2019 Mazda CX-5 Test Drive Review: Time To Call It A Luxury SUV 

is the base trim level engine decent enough?

@@christophers5510 I love it. Although I'm coming from a 2002 Honda Civic so it's a big jump haha. But yeah, it definitely has quick acceleration.

Thank you!

Yes it really is. I selected the machine grey though, it was a no brainer for me, I had been checking that one out a long time before purchase

Just remember, in order to get the full power, you need to use Premium fuel (93 octane).

I own one and it is great,very pleasant to drive. I have the reserve model, love the turbo. Really zoom zoom! Have got as high as 31mpg, 24 to 27 average. Engine only has 600 miles on it, amazing, better handling and ride then earlier model years, Mazda has done it's homework! I've previously owned the 2014 and 2016 CX-5 grand touring .

Yeah, we will have to drive the diesel, but on paper it does not make sense to us.

agreed. Cars that run on E10 or regular fuel often cost less in fuel than those that appear to be more economical but actually demand more expensive fuel. Over here in Australia it can mean 30-35c a litre difference between fuel grades

Probably more than half of cars today have turbocharged engines. They are perfectly reliable.

It does on higher trims

Thanks very much.

only partially heated, just the 10/2 position. They cheaped out.

@@GoofieNewfie I find this surprisingly out of character for these guys. They usually surprise by exceeding expectations. This is definitely cheesy.

@@bigwilliearmitage We have a 2020GT in Canada which is a GTR in the US I think. I tried a signature but didn't think it was worth it. It's nice inside. But a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. I keep seeing this mantra of near luxury vehicle over and over and if you go take out a CRV touring or Rav Limited, I'm just not seeing this huge difference. I have had luxury brands, still drive one, the Mazda is missing a lot to be called luxury. No proximity lighting, no touch sensors on the doors just a stupid button, heated steering wheel only partially heated, no puddle lights, the wipers are horrible but that is not luxury related, the backup camera even in 360 form is awful, the buttons on the steering wheel feel cheap, the buttons on the aircon don't feel much better, the seats are hard, you can't customize the entire car based on each key, you can set seat position based on key but it rarely works, there's only one tiny light in the hatch, it doesn't come with a cargo cover as standard, the 12v accessory lights aren't switched, this list goes on. It's a nice SUV, but small, and not a class leader in gas even with the smaller engine. It's time for a redo. It does feel solid, I'll give it that, the CRV is loud too.

It depends on your needs. CX-5 is larger.

Thank you.

@lestliness Nice!

Have not heard this. Mazda has been a remarkable engine builder for a long time. I trust their engineering.

No. Foot-pounds is correct.

Did you make a decision? What'd you end up getting?

@@vladimirhorowitz 2019 Kia Stinger GT Limited.. Not a SUV, thought that's what I was shopping for.. haha... but I saw reviews on this and how awesome it is and had to check it out .... Test Drove it twice and found a deal on one for $3.5K off and no 0% for the loan... Luv it so far !! Handles Awesome and has better decent comfort ride... Not fuel efficient though :-( but holy cow it's fun to drive.. 13 sec. 1/4 mile sports sedan.

@@izzysfamilyadventures9428 Nice, congrats! Yeah I was looking at Kias too for a while, the Stinger is highly rated. I went with a 2019 CX5 because I really wanted an SUV. In LA you can't really go all that fast anyway so I opted for the comfort and quiet ride.

@@vladimirhorowitz yes great choice ! It made it to my Top 3 (19 Outback, 19 CX-5 or 19 Murano). Outback, most spacious and utility, Murano, nicest,most confort seats and ride, CX-5 smallest, but cutest and nicer driver engagement, but it is bit lesser ride comfort over bumps than the other two... Very nice. Enjoy it. the Zoom Zoom Vroooom Vroooom of the Stinger got me ! haha.. but it's a hatch with good cargo size and awd, so almost a sub.. haha

Some people buy an SUV just for the ride height and comfort, but you are correct. It is NOT the biggest in its segment. But there are other reasons to like a crossover.

Your presentation of details is somewhat misleading. For instance, the 2019 Toyota Rav4, a model name that typifies the compact SUV segment, has 37.5 cubic feet of cargo capacity. This means the discrepancy between the 2019 Rav4 and 2019 CX-5 is 7 cubic feet -- virtually identical to the 6 cubic feet difference between the VW Golf and the CX-5 that you characterize as a flagrant weakness of the CX-5 and later comparatively qualify as "nearly the same interior cargo space". Moreover, the 2019 Acura RDX and 2018/2019 Audi Q5, to which Mazda and consumers/journalists alike are considering the CX-5 to be a value-priced alternative, have cargo capacities of 29.5 cubic feet and 25.1 cubic feet respectively. Given this, either the descriptor "cramped" is not really tenable, or the entire luxury compact SUV segment (almost all constituents of which have interior dimensions inconsequentially similar to RDX/Q5) is thoroughly misguided about practicality. My bet is on the former. But perhaps most critically, the CX-5 provides a suspension with adequate travel to be more livable over commonplace pavement imperfections and a seating position commensurate with most other crossovers. This factor alone indispensably raises its appeal over a hatchback like the Golf R, even if it comes at the expense of approximately 5-second 0 to 60 times. The marvel of the CX-5 is that it manages to relay the dynamics and thrill of visceral, connected driving despite its higher ground clearance and CUV structure; juxtaposing it versus the Golf R overlooks this exploit of engineering. Additionally, at the risk of coming across as pedantic, it should be noted that the Golf R AWD DCT is EPA-rated for 23 MPG city/26 MPG combined/30 MPG highway (and the 6MT is rated 21/24/29) on premium gasoline versus 22/24/27 on regular gasoline for the CX-5 2.5T. So, the difference in grade of fuel essentially neutralizes the efficiency advantage for the DCT variants of the Golf R, and no such efficiency advantage exists for the 6MT variants of the Golf R. (On a related note, the CX-5 is equipped with 3-stage heated and ventilated front seats and heated rear outboard seats in a Nappa-grade of leather, so the comments about "better leather, more comfortable seats..." on the Golf R are at best dubious.) Other distinguishing mechanical features of the CX-5, including iACTIV AWD and G-Vectoring Control + (not to mention upscale interior accouterments such as the class-exclusive heads-up display), should at least give some pause before averring that there "are far better alternatives."

@@ninja4914 I appreciate your making the time and effort in your response. But I can't agree that my comments were "misleading." You'll notice that my comments cited "overall" cargo space while your figures refer to the space behind the second row of seats. (And even then, the CX-5 comes up short.) I'd argue that in terms of cargo capacity in an SUV, the maximum space is the most relevant metric. And by that measure, my comments are correct. The CX-5 has 59.6 cubic feet of OVERALL cargo capacity compared to 69.8 in the RAV4, 75.8 in the CR-V, and 76.1 cubic feet in the Subaru Forester. I'll leave the arithmetic to calculate the shortfall of the CX-5 to you. You're correct that some premium compact SUV's the CX-5's cargo capacity is not so disadvantaged. But I'd argue that comparing the CX-5 to luxury brands is misleading on several fronts; the most critical being that despite the admittedly upscale interior of the Signature trim, the Mazda is simply not a luxury vehicle, either in terms of features or in terms of consumer perceptions. True "utility" in the compact luxury segment is less critical than brand prestige, upscale materials, and amenities. Mazda might be able to argue that the CX-5 is a "value" alternative to the RDX, for example, but it can make that argument primarily in terms of comparable cargo space and that's not what luxury buyers prioritize while in the mainstream segment, falling short in terms of "utility" is an issue. As far as comparisons to the Golf/GTI/Golf R, I didn't cite those vehicles because many consumers would cross shop those vehicles with the CX-5. I cited them because the OVERALL cargo space is closer to the CX-5 than the CX-5 is to its most comparable competitors. (Again, I was comparing apples to apples.) I could also have cited the Hyundai Elantra GT hatchback with even more cargo space than the Golf/GTI/R (55.1 cubic ft). And I could have cited the Golf Attrack, the same length as the CX-5 with more cargo space (66.5 cf) I didn't cite the VW Tiguan crossover because while its cargo capacity (73.5 cubic ft) is far greater than the CX-5, it's also about six inches (185" vs 179") longer than the CX-5 and the comparison seemed unfair to the Mazda. Ditto for the Nissan Rogue (70 cubic feet) But no matter which vehicle compact crossover the CX-5 is compared to, it comes out short in terms of overall interior space. I would agree that the CX-5 handles well and offers strong performance for a compact crossover. But that's far different from maintaining that it's outstanding in absolute terms. And since the usual defense of the CX-5's inadequate interior space is its great handling, performance, and "fun to drive" feel, it seemed reasonable to compare it to vehicles (GTI/R) that I'd contend are more or less universally viewed as truly outstanding on those counts with not much less cargo carrying capacity than the CX-5. I understand Mazda's problem. The use of the 2.5L turbo in the CX-5 with turbocharger and massive exhaust manifold located behind the engine poses a huge obstacle to providing competitive interior space. Mazda faces the same problem in the CX-9 where interior space is even more cramped compared to midsize crossovers than the CX-5 vs its compact SUV competition. Internationally Mazda sells the CX-8, a stretched version of the CX-5 sold with both petrol and diesel engines. But at 193" long, it's close to the size of the CX-9 (and sold in Japan and some other markets where the CX-9 is not) and offers barely more interior space than the CX-5. Much like the CX-9, the initial North American market response to the 2018 CX-5 was positive with significant increases in sales compared to 2017. But sales in the last quarter of 2018 dipped below the year over year sales of 2017 and that trend has continued in the first four months of 2019. Mazda has finally opted to add a diesel option to the top trim CX-5 in the US but I'm skeptical it will do much to broaden the appeal of the vehicle. As it happens, I like the Mazda brand. I've owned four Mazdas over the years and found each an appealing vehicle despite significant flaws in the RX8 rotary sports car and an engine that literally melted down in an early Mazda6 at 8000 miles. (The engine was replaced under warranty ran flawlessly for another 100K miles.) But Mazda's SUV line-up faces some very big challenges in all three of their market segments.

@@stephenhendricks103 Thanks for prefacing with a remark of appreciation and for maintaining a cordial tone despite the slight undertones of snark in my previous reply. However, I think you've missed the underlying message of that previous reply and, in doing so, doubled down on a logical fallacy. Namely, you underscore the importance of comparisons needing to be "Apples-to-Apples," yet you legitimize the comparisons between the CX-5 and the GTI/R Golf hatchbacks on the basis of similarity in overall cargo capacity when you mention "...it seemed reasonable...more or less viewed as truly outstanding...not much less cargo..." Substantiating the crux of your evaluation of the CX-5's performance and handling capabilities with this reasoning violates the spirit of "Apples-to-Apples" comparisons (and it completely abandons the circumspection that led you to refrain from comparatively citing the Volkswagen Tiguan/Nissan Rogue). I do understand that you see the CX-5's interior dimensions as a significant demerit, and that you therefore believe the handling and performance of the vehicle need to meet a standard that is redemptive, if not countervailing. However, this should not warrant juxtaposing it against the Golf GTI/R, which, as you mention, are exemplary in those respects. Since the relative deficiency of the cargo area is something you observed by comparing the CX-5 to other mainstream compact SUVs, isn't it therefore more judicious to assess the merits -- or lack thereof -- of the CX-5's handling characteristics versus other mainstream compact SUVs (and then, on that basis decide, if the handling/performance is compelling enough to compensate for the tighter dimensions)? Consider the following analogy. Suppose I were to flip the script and select a compact SUV with mediocre handling and suspension design, whose highlight feature was its cargo capacity. I am deciding that its handling is mediocre due to a poor showing versus the CX-5, which is in the same class. It is likely best to assess if its cargo capacity is voluminous at a sufficient magnitude above other compact SUVS (such as the Toyota Rav4, Ford Escape, Honda CR-V, etc.), rather than to draw parallels to a vehicle like the Ford Explorer or Kia Telluride. So, as you may expect, I think it would be a fairer proposition to compare the handling and performance of the CX-5 to other compact SUVs and then decide if those aspects of the vehicle compensate for its flaws in interior accommodations. I suppose my use of the word "misleading" was unduly accusatory, but I hope I've explained why I sensed an inkling of selection bias. Regarding the luxuring compact SUV segment, I did not mention it to insinuate that the CX-5 is absolutely outstanding, nor did I state that it should be considered a competitor in that segment (though I did say you will find plenty of automotive literature and media, this video included, suggesting otherwise). I merely cited some vehicles belonging to the luxury compact class to provide an example of the existence of market for slightly smaller dimensions than those found in the typical compact crossover (I would be remiss to not also mention that the Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson, and Chevrolet Equinox, which are medium-to-high-volume sellers in the mainstream compact SUV class that routinely match or outsell the CX-5 itself, have similar interior accommodations to the CX-5). Obviously, none of this is to say that the CX-5 is impeccable. It would benefit from being enlarged, but then who knows if that would come at the expense of the thoroughly acclaimed "KODO: Soul of Motion" design or the dynamics of the vehicle?

@@ninja4914 Keep trying, my friend. The cargo space of the Sportage (60.9 cubic ft) Tucson (61.9), and Equinox (63.9) are all greater than the CX-5. In fact, the CX-5 is the ONLY compact SUV with less than 60 cubic feet of cargo space. I'd certainly grant that the CX-5 comes close to the least accommodating compact SUV's and offers better overall handling and performance. But it still trails the field in practicality. Perhaps it belongs in the sub-compact SUV category where it has slightly more cargo space than the Honda HRV (58.8 cubic feet) and the Subaru Crosstrek (55.3). But since the CX-5's length and price point are near identical to a host of compact SUV's averaging 180" or so in length, that seems inappropriate. You seem to be taking the comparison to the GTI and GTR more seriously than I do. Mazda markets the CX-5 as a sport UTILITY vehicle yet it has barely more "utility" in terms of interior space than the VW Golf and the Hyundai Elantra hatchback, neither of which make any pretense of being SUV's. There's a reason that the "U" in SUV stands for "utility." If the word doesn't mean versatility in multiple applications and comparatively generous interior space, what does it mean? Off-road prowess? Come now. The CX-5 is no Jeep Wrangler and it's no more likely to see an environment more challenging than a gravel road than a GTI. As I noted before, those who applaud the CX-5 ignore its cramped interior space maintain that as self-styled "enthusiasts' they care about handling and performance. OK. Fair enough. But if that's the case, it's worth comparing it to vehicles that are designed and engineered for handling and performance in a small package. A GTI will outhandle a CX-5 on a twisting mountain road and outperform it in straight line acceleration. A Golf R will complete a road course while a CX-5 is still putting on its pants. All while offering overall interior space that comes close to the Mazda. Personally, I'm not especially drawn to any of the mainstream compact SUV's. I own a vehicle in the next size category, one of several "tweener" (188"- 191" in length) SUV's with a naturally aspirated V6 engine and an 8 speed transmission. IMO it's more appropriate and durable in a vehicle that with passengers weighs over 2 tons. (That would apply to the CX-5, as well, by the way.) I suspect that on a mountain road the CX-5 would handle better but that's not the mission of our family SUV. It's for long freeway slogs with several passengers and their luggage, and gear. And I have a GTI when I want to carve canyons. I will grant you this. If I didn't have a better performing and handling vehicle that offered nearly the same overall utility as the CX-5 and a much more capable SUV, as well, I might be tempted by the CX-5 as my sole vehicle. But like most consumers, I look first and foremost for practicality in a mainstream SUV and the CX-5 is near the bottom on that metric. It's cold comfort to CX-5 fans that it's comparatively more practical in its segment than the CX-9 is among its competitors. That's an utterly huge SUV with less cargo space than a CR-V.

Adam Rosenbaum what do you recommend?

You drive a base model elantra... your opinion holds absolutely no weight

I bet you haven't even driven it or owned one, let alone seen one in real life. Stop lying.

I call bullshit. Troll at work.

@@richardhoeber4061 Haha that made me LOL big time.