Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks, but I care more about long-term reliability and longevity, not performance. Actually, it would be nice to have all three, but evidently that's not the world we live in today. So I have to opt for reliability and longevity. While there have been a few comments about low maintenance costs, etc., no one can say the CX-5 is reliable, has longevity and will last 20 plus years like a Camry because it hasn't been out that long. Believe me, I wish it did have that history because I was kind of liking the idea of a CUV, but I love my sedan, too.
Thanks everyone for the additional feedback. I really appreciate it.
The only reason I even thought about a Mazda is because the CX-5 seemed like the next best thing when the RAV4 and CR-V didn't work out. This is when I seriously thought I should get a CUV because there's no doubt it would come in handy, and I liked sitting up higher when I drove the RAV4. But I'm concerned about Mazda's long-term reliability and longevity because I keep my cars for 20 plus years. Even though Scotty Kilmer was more positive in his recent video, he also said he likes to wait many years before he makes a final assessment. So I decided that it would be best to accept that I should get another sedan, which has worked out fine for me up to this point in life. Because of it's history of reliability, there was no question that I'd get a Camry if I didn't get a CUV.
BTW- a girl parked next to me at the store recently. I thought her car looked sharp and asked what she was driving. It was a Mazda 6. She said she likes it, but it's a gas guzzler.
And if the CX-5 and Mazda 6 are so great, why doesn't it show up on lists like these? I now know it's a smaller manufacturer, but it seems they'd still be listed. I have a feeling performance is the main reason people like Mazda's, and not reliability and longevity.
The CX-5 and Mazda6 are very similar vehicles. Both come standard with 2.5 liter naturally-aspirated four cylinder engines, whereas the upper trims are powered by turbocharged 2.5 liter four cylinder engines. The 2019 models all come with traditional six speed automatic transmissions that have been well-received even by enthusiasts. The naturally-aspirated engine has been available in various Mazdas since the 2014 model year, and from what I've seen those engines have been pretty reliable. Plenty of people on Mazda forums and whatnot have 100k+ miles on them, and a few have reached 200k miles. Fuel economy depends on how you drive; the forums I visit have plenty of people reporting overall mpg figures in the mid-30s, as well as plenty of people reporting mid-20s.
The first article you linked is simply a list of the ten best-selling cars in particular segments. Mazda does not have the dealership network that Honda and Toyota do, not does it have the same reputation for reliability that those automakers have.
Something else worth noting is that Mazda was under Ford's control until late 2008. I believe that all Mazdas (except for the Miata and RX-8) were built on platforms and powered by engines and transmissions shared with Ford. I'm not sure why there are no Mazdas on the second list (I'm surprised the Miata isn't on there) but Ford's involvement may have something to do with it.
Edit - also, if you're looking at a current-generation Camry, it has a new four-cylinder engine that has only been around for a couple of years. The XSE models still have a V6 that is an evolved version of the 3.5 liter V6 that has been floating around Toyota's lineup for roughly two decades now.
Thanks, but I care more about long-term reliability and longevity, not performance.
Mazda is here and ready to serve you for over 20 years easily. Believe my words. If you don't like Ford Fusion S/Escape S, then I can easily recommend you a Mazda CX-5 or 6 sedan, since the engines are pretty similar (except Ford has older fuel-injection instead; Ford isn't allowed to use Mazda's newer SkyActiv direct-injection design).
In my experience, any vehicles built in Japan (any brand) can easily last for 300,000-400,000 miles with no major issue if well-maintained.
Mazda does not have the dealership network that Honda and Toyota do, not does it have the same reputation for reliability that those automakers have.
I disagree... Trend is shifting now, and Mazda is fast replacing Honda as #2 most-reliable and trusted Japanese automaker after Toyota. All of the new Honda vehicles today, since 2015 model year, are seeing major decline in reliability scores that are often worse than some American cars (including Dodge Journey I wrote earlier).
While there have been a few comments about low maintenance costs, etc., no one can say the CX-5 is reliable, has longevity and will last 20 plus years like a Camry because it hasn't been out that long.
New Camrys don't last for 20 years anymore. Time to move on... New cars are becoming more disposable and recyclable now. I know you're still brainwashed to really believe the catchy marketing ads from Toyota, but New Camrys don't last as long as the old ones before. Period... It peaked in 2001 model year, the final-year that the Camry had a cast-iron engine block. It's all downhill since...
Cast-iron engine block is still far superior for car durability, and carcomplaints.com very-rarely receive any reports (all brands). Today, Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche are the only mass-market automakers still producing cast-iron engines with 2.0L I4 turbo and 3.6L V6 only.
BTW- a girl parked next to me at the store recently. I thought her car looked sharp and asked what she was driving. It was a Mazda 6. She said she likes it, but it's a gas guzzler.
That's even better, actually. I'm glad to hear...
Less MPG = More Durable (Mazda). More MPG = Less Durable (Toyota). End of story...
I wouldn't really tie the Tribute to the current line of Mazdas. It was a Ford Explorer with Mazda badges on it.
That was the Navajo. I owned one back in the day. It had all that awful first generation Explorer chrome blacked out and a better warranty than the Exploder. It was body on frame based on the Ranger compact pickup.
The Tribute was on the unibody CD2 platform and was the twin of the Ford Escape with a stiffer suspension tune. The 626 was on the same platform. The CX-5 is the successor product.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Believe my words. If you don't like Ford Fusion S/Escape S, then I can easily recommend you a Mazda CX-5 or 6 sedan, since the engines are pretty similar (except Ford has older fuel-injection instead; Ford isn't allowed to use Mazda's newer SkyActiv direct-injection design).
