Mazda CX-5
PURPOSE
The CX-5 confidently led the pack through this section of the comparison. Standout areas of the Mazda CX-5’s practicality included its comfort, passenger accommodation and cargo flexibility.
Plush finishes aside, the CX-5 was ergonomically flawless, setting a benchmark for passenger comfort in this company.
The CX-5 was also the only SUV on test to feature a 40:20:40 split-fold seat arrangement in the second row, allowing for far greater load flexibility. It also has a smart fixed cargo cover that lifts and retracts in conjunction with the tailgate opening.
But where it did fall short was in terms of overall cargo space. Compared to the RAV4 the CX-5 felt smaller, and also offered reduced rearward vision.
That aside, the combination of a smart design and near-perfect execution saw the Mazda CX-5 top the competition in this important part of the comparison.
Scoring near perfect marks in this category, the CX-5 really does set the benchmark. As with all good recipes, it’s about a mix of ingredients. From the cargo bay carpet to the centre console, the CX-5 nailed it. Minor mark downs were in the form of quality of plastics, but even still the Mazda was equal or better than the competition.
The entire judging panel gushed about the CX-5’s beautifully soft leather seats. Not only did they feel good, they worked well too. The Tiguan was a close second.
The dash and console offered premium fit and finish, with a more sophisticated design edge. Even the engine bay was a well-planned affair. By comparison, the RAV4 looked budget and amateur in its design execution.
The CX-5 is punching well above its weight.
In the city, the CX-5’s smooth, punchy powertrain, effective idle stop/start system (ISS), tied-down chassis and accurate steering were admired, but two relative shortcomings were exacerbated on the highway.
The first was a heavy brake pedal, which required a decent shove to provide adequate retardation. The brakes also lacked outright power; our objective 60km/h stopping test saw the CX-5 take the longest distance to stop of any competitor on test (see break-out box).
Secondly, the ride suffers at the expense of agility. The CX-5 was taut and reactive to inputs in a way its rivals couldn’t touch, but the ride could jar to the point of discomfort. Overall NVH was, however, acceptable.
Though expected to be stiff on gravel, the CX-5 coped admirably. Stability and anti-lock braking systems were refined in application.
Coupled to a gated manual shift that faced the ‘natural’ way, the CX-5 puts the Sports into Sports Utility Vehicle.
Where the Mazda really loses out is in not offering capped price servicing, although the importer has introduced such a program for the new Mazda3 and plans for the new initiative to filter through to other models, including the CX-5, in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, the CX-5 comes with a 36 month/unlimited kilometre warranty but the six month/10,000 kilometre service interval lags behind the ix35 and Tiguan. Roadside assistance is available for $68 per year for a standard service.
The CX-5 wasn’t around in 2010 but it’s larger predecessor, the CX-7 Sports diesel, was. With a new RRP of $43,640, it’s now worth on average $23,850 privately, with 60,000-100,000km recorded. This represents a retained value of 55 per cent.
On the plus side, the audio system has a rich sound lacking in some rivals, and although it misses out on a digital radio receiver, audio streaming works well via Bluetooth and through the USB port.
The same can’t be said for the low-slung HVAC system whose modulation is less thorough than the ix35’s or the Tiguan’s. The sunroof is smaller, too.
We did, however, find the idle stop-start system (ISS) quicker to fire than the Tiguan’s and noted that the mirror and window switches, and the indicator and wiper stalks, are more tactile than the others.
Price: $27,880 - $49,420 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 2.2-litre four-cylinder turbo-diesel
Output: 129kW/420Nm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Fuel: 5.7L/100km (combined)
CO2: 149g/km (combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP
What we liked: |
Not so much: |
>> Brilliant dynamics | >> Fiddly tech interaction |
>> Thoughtful packaging | >> Poor temperature modulation |
>> Strong, smooth engine | >> Slightly stiff ride |
Do you own this car or one similar? Review and rate it via carsales’ owner review hub
Register to comment on this article.