2009 Mazda Mazda5 Auto Grand Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Mazda CX-5 fuel economy takes a hit with new turbocharged engine

We learned all about the 2019 Mazda CX-5 last week, and now we've discovered fuel economy for its new 2.5-liter turbocharged engine. Unsurprisingly, it gets slightly worse fuel economy than its naturally aspirated counterpart. The 2019 turbo crossover, which only comes in all-wheel drive form, gets 22 mpg city and 27 mpg on the highway. Front-wheel drive CX-5s with the naturally aspirated 2.5 liter net you 25 mpg city and 31 mpg highway — all-wheel drive drops 1 mpg in both categories. For a little comparison, the turbocharged engine makes 250 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque on 93 octane gasoline, while the non-boosted engine makes 187 horsepower and 186 pound-feet of torque. You're definitely taking a hit in fuel economy, but the gain in power might be worth it, since the decrease isn't that terrible. Cars in its price and power range with all-wheel drive have comparable fuel economy. The Ford Escape with the 2.0-liter turbo is rated at 20/27; Chevrolet's Equinox with the 2.0-liter turbo is 22/28 and the VW Tiguan gets 21/29. There isn't really a clear winner in fuel economy for this much power when you look around the segment, but Mazda's engine is half a liter larger than everyone else. This translates to better torque than most of its competitors, but Mazda manages similar fuel economy. Also similar to many of these decked-out compact crossovers is the new high price of the Mazda we wrote about before. You won't be getting in to the turbocharged CX-5 for any less than $35,865. If you wanted a bigger Mazda like the CX-9, its fuel economy figures aren't significantly worse than the CX-5. Front-wheel drive versions are rated 22/28, and it drops 2 mpg in each category for all-wheel drive. The updated 2019 CX-5 should be coming to dealers soon. Related video: Featured Gallery 2019 Mazda CX-5 View 9 Photos Green Mazda Fuel Efficiency Crossover SUV mazda cx-5

Mazda CX-30 Luggage Test | How much cargo space?

The Mazda CX-30 is pretty much a lifted Mazda3 hatchback. Same platform, awfully similar dimensions, and the interior's a spitting image (if not identical). Ditto cargo capacity. On paper, the two have virtually the same amount of space behind their raised back seats, with the CX-30 at 20.2 cubic-feet and the 3 with just a teensy less at 20.1.  Now, before I go any further, let's see how much that 20.1 cubic-feet relates to in the Mazda3. I wasn't yet doing this test format back then, hence the video.  For reference, both tests used my standard luggage selection of two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). The bag of baseballs shown in the video is slightly smaller than my new small-bag go-to, my wife's fancy blue overnight bag (21L x 12W x 12D). So, the mark to beat is therefore all the bags minus the smallest roller.  Here is what 20.2 cubic feet looks like in the CX-30. To move beyond the Mazda3 comparison, that figure is in keeping with the CX-30's niche placement between subcompact (the teens) and compact SUVs (upper 20s to upper 30s). The Mazda CX-5 has 30.9 cubic-feet.  Now, typically, I start off by seeing how much I can fit inside with the cargo cover in place. Sadly, this particular CX-30's cargo cover is missing. We'll just have to hope it doesn't rob the CX-30 of as much space as the CX-5's does.  First off, it's immediately noticed that the CX-30's cargo area is not as long as the 3 hatchback's. The largest bag just barely squeezed inside, whereas there was some room to spare in the 3. Now, let's keep loading.  Whattya know? All of the roller bags fit inside. That includes the smallest one, which didn't fit in the 3, fitting atop the stack with perhaps 30% of it over the back seat line. Now, I could've done the same Tetris stack in the 3, but I'm virtually certain the hatch wouldn't have closed. Advantage, then, to the CX-30 and its extra height.  And surprise, the fancy bag also fits. Technically. It robs rear visibility, is pretty far above the seat line and it just barely fits under the back light. If it was filled, I have my doubts about its inclusion. Nevertheless, with or without it, there's still a bit more space on the right side for that bag of baseballs.  Now let's discuss the power liftgate.

A tough choice: 2017 Honda CR-V vs. 2017 Mazda CX-5

One has to feel for the typical new-car buyer. The one not reading Autoblog and the one who recognizes a V8 as vegetable juice. For them, picking between compact crossovers must seem like choosing between various identically sized cardboard boxes. Which one do you want? "Ah, I'll take the one with the best deal." Except, with the 2017 Honda CR-V and now the 2017 Mazda CX-5, Joe P. Everyman has a chance to choose between two vehicles that are quite clearly different, yet also clearly leaders in what they do. Everything else seems like alternatives based on price or perhaps off-road readiness (Jeeps Compass and Cherokee, perhaps a Subaru Forester). As scheduling would have it, a 2017 CR-V Touring just happened to be sitting in my garage the week I was set to drive the new CX-5 Grand Touring in San Diego. This isn't a complete, scientifically enacted comparison test, but there was enough drive time in close succession on the same roads and with similar price tags to draw conclusions. At its simplest, the CX-5 is the best choice for the driver while the CR-V is the best choice for everyone else aboard. That's not to say they are myopic in those classifications – the CX-5 could still ably handle family duty, while the CR-V is impressively well-rounded to drive in a way that shouldn't turn off those seeking some driving involvement. However, each has a clear focus that sets it down a different path toward different target buyers. Let's start with the newer kid on the block from Mazda. It is best suited for the person whose life changes have dictated the switch from an agile car to some sort of family hauler. Its spot-on steering and throttle response evoke Porsche, while the six-speed automatic transmission favors performance over fuel economy (while still getting really good fuel economy). Those dynamic elements, plus a carefully crafted, ideal driving position should make the CX-5 feel "just right" for those used to more sporting, non-family-oriented transport. Inside, the latest CX-5 boasts a handsome, upscale design with materials to match. Aesthetically, to these eyes at least, it's the best of a crowded bunch. Quality-wise, only the also-impressive CR-V would seem to come close. Along with the slick new exterior, the cabin conveys the more premium vibe that Mazda was shooting for with the new CX-5 – it also makes a more emotional connection than the typical cardboard box on wheels.