ALMOST test drove a 2014 CX-5 today...

Status
Not open for further replies.
gregk24

gregk24

Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
9,246
Location
FL, USA
As some of you know from previous threads, I am helping my parents find a new (used) vehicle. They are interested in "cute ute's" and so far have test driven a 2015 RAV4 (priced too high) and a 2017 Equinox. I took my mother to look at a 2014 Mazda CX-5 this afternoon, just got back in fact. It has 45,000 miles and appeared to be in good shape cosmetically. I did call ahead but unfortunately upon arriving, the salesman told me it was a fresh trade and hadn't been inspected yet, so they could not allow us to test drive. I explained that we had driven out of our way to test drive it, and he "checked with his manager" who said we could drive it around the lot, but not on the road until it could be inspected.

Long story short, it should be ready by tomorrow afternoon.

My mom seemed to like it, other than the fact that it lacks XM and interior volume (mainly in the back seat) seems smaller than the Equinox. It seems to be priced right though at $13,9.

I thought this had the 2.5 engine, but it is listed as having a 2.0 skyactive. Any word on those engines?

Also, does anybody know if these have the rust problems other Mazdas have had other the years? Also feel free to comment on general reliability. Many have recommended these over BITOG, but I have steered away because I thought these had the leaky water pump issue that seeped into oil and toasted the motor. I think I got myself confused with the CX-9. Correct my if I am wrong.

Here is the one we are looking at... 2014 Mazda CX-5
 
I believe the Sport has the 2.0L and Touring / Grand Touring have 2.5L engine.

Both engines are very good, reliable and smooth power.
 
The 2.0 is a very reliable motor but it has been noted that it's underpowered for the CX5. The 2.5 is a definite improvement in that respect. The 2.0 is better suited for the smaller 3 vehicles.

The rust issues are a Mazda history thing. They have improved their corrosion protection since the Ford era.


I'm not aware of any water pump issues.
 
Originally Posted by Chris142
The part about it not being ready is a lie. Someone that works there already claimed it.


Maybe so, I guess we will find out tomorrow.
 
Originally Posted by Chris142
The part about it not being ready is a lie. Someone that works there already claimed it.


I doubt it. They could have just as easily said that it's been spoken for.

More than likely, they really do want to go through it and make sure everything works right. At least then they can paper over any issues, and they know which con lines they'll need to come up with when the driver discovers any faults on the test drive.
 
Originally Posted by gregk24
As some of you know from previous threads, I am helping my parents find a new (used) vehicle. They are interested in "cute ute's" and so far have test driven a 2015 RAV4 (priced too high) and a 2017 Equinox. I took my mother to look at a 2014 Mazda CX-5 this afternoon, just got back in fact. It has 45,000 miles and appeared to be in good shape cosmetically. I did call ahead but unfortunately upon arriving, the salesman told me it was a fresh trade and hadn't been inspected yet, so they could not allow us to test drive. I explained that we had driven out of our way to test drive it, and he "checked with his manager" who said we could drive it around the lot, but not on the road until it could be inspected.

Long story short, it should be ready by tomorrow afternoon.

My mom seemed to like it, other than the fact that it lacks XM and interior volume (mainly in the back seat) seems smaller than the Equinox. It seems to be priced right though at $13,9.

I thought this had the 2.5 engine, but it is listed as having a 2.0 skyactive. Any word on those engines?

Also, does anybody know if these have the rust problems other Mazdas have had other the years? Also feel free to comment on general reliability. Many have recommended these over BITOG, but I have steered away because I thought these had the leaky water pump issue that seeped into oil and toasted the motor. I think I got myself confused with the CX-9. Correct my if I am wrong.

Here is the one we are looking at... 2014 Mazda CX-5


The 2.0 is technically a better engine (smoother, better economy), but it's a total DOG
Noone has said ANYTHING about a water pump issue on SkyActiv engines. Mine had over 100K miles on it with no issues. Mine was a 2015.

I strongly encourage you to look at a 2017+. I know it will cost more, but it's legit worth it. Drive both at the very least so you can be informed. It's like comparing a Chevy Cruze to a pontiac G8. Both still same company, but worlds apart.

Also, get the AWD. It's excellent, and even in the rain is a huge benefit.
 
2016 was a improvement and then the 2016.5 improved even more. The 2017 was a even bigger upgrade with improved noise reduction, better interior etc.

The earlier models have the nav screen inset into the sash. 2017 started the tablet style on top.
 
Good questions, and relevant to me as I'm considering a CX-5 in the next few years.

The 2.0 Skyactiv (and indeed all of the Skyactiv engines) have a good reputation so far. I don't know of any 200K milers so far, but that's likely because they're still pretty new. I trust my parts man at our closest Mazda dealer, and he says that the Skyactiv engines have been remarkably trouble-free so far. They've only replaced one so far, and that one was on them - the tech forgot to replace the drain plug when changing oil.

The 2.0 is, by some accounts, a bit underpowered in the CX-5. I haven't driven one though, and would have to decide for myself.

The rust problems are apparently fixed (finally). The worst years were about 2000 through 2004 - it's heartbreaking to see those otherwise excellent Proteges rusting away. I see 1st-gen Mazda 5s (MY2006 - 2010) with rusty rear wheel arches, but nothing on the 2nd gen (MY2012 on).

The leaky WP issue was, as far as I know, found only on the Ford Duratec 3.5/3.7 (as used in the CX-9 through MY2015). The engine was mounted transversely, and the WP was pushed back into the engine for clearance reasons. I would not buy one personally. The CX-5 has only ever used the Skyactiv (2.0/2.5/2.5T) engines.

The conventional 6-speed AT has a good reputation.

In short, you're probably fine as far as reliability, and it comes down to whether Mum likes the car.
 
As others have said, the 2.0 is a great engine. It is underpowered though. Very reliable.
 
Originally Posted by Chris142
The part about it not being ready is a lie. Someone that works there already claimed it.

I went and looked at a 2011 Sonata a few years back, the day earlier had it listed online and everything. Went to see it and it hadn't even been cleaned let. It was filthy inside. And when I say filthy, I mean DISGUSTING.

I figured I'd try to work on the price with them but the dealer was slimy and marked it way up once you started talking numbers.
 
I had a 2013 Grand Touring with 2.0 engine bought new and kept until 90k miles with no issues. I wouldn't call it underpowered as in dangerous, but it won't win many races. Be sure to have them test drive it to make sure they are ok with the power level.
 
I agree with dcd. Not under powered unless you do much passing at over 60 mph on an expressway, in which case the 2.5 is the way to go. There is even a group that state the 2.5 is under powered so some are never satisfied. Ed
 
The power preference might be a regional thing. In flat areas like Florida the 2.0 might be okay. In hilly regions and going over mountain passes, the bigger 2.5 would be preferable.

A test drive will be the key.
 
Originally Posted by Eddie
I agree with dcd. Not under powered unless you do much passing at over 60 mph on an expressway, in which case the 2.5 is the way to go. There is even a group that state the 2.5 is under powered so some are never satisfied. Ed

My 2.5 turbo is much better than my 2.5NA was, in every way.
 
We looked at the Mazda CX-5 when we bought my wife's car and did like it quite a bit. I would definitely say it's a little more fun to drive than the RAV4 and I believe the AWD system is superior also. Ultimately, we felt the RAV4 might have a slight edge in long term reliability and that's what led us to choose the Toyota. At 4 years old and less than 60,000 miles it is too early to tell but thus far we have had zero mechanical problems and the AWD has worked excellent in Nebraska winters. If I had to do it all over again I would make the same decision.
 
I loved my MS3. I'd gladly buy another Mazda if Mazdaspeed model were part of their product line up.
Like others have noted, I'd bite the bullet and get a newer CX-5 with the 2.5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ls1mike
Tell me about Mazda, maybe the CX 30
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
pbm
L
Bought a new 2023 Mazda CX-5
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
sw99
Elkins45
Test drove a $2200 one-eyed Buick today.
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Kira
Finklejag
Test drove a Mitsubishi Mirage
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
7K
lenbata
W
Test drove a Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross
Replies
17
Views
2K
nickaluch
Back
Top