Mazda CX-5

I test drove the Jaguar F Pace before this car and I kid you not, the Mazda experience was more pleasant.

The car rides well, not too much body roll for an SUV, the transmission was smooth, no jerky take offs or awkward engine braking.

The car was comfortable and very user friendly. About the only negative was the small boot.

I also thought that they could have squeezed more power out if they had turbocharged a smaller engine.

Skyactiv is interesting in that it runs petrol motors at diesel compression ratios but the end result is unremarkable.

The Mazda CX-5 was an unintended choice when I was looking around to change my ride about 6 months ago. I wanted to change to a SUV/CUV then, and had test-driven several models - Subaru Forester 2.0L & XT, Nissan X-trail, Hyundai Tucson, Mitsubishi Outlander & ASX, among others. The CX-5 was never in my considerations mainly because of its price. But then when I accompanied some friends to Mazda to test drive the Mazda 5, I tried out the CX-5. The rest is history.

As I had driven a few sedans and hatchbacks, and my previous ride being also another sedan, I was a little worried that I may not get used to driving a CUV. The CX-5 made the transition rather smoothly. In addition, the CX-5 gives me more of what I was looking for humbly for my new ride:

a. Good-looking CUV

b. Luxurious interior styling

c. Spacious cabin

d. Easy & smooth drive & ride

e. Good fuel efficiency

I only wish it could be less expensive.

Have shortlisted a few car before the decision to buy the CX-5. The reference are Nissan QashQai, X-trail, Vezel, Harrier and even S60.

The best comparison is actually Qashqai, was comparing the feature in the 2.0 and 1.2T which there is huge diff in accessories but do not like the high gear stick and interior of the car, externally it is not bad. The key rejection is actually CVT transmission which i have been worrying about.

Vezel is not bad but key issue is support from PI which i cannot come to term. Harrier is too expensive then and also support from PI plus japanese wording.

S60 is because it is Diesel power which make road trip northward challenging. Even they mention can use the diesel but might need to service the car earlier which did not get any confirmation from them.

Finally CX5 which is a looker, 6speed AT transmission and good interior space.

Checked 3 cars. X-trail a good car but felt little under powered. Qashqai 2.0 is smooth but found little cramped at rear seats. My wife who was sitting at rear seat said it is driver car & not passenger car as spacing is not comfortable. At the end, selected CX-5. Though it is little expensive but met all our requirements.

I have been driving from last 2 weeks & It's simply awesome car. Overall very happy with it. Great look especially my selected red soulmate color, beautiful interiors, smooth driving with perfect handling. Driving elevation is perfect and with premium Bose speakers, every trip is enjoyable with my iPhone music.

Only little issue I have is iSTOP of sky active, which sometimes is irritating but you can always switch it off.

With 60-70% Highway driving, I am clocking excellent 12 to 12.5 km/l and hopefully it will improve as engines smoothens over period of time.

Driving the new facelifted 2.0l CX-5 for more than a month now. The facelifted CX-5 with its new LED lights and grill definitely look way better than the pre-facelifted version.

However, road and wind noise is still evident at speeds despite Mazda claiming that improvements were made to reduce NVH.

Inside the cabin, where the front reading lights and sunglasses holder are, seems to be poorly put together and you can technically push the whole thing inwards into the headliner with average force.

The 7 inch touchscreen looks and works good and the drive is considerably comfortable.

One of the more economical 2.0l SUV around as I'm averaging 12.5km/l with about 50% City and highway driving.

I find it not too bad in comparison with other Japanese peers such as Forester. I liked the handling. Forester with strut bar has body rolls even more.

Last weekend was my adventure to exorcised my devils on all the Skyactiv hypes. Indeed idealogical, to max the efficiency of gasonline based engines is always a achievement too good to be true. Mazda take on this is the Skyactiv which focused by utilizing the good ol tricks facied by most trackday hobbist, i.e. Compression ratios. And sure they went notable distant in engine designs, manifold designs. Has it work? maybe time will tell. But some figures to take home.

Consumption figures is at 6.0km/l. torque numbers of 250Nm at 3200rpms. Power at 184hp at 6krpm. Clearly the turbocharging Europeans of these days seems having more grunt and better in terms of numbers. Efficiency is in truth lacking, which on pars only to the likes of the ecoboosts and psa's 1.6 princes. Considering the length that it went on designs from ground zero.

Numbers are just numbers, the quintessential mazda should always about its ride, Sadly that doesnt work. Ride is harsh which could be due to the R19 rim size, even around the Leng Kee rd which the bumps are always minimal. An SUV of this height should always accompany with bodyrolls which isnt surprising. But what really annoying is the lack of good old fashion power is the most intriguing part. Clearly as it is always intended the compression ratio is for the efficiency; But the lack of it, alongside with the power that it produces all seems to me that the commisioning of this piece of technology is all too premature. We all fond of the idea and usually fantasazing our world with such ideaologies without the hybrid bunches. But surely Skyactiv needs more time. and more experimentalist.

I chose wisely not to be one.