 issues right now. At first I thought it was related to new generation change over, but it’s not. Despite this, Consumer Reports frequently includes them in their Recommended Lists.
Conversely, CX-5s in particular, start out and remain well above average all the way through the tracking years in each issue (CX-9s don’t hold up as well). RAV4s and apart from a few spotty years, CR-Vs do too.
Great COAL series – thank you. Highly tuned engines whether 427 Big Blocks or 1.6 liter buzz-bombs have historically been a big pain in the butt to own because they develop power at such high RPMs as to be mostly unusable in normal street use, plus with lumpy solid lifter cams, multiple carbs, and high numerical rear axle ratios made them short-lived maintenance hogs that were noisy and thirsty in normal highway driving. In day-to-day driving a hydraulic lifter 300 HP 327/350 or 390 HP 427 were far more enjoyable Corvettes to own and drive (very waftable) than the high output equivalents, which typically also precluded the buyer from ordering desirable options such as A/C or even power steering, not to mention being much more expensive to insure, which is why the high horsepower versions tended to sell in small numbers.
Today brutal acceleration that would put any big-block C3 in the rear-view mirror is easily and relatively cheaply available with modern turbo motors, hybrids with electric assistance, and full electrics, with none of the down-sides as they are easily waftable and offer great fuel efficiency, quiet operation, and long-life when driven at normal speeds. No wonder CUVs and pickups are so popular today as they offer better acceleration and even handling and braking than sports cars of a generation ago, plus better visibility, more comfortable seating, and great cargo capacity, which are very important in most Western markets where car buyers are older and fatter than ever before. The question is – does any 15 year old put a poster of a RAV4 Hybrid, MDX, X3, Cayenne, or Model Y on their bedroom wall as their fantasy car of the future?
Reading vintage road tests of the C3 also makes it clear how far tire technology has come. There’s a different test of the ’69 that includes some remarks from Zora Arkus-Duntov about the difficulty Chevrolet had finding appropriate tires: available radials didn’t have stiff enough sidewalls, Duntov didn’t like the handling of bias-belted tires, and the standard Wide Ovals didn’t last long and made it difficult to use the full power of the hotter engines.
An F70-15 Wide Oval is the equivalent of about 215/70R15 today. The P225/65HR17 tires on Steven’s CX-5 Touring put more rubber on the road than a big-block C3, and that’s pretty modest rubber by modern standards.
Amazing to think about this. We tend to forget how often tires had to be changed back even when the C3 was new. 60,000 miles these days isn’t uncommon. For a Corvette in the late Sixties, what would it have been/. 8,000, if that?
Thanks, Ole!
Agreed on the problems posed by highly-tuned engines. I would go for a 327 Corvette any day, but maybe the 427 might have appealed to a younger me? Don’t think so, though.
We really do seem to have our cake and eat it, too, these days. The best of all worlds. It may turn out that we are spoiled.
Hard to imagine SUV posters on any teenager’s walls, but to they put any kind of car posters up anymore? Or are those days gone forever . . .
If they do, they put up posters of old cars, I think.
Probably not Lamborghini Countach’s, but who can say? I had a Duesenberg poster when I was a teen. It occurs to me that the Lambo is older now than the Duesenberg was back in the ’60’s. That’s a depressing thought . . .
Probably not. I think sixties/seventies muscle cars have a retro aesthetic appeal (they certainly continue to show up in music videos, TV shows, and movies), whereas the Countach is still on a weird cusp where it’s too modern to have the same retro vibe and yet old enough to seem dated. (I have an unscientific suspicion that younger people now, knowing nothing about cars but what they see on TV, would be surprised to hear that it was designed in the seventies; I think its pop culture associations are still with eighties dorm room posters and maybe villains on “Miami Vice,” which young people today may have seen on the oldies syndication channel between “Magnum, P.I.” and “Columbo.”)
Congratulations Steven on reaching the end of your COAL. I hope you take the advice folks were offering last week concerning continuing to write articles for CC that go beyond discussions of cars you’ve owned. There are always more stories than COAL stories.
That Haggerty video you included, funny, I just watched that last week. I forget how I found it, but afterwards I had one of those “OK, I guess I don’t get that 10 minutes of my life back” moments. I tried to salvage the time lost by spending more time thinking about why anyone would need or want any of those 3 cars. The best I could come up with was that the Tesla didn’t cost that much more than a “regular” Tesla, and ok, sure, if you’re going to buy a Tesla, why not buy one that (paraphrases the Spinal Tap joke) goes to 11. But even that was kind of weak.
Mostly, I’m pretty sure that the main purpose of the Tesla, and perhaps even the Lucid Plaid, would be for some owners to drive their investments into trees, walls, bridge abutments, and into canyons…and for most owners to simply have them and be scared of them. Seems like kind of a waste either way.
Thank you, Jeff. Maybe I can get a green light to try my hand at some other subjects.
I’m with you . . . no desire for 1000 horsepower. And although I have an amp that goes to ’11’, I can live without the nagging worry of getting a ticket every time I tickle the throttle. Or harboring a fear of trees, walls, bridges, etc.
Great COAL series, and you chose wisely with the CX-5.
Like you, I’ve never seen myself in a CUV, but I could see myself in THAT one.
And your wife totally picked the right color. That’s how I’d want mine, although Mazda’s metallic red is really beautiful on these too. There is a retired couple around the corner that has one of each! The husband’s red one is newer and more optioned if I can tell by looking at the wheels. But the wife’s blue one has the higher profile tires, and that makes more sense to me. My next-door neighbor has a charcoal gray one that’s newer than either of the aforementioned, but is a nice ‘middle-optioned’ version. I’m not sure of all of the trim levels of these, but I’d probably pick hers, as I tend to go for the one in the middle when purchasing a car.
Regarding you prediction of the “2112 mode[s] of transportation”, wouldn’t they be gleaming alloy air cars?… Oh wait, I’m getting my Rush albums mixed up again. 😉
Don’t be a stranger. Your writing style is totally worth a read here. Hopefully, we’ll see more of you around!
Thanks for the great COAL series, Steven!
Thanks, Rick!
That Soul Red is a striking color, maybe too striking. I might want to fly under the radar a bit more, but I enjoy seeing it on a sunny day. Lots of bling! I know the argument about buying the top of the line because you make it back when it’s time to sell, but I’m not convinced. And I really would rather do without all the high zoot stuff. But mostly I’m happy without the low aspect ratio tires. Too easy to poke a hole in ’em.
I’m always getting my Rush albums mixed up, no worries!
And again, thank you for your kind words.
What an enjoyable series, with some fascinating detours. So much to comment on!
Maybe I’m isolated (not just because of Covid), but I’d have thought the ‘speed kills’ lobby would be screaming long and hard about these mega-powered electrics. Are they somehow deemed okay because they’re electric and not IC-powered? Hmm – methinks there’s some pretzel logic at work here if so.
Excellent point about driving ability versus the power level purchased. Have we reached (and in many cases breached) the upper limit of practicable power? Not that I would wish more government intervention on anybody, but surely it’s about time manufacturers said to themselves, “Yes, we could maker it faster, but what’s the point?”
After my experience with the Mazda 3, and the 323-clone Ford Laser before that, I had wanted my wife to get a CX5 (at the time I was in the doghouse for writing off her Diamante), but the sales dude scuppered that by treating her like an idiot and steering her toward a highly-optioned CX3, a vehicle we had already determined was too small for our wider family needs (grandchildren, and all the paraphernalia that goes with them), and refusing to talk CX5. She walked, went back to Mitsubishi where she was welcomed (we’d been regulars there for over 20 years), and wound up with an ASX. Basic, but she’s happy with it.
Thank you, Peter. Detours galore, that’s my stock in trade . . .
Absolutely agree with you on the lack of attention being paid to the horsepower wars. You would think the insurance companies would be leading the restriction charge. Isn’t that what happened in the ’70’s? Of course the gas crises were another major factor. Sooner or later someone’s bound to make a crusade of restricting automobile speed. Or it will be interesting to see if a manufacturer has a courage to say, nope, no more jumping on the hp bandwagon.
Crazy story about your wife and the psycho sales dude. And a CX-3? Maybe a CX-30 would have made sense, but the CX-3 was definitely not in the same league as the CX-5. It was built on the Mazda 2 platform, after all. Sales people can be hard to figure out. Must have been some kind of steep incentives on the CX-3.
Our daughter-in-law in Australia has a Mitsubishi–not sure if it’s the ASX as they are called something else here. I did rent the US version a few years back and quite liked it. And can see its appeal.
I’d rather have a Mazda2, honestly. The 2007–2014 one was a pretty decent B-segment car. (The more recent edition superseded here by the CX-3 seemed like it was also generally appealing except for the dreary “We stuck a tablet on the dash and called it infotainment” touchscreen, the latter being a big turnoff because I loathe touchscreens in all their forms.)
I use a similar CX-5 although mine is a Soul Red 2016 Sport so the same 17″ rubber but cloth seats and no “driver aids”. It does an excellent job of getting down various dirt and gravel roads to trailheads and boat ramps as well as the icy Cascade Lakes Highway i ski season. My only quibbles are poor packaging compared to our late lamented Mazda5 that had way more space inside on the same basic platform and unimpressive gas mileage. Like you we have seen some surprising stuff at trailheads like an MGB at Sparks Lake where the road is so beat up the Toyota Tacomas were crawling and our son’s Buick spent a surprising amount of time off road.
Regarding power, after years of driving small cars with 100 or so horsepower the 180hp engine in the CX-5 feels plenty powerful and when running light the 5.4 V8 in my F150 is near muscle car performance. I am fine driving a slow car fast so a used Ford Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost is on a list of possible replacements.
Ah, you must be down by Bend. Beautiful country, that. We enjoy hiking in that neck of the woods a great deal.
I haven’t driven the first generation CX-5, but I’d like to in order to see what the platform is like without the driver’s aids and see what the other changes were. I understand your version has more cargo space than the Mk. II. Looks like style for style’s sake must have been a factor.
My sister had an MGB in Europe so I’ve spent enough time behind the wheel to know that anyone that takes one on a Forest Service road is much braver (or foolish) than I. Seems like you would tear off the exhaust system if you ran over a cigarette pack, but they did jack up the later versions to pass the bumper regs, so maybe it was one of those!
My son had a Fiesta RS . . . that thing was insane! Loved that car, but an icy road ultimately claimed it. Not its ideal environment. Would love to have a Fiesta, though.
Somehow I’m not surprised by your choice and I can see why it would make sense if you indulge in mild trekking regularly. They (and the smaller CX30), as you can imagine, sell well here in Austria as we do have our fair share of snow and mountainous roads, where a 4X4 is not an indulgence but a necessity. Mazda in its wisdom decided to stop making pickup trucks so the CXs are the only option if you want a 4X4 Mazda. Shame really because the BT-50 was a good compact pickup.
That new Mazda pickup truck in other markets looks great. Surprised they don’t sell it in Australia. We haven’t had a Mazda pickup since the Ford partnership ended. The last one was a re-badged Ford Ranger. Not certain why they don’t send the new truck in more markets. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation . . .
I’m in Austria actually – I didn’t know they’re not offered for sale downunder either. To me it makes no sense as – belatedly – people have started to discover the benefits of a the double cab compact pickup here too, so the potential for sales exists. In the absence of a Mazda pickup if I were looking for such a thing as a new vehicle, I’d go for the Isuzu D-Max which is really the same as the current BT-50 and do a grill/bumper change:)
The CX-5 is a lovely machine. After my mom’s 2012 Sonata Limited kept breaking, I got her a brand-new 2022 CX-5 Carbon Edition, in Polymetal Grey with the red interior. She really likes it, and I feel confident that she’s in a reliable, well-built car. Thankfully, AWD is now standard with the 2022 facelift, so she’s got that as well.
You made a great choice, though. The CX-5 might be old compared to the competition, but it’s a sweet package, and it drives better than it has any right to.
Thanks, Kyree. And congratulations to your Mom. Love the carbon edition. I’d go for that if I were buying now.
The current CX-5 is beginning to age although its styling may be ageless. I hope that its replacement is as elegant, but that’s a lot to ask for. Certainly, the CX-30 is still beautiful, but the CX-50 has gone butch with current styling cues that seem a bit forced. But we’ll keep our fingers crossed that whatever replaces the CX-5 is on the same level as your mother’s and mine.