No truer words have been spoken.

 

I'm buying the wife a new car soon (used maybe 2 or 3 years old). I have it narrowed down to the RAV4 and the CX5. I was initially leaning RAV4 but over the last week I am now leaning CX5. I think it is just a better value cuz with Mazda we don't have to pay the Toyota Tax. Both are very good, reliable, long lasting vehicles but that CX5 keeps looking better and better all the time...to the point where I actually prefer the CX5 on features alone. Not a fan of the AWD (I live in the south) but I prefer Mazda's 6-speed tranny over Toyota's 8-speed tranny. 8-spreed trannys are overkill and exist only because of cafe standards...more stuff to break. Mazda's 2.5L Skyactiv engine gets glowing reviews as much as the Toyota 2.5L. There are plenty of non-turbo cars available too. I want nothing to do with turbos (or hybrids or electrics). Toyota took an interest in Mazda some 10 years ago and Mazda has just improved in every way ever since and are on par with Toyota and Honda without the brand image markup.

 

I looked at a RAV4 but it was $6500 more than the equivalent Mazda. I bought my '16 in 2019 as a CPO (certified pre-owned) with 19K on the clock. It now had 117K on the clock and I'm replacing the water pump tomorrow. That is the first thing outside of routine maintenance it's needed. Trust me, that non-turbo 2.5 has plenty of pep. So far I've only gotten stopped once, but it's a quick car. It has done everything I've asked of it. I even pull a really light trailer with a mower at times. Consumer Reports said the '16 was a good car but weak in the infotainment systems and that has been weak, but not too bad. There was a recall for the system with an extended warranty until 2027. I've got an AWD version and I don't go through the really deep snow but a few inches or ice, it does just fine. The red paint ever still looks new.

 

I heard the same thing about those 2.5Ls...a decent amount of pep for a four knocker. I'm just getting into that Skyactiv technology. Looks like they amp up the compression to increase efficiency. Haven't quite figured out how they do that yet. Does this mean it taxes the engine more (like turbo)? Does it shorten the life of the engine? I haven't seen anyone suggest this so I'm just curious how they amp up the compression. More homework needed.

I was just watching a CX-5 video. They love them but said the 2016 has some issues. Apparently there were five recalls (they didn't get into the details) and said they're seeing blown head gaskets around the 120,000 mile mark. Are you vibing any of this at 117,000 miles? I have to think maintenance has an impact on the head gasket issue. I always remain skeptical of these kinds of reports...where do they get their information from or do they just pull it out of theirass?

I live in the south and we see very little snow here so the AWD is worthless to me but perhaps I gain some benefit in rain??

 

I don't see any need for the turbo. To me it just adds complexity. I've noticed the transmission sometimes hesitates going into gear cold, but other than that, the car drives like it always has. I think the head gasket was more on the turbo motors. I rarely feel the AWD kick in. Usually on wet roads but it's so seamless, it's hard to tell. I've been in grassy areas on hard dirt where a lot of 2 wd trucks slip a lot, the Mazda just goes. The Skyactive is direct injection and I've heard it likes to carbon up over time in town but I put a lot of highway miles on mine and it seems to be fine. Mileage is pretty good too. On the interstate I get around 27-28 regularly, On state highways I regularly get 29-30 mpg and occasionally 32 mpg. If you drive a long way at 60 with cruise on, it sips fuel. I got 36 mpg once but have never been able to repeat it. I may have over filled before or short filled after.

The one thing I would change is the speedometer. At night, it's difficult to know exactly how fast you're going. That's why I got pulled over the one time. It reads 40, then 60, then 80 with hash marks for 30-50-and 70. If it were me, I'd put a digital speedometer in it. Able to flip between metric and imperial measure with a small window that showed the exact speed. Say 57 while the needle is sort of there.

If you get mama a 2 or 3 year old unit, especially a low mile just off lease, it should do you well. I like the red but if I HAD to get another one and red wasn't available, I'd go with the blue. These colors stand out in bad weather and just look good.

 

I can see the turbos causing short head gasket life. I'm not seeing lots of turbos in the used market. I'd say 85% of the CX-5s are non turbo. You and I agree on color. Those red CX-5s are sharp. My fave for sure. The blues aren't too bad either. Most of them are grey, white or black, unfortunately. They don't really stand out.

 

I wanted red for specific reasons. White and silver cars disappear in the rain during the day. Red, blue and even black at least show up as a shadow. Back in the 1970's, I drove a truck and the owner was retired from the Air Force. All the air craft in Alaska where he spent most of his time, had red tails so if one went down, it could be found easier. All his trucks were bright red. A couple of weeks after transferring up there in Minnesota, we had a really heavy snow and one of the trucks was snowed in on the road. We went looking a couple of days later once we managed to get out. Think of a vast expanse of white. We finally found the truck as part of the front fender was exposed. That red stood out easy. It took a week before we got the truck out, but the driver and his dog were okay.

 

I got to thinking (now my head hurts). The GF has a FWD Equinox. She has to get a running start and really get on the throttle to get up her sisters long gravel driveway going up a fairly steep hill. My CX-5 just drives up it. I've felt the occasional slip but it catches quick. It is definitely NOT a mud buggy, but it does okay in grass and other light off road driving. I wouldn't try to go where I go with my '96 Ram 1500 4X4 on my tree farm. Some of those granite outcrops are vicious. I've had other trucks that couldn't hang with this old piece of machinery

 

Disclaimer: This Dodge Forum member takes no responsibility for another member's head hurting. This malady is the sole responsibility of the member whose head hurts (or his wife's).

 

OK, I know this is a Dodge Forum so I don't want to derail anything but I've been talking about getting my Dakota a little sister. So here she is... A 2024 Mazda CX-5 Premium. 30,000 miles. 2.5L, 6-speed automatic, AWD. All kinda doo dads on this thing. I researched the living snot out of Japanese cars before pulling the trigger on this Mazda. I came to a clear conclusion that the CX-5 was the best value automobile out there. I'm not saying the CX-5 is better than a Toyota or Honda because I don't believe they are. But they are on par with them in terms of reliability, dependability, and durability. Much of it depends on taste and features. Mazda need not make any apologies. There were a number of things I liked about the CX-5 over the RAV4 or CR-V. One, the price. You don't have to pay for the brand image that comes with Toyota or Honda. That's several thousand dollars right there. The CX-5 has a peppy engine. Only a 4-knocker but it has enough get up and go for 99% of my needs. I don't drive like a raped ape anymore. It's also quiet. That surprised me. The interior is quite classy, nothing cheap or cheesy about it. I think it's also a sharper looking suv than RAV or CRV. It drives like a charm and so far I could not be happier.