Dont like the look of that Mazda at all - Yuk !!

:no:

I do like the chunky and funky look of my Yeti. Downside is the slab like front is not aerodynamic so fuel consumption suffers once you go over 65mph on the motorway. So I can see the attraction of the sleek looking CX5 with lightweight, low CO2 and what must be quite powerful engines. Looks significantly bigger than the yeti though.

Downside is the slab like front is not aerodynamic so fuel consumption suffers once you go over 65mph on the motorway.

Hi Fuzzy,

i actually think you have identified the wrong end for the aerodynamic question. If you look at the front, it is realy quite roundedand as aerodynamic as possible. After driving in rain, look at the stripes left on the car from wet dirty water. They are quite straight and indicate a smooth flow over the front - reinforced by the low noise level. The vertical rear and the basic shoebox shape and cross section is more likely the cause of the higher fuel consumption at speed.

Also, don't forget that the wind resistance increases with the square of the increase in speed - no matter what the shape.

A recent 2000 mile round trip to Croatia and back with quite a bit of 100 mph+ on the Autobahn and an overall 42 mpg+ is not bad for the size and shape.

Hi Fuzzy,

i actually think you have identified the wrong end for the aerodynamic question. If you look at the front, it is realy quite roundedand as aerodynamic as possible. After driving in rain, look at the stripes left on the car from wet dirty water. They are quite straight and indicate a smooth flow over the front - reinforced by the low noise level. The vertical rear and the basic shoebox shape and cross section is more likely the cause of the higher fuel consumption at speed.

Also, don't forget that the wind resistance increases with the square of the increase in speed - no matter what the shape.

A recent 2000 mile round trip to Croatia and back with quite a bit of 100 mph+ on the Autobahn and an overall 42 mpg+ is not bad for the size and shape.

That's a fair point, I wonder what the drag factor is on Crossovers like the yeti. I was looking at a BMW X1 the other day which seems more streamlined and lower. A listing of all the crossovers and their respective drag factors would be interesting.

Cheers

That's a fair point, I wonder what the drag factor is on Crossovers like the yeti. I was looking at a BMW X1 the other day which seems more streamlined and lower. A listing of all the crossovers and their respective drag factors would be interesting.

Cheers

I believe the Yeti cv is 0.37 compared to an Octavia Combi (and sedan??) of 0.33?

The high ground clearace works against low cv, as the air flow under the vehicle is not very efficient. Hence the lower clearance on the Greenlines.

cv 1.0 is a flat plate, say a piece of plywod of the same cross section and outline.

Edited 5 August, 201114 yr by Agerbundsen

I'm with Bobdog on this: it looks like a Kuga to me.

I'm also with Agerbundsen: I don't like it, and I don't like the current trend bendy-wiggly-swoopy "styling cues" ie curves in places where they have no purpose and make little aesthetic sense. The Juke is a perfect example: to me it looks like a beach buggy gone seriously wrong. But then again maybe I'm just an old fart...

Actually the trend I really don't like - and this car shares it with the New Sportage, the iX35 and the Kuga - is the waistline that rises towards the rear. It seriously reduces visibility towards the rear quarters, exactly where I want to check the blind spot that the mirrors don't cover when I'm changing lanes, or turning left when there's a cycle lane on my inside. It probably wouldn't worry the majority of drivers, especially judging by the number who seem to think that blacking out all the glass rearward of the B pillar is an entirely sensible thing to do, but as a motorcyclist I've developed a fondness over the years for turning and looking my fellow road-users in the whites of their eyes!

+ 1

Essentially, this Mazda along with the Kuga, new Kia, BMW X1, Qashqai et al all look too much like 'pumped up' cars.

Oh! I forgot the mention the Q3.

At least a Yeti looks like a proper 4x4.

Well the first drive reviews are coming in:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q3/2013_mazda_cx-5-first_drive_review?

And a picture of the derrière:

Well the first drive reviews are coming in:

Mmmm ... be interesting to see a UK review; the Yanks know nothing about decent cars - look at the dogs they build!

Well the first drive reviews are coming in:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q3/2013_mazda_cx-5-first_drive_review?

And a picture of the derrière:

Back-end looks like a "bubble" Rover 200!!

Back-end looks like a "bubble" Rover 200!!

Graham you never cease to amaze me with your depth of knowledge. I never realised the Greeks made the Rover 200.

Bob, you've lost me, there!

Back-end looks like a "bubble" Rover 200!!

Not sure I see it...

Bob, you've lost me, there!

Bubble and squeak - Greek

Cockney rhyming slang

I thinkit looks like the mazda3.

Edited 31 August, 201114 yr by 'daiking'

Bubble and squeak - Greek

Well the prices are out on this for the UK.

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/02/mazda-releases-uk-pricing-and.html?

Very competive. The CO2 emissions make me green with envy though!!!

The CX-5 is also available with a choice of 6-speed manual or automatic transmissions, front- or all-wheel drive and four equipment levels (SE-L, SE-L Nav, Sport and Sport Nav).

Prices for 2.0-litre petrol versions start from £21,395 (OTR) for the CX-5 SE-L and rise to £23,995 for the CX-5 Sport NAV.

The 2.2-litre 150PS models begin at £22,995 for the SE-L and £24,295 for the SE-L Auto, to £25,595 for the Sport Nav and £24,695 for the entry-level AWD model. Finally, pricing for 2.2-litre 175PS diesel versions start at £27,195 for the CX-5 AWD Sport.

According to Mazda, depending on the model, the CX-5 return will a combined fuel consumption figure of 61.4 to 47.0mpg UK (4.6lt/100km to 6.0lt/100km) with CO2 emissions ranging from 119 to 144g/km.

At those prices it will be up against Kuga, Tiguan et al; not a serious competitor to Yeti.

At those prices it will be up against Kuga, Tiguan et al; not a serious competitor to Yeti.

No one on the planet offers 1,2 litre Golf sized SUV cars like the Yeti does............ So not hard to not be able to compete at that price point (engine size). BUT comparing like sized engines/ power outputs it looks pretty competive with lots of standard kit that is optional on a Yeti or not even available - the Volvo-esque safety braking thing for one.

I remember when I bought my Yeti (with the Skoda scrappage deal), there was NOTHING on the market that costed the same, even the Qashqai 1.6 Visia was a grand more expensive (after incentives) than the Yeti.

Its a nice car no doubt, I rdeally like it but £27k for the diesel awd ouch!!!

Nearly 5k more than what I paid for

my SM.

Its a nice car no doubt, I rdeally like it but £27k for the diesel awd ouch!!!

Nearly 5k more than what I paid for

my SM.

I'm sure the advertised price of your Yeti was also £27,000 before you had your discounts......... Mine was north of that and no I did not pay that much either (in the end).

So the same will hold true for the Mazda I'm sure.

ROTR price for a 170 elegance is £23,675.

Regarding the diesel, you can get the Freelander with the same engine in S spec for 22k, GS spec for 25k and XS spec for 28k.

PS the 28k XS model has leather seats and Sat Nav.

Edited 14 February, 201214 yr by My_Yeti

ROTR price for a 170 elegance is £23,675.

Cheaper than a 140 DSG then! Fair enough. I retract my statement. These Mazdas seem EXPENSIVE! hehehe

Cheaper than a 140 DSG then! Fair enough. I retract my statement. These Mazdas seem EXPENSIVE! hehehe

Major selling point may well be the low CO2 emissions. Even the most powerful auto is 149g/km and many are less than 120g/km - that provides low annual tax, particularly the 2.0 litre petrol compared with the 1.8 tsi Yeti!

At the higher price specs it is a real competitor with the Yeti but not so much at the lower spec/engine capacities.

VAG should really look at their engines however - getting a little left behind compared with competitors!

Cheaper than a 140 DSG then! Fair enough. I retract my statement. These Mazdas seem EXPENSIVE! hehehe

Will be interesting to see if Mazda can build + ship orders (from Japan) in much less time than Skoda can from E Europe to the UK.