CD Article: 2007 Mazda5 GT

[tpl]

I think a good strong diesel would be a happy combination with an automatic.  It should be easier to keep the engine in its power band with an auto with some suitable gearing and therefore give some really good economy numbers AND good performance.

 I say this as a committed 40+ years manny tranny driver who has driven many diesels in Euland over the last 20 years.
I also agree tho' that a Mazda 5 with a diesel would be a great everyday vehicle.

[banfield]

I recently rented a non-GT version for two weeks. Wonderful vehicle except for:
. slit-like view through the extremely-raked windshield.
. thick, forward-thrusting A-pillars can block view of other vehicles when you make a turn.

Current Honda Civic has the same A-pillar problem  although the windshield is bigger top to bottom so the "slit-like view" effect is not as pronounced.

[boytoys]

Can't be right, can it? You in stop and go all the time Boytoys? Most reviews of the 5 I've read report something between 9 - 10L/100kms overall.

Have to check the tank size as I don't think it's that large. EDIT: Checked and it is 60L. When you give the mileage you get per tank are you on emply or 1/4 or??? Re-reading your statement leads me to think you travelled 450 and put in 56L to top up which is the way I normally would relate it as well, hmmmm 

I would have thought it much better. Still better than most SUVs or minivans, but always hope for more.

daily driving is Mavis/403/401 to 401/Dixon  Dixie/403  Eglinton/403.. etc. agree. definitely more stop and go than i would like. I don't do hard driving.. but the numbers i quote is pretty much repeatable. I fill up almost 53-56 most cases and get 440-450 km..sometimes worst if A/C is on and hot day and lots of traffic.

Went to Buffalo last week and the week before to St. Catherines with nice flowing traffic. I can feel the numbers improving although i don't have actual data or log to tell ya.

[Leviathan]

So 12.4L/100km for the 56L in the city? For a 4cyl that's not very appealing.

Depends on the conditions. My Tribute is of similar weight, uses pretty much the same engine as the 5 and on a 12Km route I've seen gas usage from 1.0L to 1.5L  (as recorded by my Scangauge II) under similar temp & weather conditions. The difference is purely traffic. You simply cannot get good mileage if you are forced to wait 2 or 3 lights to get through intersections 

[gottarondo]

I recently rented a non-GT version for two weeks. Wonderful vehicle except for:
. slit-like view through the extremely-raked windshield.
. thick, forward-thrusting A-pillars can block view of other vehicles when you make a turn.

Current Honda Civic has the same A-pillar problem  although the windshield is bigger top to bottom so the "slit-like view" effect is not as pronounced.

That A-pillar problem is awfully common, and I'd love to see some accident analysis that assesses the impact of it, especially with respect to pedestrian accidents.  I think most minivans have it, the Rondo does to an extent, and pretty much anything with that seeks an aerodynamic profile.  I can't decide if it is due to the pillar thickness or just the pillar position, being so much further forward than the average (older) car.  I find I can mitigate it by leaning toward the side window as I look forward, thus visually narrowing the pillar. 

Interesting point about the slit-like view.  I thought your comment was going to apply to the rear window!

[Schmengie]

I recently rented a non-GT version for two weeks. Wonderful vehicle except for:
. slit-like view through the extremely-raked windshield.
. thick, forward-thrusting A-pillars can block view of other vehicles when you make a turn.

Current Honda Civic has the same A-pillar problem  although the windshield is bigger top to bottom so the "slit-like view" effect is not as pronounced.

That A-pillar problem is awfully common, and I'd love to see some accident analysis that assesses the impact of it, especially with respect to pedestrian accidents.  I think most minivans have it, the Rondo does to an extent, and pretty much anything with that seeks an aerodynamic profile.  I can't decide if it is due to the pillar thickness or just the pillar position, being so much further forward than the average (older) car.  I find I can mitigate it by leaning toward the side window as I look forward, thus visually narrowing the pillar. 

Interesting point about the slit-like view.  I thought your comment was going to apply to the rear window!

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The large sloped windshields in vehicles like the Mazda5, Kia Rondo and my Nissan Versa provide a lot more visibility than the relatively thick A-pillars take away. I've driven all of them and found forward visibility excellent - the view to the rear, especially in the Mazda5 was more problematic because of the small rear quarter-windows. These cars need substantial A-pillars not only to provide structural support and rigidity but crush-resistance in the event of a roll-over, a reasonable trade-off IMO.