Mazda or Subaru
- Thread starter Dually
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: badtlc
the mazda is a higher quality car than the subaru in just about every way other than the AWD system.
Why don't you drive one and find out yourself? The rust stuff is just internet folklore. It is no worse than any other brand. I can walk out in the parking lot and find rust on every make out there.
Agreed; the OP needs to drive both and make the call. And as for rust, last week I had my 2007 MS3 up on jack stands to R&R a recalled aftermarket rear ARB and the underside had not a speck of rust. Of course I've only had it for eight years and almost 150,000 miles- I'm sure the tin worm is lying in wait.
You live in KY not the salt belt...I have seen the related Madza3 hatch's to your car with body rust on them in near rear wheels and around the windshield. That is a rare site with other makes in the last 10 years.
However this is 2015 maybe they fixed it but of course it takes 3-5year to figure that out.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
the mazda is a higher quality car than the subaru in just about every way other than the AWD system.
Why don't you drive one and find out yourself? The rust stuff is just internet folklore. It is no worse than any other brand. I can walk out in the parking lot and find rust on every make out there.
Agreed; the OP needs to drive both and make the call. And as for rust, last week I had my 2007 MS3 up on jack stands to R&R a recalled aftermarket rear ARB and the underside had not a speck of rust. Of course I've only had it for eight years and almost 150,000 miles- I'm sure the tin worm is lying in wait.
You live in KY not the salt belt...I have seen the related Madza3 hatch's to your car with body rust on them in near rear wheels and around the windshield. That is a rare site with other makes in the last 10 years.
However this is 2015 maybe they fixed it but of course it takes 3-5year to figure that out.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Colt
Originally Posted By: RamFan
I had a '14 CX-5 AWD with the 2.5l and loved it. I would've liked a bit more power but for a daily driver it served me greatly. I never had any reliability issues with it either.
The 2.0L in the CX-5 is said to be a real slug on the road.
It is not a slug, at least with the MTX anyway.
The CX-5's 700 more lbs,AWD and 19" tires will slow it down a lot with the 2.0L.
Originally Posted By: Colt
Originally Posted By: RamFan
I had a '14 CX-5 AWD with the 2.5l and loved it. I would've liked a bit more power but for a daily driver it served me greatly. I never had any reliability issues with it either.
The 2.0L in the CX-5 is said to be a real slug on the road.
It is not a slug, at least with the MTX anyway.
The CX-5's 700 more lbs,AWD and 19" tires will slow it down a lot with the 2.0L.
Originally Posted By: rjundi
You live in KY not the salt belt...I have seen the related Madza3 hatch's to your car with body rust on them in near rear wheels and around the windshield. That is a rare site with other makes in the last 10 years.
However this is 2015 maybe they fixed it but of course it takes 3-5year to figure that out.
I still think that the majority of "horrible Mazda rust!!!" stories are anecdotal. I travel to Chicago and Indianapolis from time to time and I haven't noticed that Mazdas are more susceptible to rust than any other car in its segment.
You live in KY not the salt belt...I have seen the related Madza3 hatch's to your car with body rust on them in near rear wheels and around the windshield. That is a rare site with other makes in the last 10 years.
However this is 2015 maybe they fixed it but of course it takes 3-5year to figure that out.
I still think that the majority of "horrible Mazda rust!!!" stories are anecdotal. I travel to Chicago and Indianapolis from time to time and I haven't noticed that Mazdas are more susceptible to rust than any other car in its segment.
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
avoid the XT model unless you are selling it around the 100k-120k mark, by then the turbo is on its way out and contaminating the crankcase.
With what? Metal shavings? Coolant exchange with oil inside the turbo?
avoid the XT model unless you are selling it around the 100k-120k mark, by then the turbo is on its way out and contaminating the crankcase.
With what? Metal shavings? Coolant exchange with oil inside the turbo?
Originally Posted By: Dually
I'm looking into buying a 2016 Mazda CX-5 2.5l with the tech package or a 2015 Subaru Forester 2.0L XT Touring.Both are great but I have heard that the Mazda 2.5L at 184hp is sluggish and that rust and unreliability happens a lot.I know that for 2016 a new infotainment and navigation system will be offered.The small redesign of the Mazda for 2016 makes it stand out.Does the Mazda seem cheap compared to the Subaru?Any insight would be great.Joe
Man, nothing you wrote that is an opinion is correct.
I have a 2014 CX5 with the 2.5, and AWD. It's a Touring spec, so mid level.
I also live in the Denver area, so I'm at 5k+ feet in altitude, so I have ~20% less HP available than you do at sea level. My car does not feel sluggish.
But, you are comparing it against a Turbocharged Subaru.
As for rust, my car has none, and neither do other Mazda's of the same are here in Denver.
I also find the interior to be much nicer in the Mazda than in the Subaru, but again, that's completely on the personal tastes of the individual user.
You couldn't pay me to own a Subaru, though, so my opinion of the Mazda is heavily biased.
BC.
I'm looking into buying a 2016 Mazda CX-5 2.5l with the tech package or a 2015 Subaru Forester 2.0L XT Touring.Both are great but I have heard that the Mazda 2.5L at 184hp is sluggish and that rust and unreliability happens a lot.I know that for 2016 a new infotainment and navigation system will be offered.The small redesign of the Mazda for 2016 makes it stand out.Does the Mazda seem cheap compared to the Subaru?Any insight would be great.Joe
Man, nothing you wrote that is an opinion is correct.
I have a 2014 CX5 with the 2.5, and AWD. It's a Touring spec, so mid level.
I also live in the Denver area, so I'm at 5k+ feet in altitude, so I have ~20% less HP available than you do at sea level. My car does not feel sluggish.
But, you are comparing it against a Turbocharged Subaru.
As for rust, my car has none, and neither do other Mazda's of the same are here in Denver.
I also find the interior to be much nicer in the Mazda than in the Subaru, but again, that's completely on the personal tastes of the individual user.
You couldn't pay me to own a Subaru, though, so my opinion of the Mazda is heavily biased.
BC.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Colt
The CX-5's 700 more lbs,AWD and 19" tires will slow it down a lot with the 2.0L.
You can't get AWD, 19" wheels with the MTX in a 2.0L.
I know.
I was just showing you why a 2.0L is a slug in a CX-5 with those features vs a 2.0L in a MTX.
Originally Posted By: Colt
The CX-5's 700 more lbs,AWD and 19" tires will slow it down a lot with the 2.0L.
You can't get AWD, 19" wheels with the MTX in a 2.0L.
I know.
I was just showing you why a 2.0L is a slug in a CX-5 with those features vs a 2.0L in a MTX.
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: rjundi
You live in KY not the salt belt...I have seen the related Madza3 hatch's to your car with body rust on them in near rear wheels and around the windshield. That is a rare site with other makes in the last 10 years.
However this is 2015 maybe they fixed it but of course it takes 3-5year to figure that out.
I still think that the majority of "horrible Mazda rust!!!" stories are anecdotal. I travel to Chicago and Indianapolis from time to time and I haven't noticed that Mazdas are more susceptible to rust than any other car in its segment.
I work in Canada occasionally and noticed a few coworkers cars with the problem. VT also is very harsh and noticable there. The folks in Canada stated that Mazda admitted of sorts of an issue by increasing rust warranty from 60 months to 96 months as a goodwill gesture. It is a real problem with Mazda 3 definitely mid 2000's and hopefully not latter.
Originally Posted By: rjundi
You live in KY not the salt belt...I have seen the related Madza3 hatch's to your car with body rust on them in near rear wheels and around the windshield. That is a rare site with other makes in the last 10 years.
However this is 2015 maybe they fixed it but of course it takes 3-5year to figure that out.
I still think that the majority of "horrible Mazda rust!!!" stories are anecdotal. I travel to Chicago and Indianapolis from time to time and I haven't noticed that Mazdas are more susceptible to rust than any other car in its segment.
I work in Canada occasionally and noticed a few coworkers cars with the problem. VT also is very harsh and noticable there. The folks in Canada stated that Mazda admitted of sorts of an issue by increasing rust warranty from 60 months to 96 months as a goodwill gesture. It is a real problem with Mazda 3 definitely mid 2000's and hopefully not latter.
Originally Posted By: Colt
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Colt
The CX-5's 700 more lbs,AWD and 19" tires will slow it down a lot with the 2.0L.
You can't get AWD, 19" wheels with the MTX in a 2.0L.
I know.
I was just showing you why a 2.0L is a slug in a CX-5 with those features vs a 2.0L in a MTX.
OP doesn't want a 2.0L, he's looking at the 2.5L which is by no means a slug. It's got does it's job greatly for a daily driver, the 184 horses are quick to get to work. I personally would've liked it better if the power was accessible a little earlier in the rpm range.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Colt
The CX-5's 700 more lbs,AWD and 19" tires will slow it down a lot with the 2.0L.
You can't get AWD, 19" wheels with the MTX in a 2.0L.
I know.
I was just showing you why a 2.0L is a slug in a CX-5 with those features vs a 2.0L in a MTX.
OP doesn't want a 2.0L, he's looking at the 2.5L which is by no means a slug. It's got does it's job greatly for a daily driver, the 184 horses are quick to get to work. I personally would've liked it better if the power was accessible a little earlier in the rpm range.
From someone with both makes, I say go with the Mazda.
Thanks for the reply.Why the Mazda over the Subaru?
Unless you're in a non road salt state, I would save yourself the future headaches and avoid Mazda.
I have not seen rot issues on too many Subarus, only some of the really old models. Mazda on the other hand... The jury is still out on whether or not the newer models will actually last.
I have not seen rot issues on too many Subarus, only some of the really old models. Mazda on the other hand... The jury is still out on whether or not the newer models will actually last.
If you got the money go for Subaru
I'd buy the 'roo, but only because we've had three of them, with two ATM and have found them to be reliable and durable cars.
A Forester has space to seat four adults comfortably plus their gear.
Fuel economy will be nothing to brag about with either the Subie or the car named after a light bulb.
A Forester has space to seat four adults comfortably plus their gear.
Fuel economy will be nothing to brag about with either the Subie or the car named after a light bulb.
Don't buy any of the new Subaru cars. They are plagued with oil consumption issues and ECU problems. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ght#Post3610554
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked