Rogue vs. 2013 Mazda CX-5

[philipa_240sx]

I had an opportunity to drive a new Mazda CX-5 yesterday. It was a loaded GT (Grand Touring in the USA) AWD model with the Skyactiv 6spd Automatic.

A few quick observations:

Interior/exterior:
- The styling is very dramatic. You really need to see it in person to appreciate it.
- The overall size is similar to the Rogue both inside and out. There is plenty of room up front, but the rear seat seems a bit more snug.
- The glove box is small compared to the Rogue. I like the small cubby ahead of the shifter. I had this in my Altima and I wish the Rogue had the same.
- Cargo capacity appears very similar, I really like the 40-20-40 split rear seat with remote release handles inside the cargo area. You don't have to lean forward to flip the seats, nor do you have to remove the head rests. The seat however do not fold completely flat, the Rogue has the same issue.
- Mazda has done a very good job with visibility. The A pillar and side view mirror arrangement is good, the Rogue by comparison has a huge blind area.
- I'm not a fan of black body plastics and the CX-5 has a fair amount around the sills and wheel wells. Nissan take note: Mazda did their overlapped door sills the right way and there is no risk of scratches!
- The leather clad seats were comfortable, but I did have a couple of criticisms. The seat cushion is very flat with very high pronounced side bolstering. It makes sliding in/out of the seat somewhat uncomfortable.
- The controls are easy to use and intuitive. You'll never have to reach for the owners manual.
- The CX-5 GT gets a keyless entry/pushbutton start system like the Rogue's Intelligent key. Lower trim levels still have pushbutton start, however they lack the request button on the door handle so you have to use the fob to unlock the doors.

Engine/Powertrain:
- The Skyactiv-G 2.0L motor has less power on paper than the Rogue (10-15% less). However, the Syactiv-Drive 6spd auto makes very good use of engine power and it does NOT feel slow. Those used to V-6 powered CUV's may be disappointed, but when you consider the fuel economy benefits (10-15% better than a 2012 Rogue) it's a no-brainer... this is a great motor.
- This has to be the BEST automatic transmission I have ever driven. Shifts are imperceptible, it rev matches on downshifts, and when used it manual mode it firms up the gear changes nicely. The best part is it downshifts to the correct gear and holds it there when you slow down for a corner... you'll find that this transmission never hunts for gears powering out of corners!
- The motor is very quiet when cruising. Very similar to the Rogue, except there is no transmission noise unlike the CVT.
- Like the Rogue, the Skyactiv-Drive will upshift to the highest gear when cruising at city speeds for better fuel economy. The resultant low frequency vibration in the 1200-1700rpm range is there, but is more subdued than the Rogue when driven in the same manner.

Driving impressions:
- Mazda has the Rogue beat in the handling department. Steering feel, suspension tuning, and the overall package is so much more solid and confidence inspiring. The Mazda loves to be driven hard and you'll find yourself driving much quicker than any CUV has the right to be.
- The CX-5 drives much smaller than it's dimensions would suggest. It's nimble and outward visibility is good. Higher trim levels come equipped with a backup camera and blind spot warning system.
- The chassis is absorbs bumps very well while maintaining a firm but comfortable ride. I find the Rogue crashes over the bumps a bit more by comparison. Note: The CX-5 GT was shod with 19" wheels and tires. Lower trim levels come with 17" wheels that will soften the ride a bit more.

Overall:
The Rogue can still hold it's own against the CX-5. The Rogue's torque rich QR25DE motor, smooth CVT and roomy interior are definite advantages. The CX-5 however has the edge in handling, a more responsive engine and transmission (albeit with less power), and great styling.

[kerrton]

Nice description Phil, thanks a lot!

So have you made a decision on your purchase, it sounds like you're sold on the CX5?? We'll have to update this comparison when the new Rogue is released.......

[philipa_240sx]

Kerrton,

It's not a done deal... yet. It really depends what the Rogue fetches on resale and what the buyout on my car loan is. If it's break even or better, it will be very tempting.

I've been looking at a GS FWD (a.k.a. Touring). The GT is out of my price range. I'm also not an AWD fan... I think I've made that clear with my rants about how AWD doesn't actually improve grip in slippery conditions... the type of tires are the determining factor.

I was out again today for another test drive. The wife came along this time. She likes it too... not surprising really since she has only ever owned a Mazda... three of them over 15 yrs. I noticed a few more things...

- There is tons of height adjustment on the drivers seat... it seems like several inches!
- The wheel is both tilting and telescoping.
- It was wet today and very windy. Despite this, the cabin was very quiet. When I got back into my Rogue, I could hear a few squeaks when driving away... it's showing it's age.
- I really like the door mounted mirrors. It helps with the blind spot around the A pillar.

BTW, the CX-5 I drove is one of the first off the boat. Every dealer in Canada has been delivered one vehicle for demonstration purposes until their stock arrives sometime in late March/early April.

[dolbydj]

I saw the CX-5 yesterday at the dealer and checked it out. The car looks great! It's what the BMW X1 should have been. It has that Chris Bangle "flame surfacing". It could use some chrome accents around the doors to liven things up as there is a lot of plastic cladding. I just don't find that Mazda's designs age very well. The CX-7 and RX-8 both looked great when they were launched, but now - not so much.
You also have to be weary of body rust on Mazdas. It is a common site on most of their rear fender wells. Although, I didn't drive the car, it would have been nice to have more power. Why can't they make a 200 horsepower Sky Active engine? It was a bit pricey for what you get, and one of my pet peaves is a choice of a leather steering wheel option without having to buy a full leather interior.
Good luck with your car shopping! Let us know how it goes.

[philipa_240sx]

It could use some chrome accents around the doors to liven things up as there is a lot of plastic cladding.

Agreed, the black plastic cladding is bordering excess. Almost reminds me of a 80's Pontiac.

You also have to be weary of body rust on Mazdas. It is a common site on most of their rear fender wells.

Nissan was not immune to this phenomenon either. Actually, I think the worst offender has to be Honda. Their cars back in the 80-90's were notorious for rear fender rust.

Although, I didn't drive the car, it would have been nice to have more power. Why can't they make a 200 horsepower Sky Active engine?

It's not as underpowered as you may think. I was impressed that it had that much spunk for such a small 2.0L motor. And it gets up to 15% better fuel economy than a 2012 Rogue (according to EPA ratings).

It was a bit pricey for what you get

I actually find the CX-5 is competitive price wise with the Rogue and other CUV's. Content wise, they are very comparable.

[philipa_240sx]

Just a quick note about the AWD.

It appears Mazda is using a similar electronic centre diff as found in the CX-7. However, there is no AWD lock mode like the one found in the Rogue. The system is completely hands off.

[acmm]

Thanks Phil,
I have been reviewing the online specs for the CX5 for a while now and waiting for a review like this. Based on your info, I will definitely be test driving the CX5. My daughter has the CX9 and i think mazda produces quality competitive vehicles compared to Nissan.
I have owned Nissans since 1982 but have seen a decline in quality over the years and think my 09 Rogue will be my last Nissan. Look forward to testing the Mazda.
Thanks again for your great post.
Tony

[philipa_240sx]

Based on your info, I will definitely be test driving the CX5. My daughter has the CX9 and i think mazda produces quality competitive vehicles compared to Nissan.

You really need to test drive the CX-5 and Rogue back-to-back to make a good comparison.

[philipa_240sx]

I had the opportunity to inspect a Mazda CX-5 GS(Touring) AWD model today. The cloth seats still have a pronounced bolster on the bottom cushion. While sporty and very supportive, the bolster makes it difficult to slide across the seat to get in/out unlike the much flatter ones used on the Rogue.

Mazda will be offering accessory side step/rails which will hopefully make ingress/egress easier. Still, the bolster makes a graceful entry/exit difficult.



The dealer pointed out the NAV button on the radio. However, on non-NAV equipped models, this button is present but does nothing when pressed.

To get NAV, you can either option a loaded GT (Grand Touring) model with NAV or get it as a dealer installed accessory. Yup, that's right... you can add an integrated NAV module to any CX-5 that comes with the color touch screen radio! The color screen is standard on the mid level GS (Touring) and GT (Grand Touring) and is an option on the base GX (Sport) model.

[philipa_240sx]

I ended up trading in my 2008 Rogue SL for a new Mazda CX-5 GS FWD (Touring trim in the USA). Here are my impressions after the first few days of driving:

Firstly, the Rogue traces it's design back to the 2007 Qashqai (designed by Nissan in the UK and sold in Europe). It's not really fair to compare it to the brand new CX-5... it's got a 5 year advantage!

Handling:

The CX-5 has a much more refined suspension than the Rogue. It corners flatter, doesn't crash over bumps, and definitely feels much more sporty. The ride is firm, but in many ways is actually more comfortable. This is truly a drivers car, one that begs to be driven hard... much harder than any CUV has a right to be. During one of the press days, Mazda invited everyone to Mazda Raceway at Laguna Seca... to drive the CX-5 on the track!

Powertrain:

The Skyactiv-G 2.0L motor and 6spd Skyactiv Drive AT are a fantastic combination. Mazda really spent alot of time developing it and it shows. However, the Nissan Rogue's 2.5L motor does have a significant advantage in low rpm torque and in 'stop light sprints' type driving it wins hands down. As the speed builds though, the Mazda comes into it's own. I wouldn't say the Mazda is under-powered though (at least not for me). Besides, who can argue with the fuel economy numbers? I haven't broken the engine in yet and I am already observing better average fuel economy of 8.3L/100km (28.3mpg) as compared to the 9.5l/100km (24.7mpg) I got in my Rogue just a few days before. And it's steadily improving. It should be possible to exceed 30mpg

I have to make a special mention about the Skyactiv Drive 6AT transmission. This is one of the best auto boxes I have ever driven period! It shifts smoothly, has a very direct connected feel, and the manual mode shifts so quickly it's like using an manual gearbox. Even high rpm aggressive downshifts are met with perfect rev-matched gear changes. And it does hold the gear you select... right to the engines redline! Although Nissan has significantly improved their CVT transmission, it still lacks the connected feel of the Mazda. Higher mileage Rogues also exhibit a distinct high rpm whine that becomes worse as the weather gets hot. By comparison the Skyactiv Drive 6AT is quiet.

Interior/exterior:

The Mazda comes very well equipped in GS(Touring) trim. But there's more than just the fancy backup camera, blind spot monitoring system, and rain sensing wipers. Things like sunvisor extenders, a 12V power jack in the hatch, and a telescoping steering wheel are standard options which are absent from the Rogue. Mazda has also cleverly placed the A pillars to improve outward visibility, the Rogue has a huge blind spot in comparison which makes it hard to see around corners.

Interior space is very comparable. The CX-5 may look small in photos, but once inside you'll find just as much room as the Rogue. There is plenty of seat height adjustment (the bottom cushion has no tilt function, similar to the Rogue). If I have a couple of gripes, it's the rear headrests and the heavily bolstered front seats. The head rests are even taller than the Rogue and block rear visibility (Thankfully, they can be removed). The front seats have very tall bolsters on the bottom cushion. This makes it difficult to get in/out. If you are used to 'sliding' in/out of your vehicles, the Mazda's seats will be an annoyance.

Exterior wise, the Mazda is a refreshing design. The hood does seem a bit longer than my Rogue, the prominent upright grille probably has much to do with it. Initially, I thought the dark plastic cladding on the lower doors and wheel wells was a bit much. But it's tastefully done and should protect the body from dings and stone chips.

Conclusion:

Mazda has produced a vehicle that can compete at the top of the crowded CUV class. I think the only thing that may keep it flying off dealer lots is the engine's power. Those who are used to V-6 like torque will be disappointed and may look elsewhere (unless Mazda drops the Skyactiv-D diesel into the CX-5, then the tables would be turned). But as fuel prices continue to skyrocket, this may prove to be a moot point. The CX-5 has best in class fuel economy, and it's a very convincing argument.

As for the Rogue... as I mentioned earlier, it's not fair to compare a 5 year old design to the brand new CX-5. My review heavily favours the CX-5 as a result. However, I think it will be a different story when the new Rogue comes out next year. It would be interesting to drive them back-to-back when the new model arrives. Nissan released the Hi-Cross concept at the Geneva Auto Show. Perhaps this is the new Rogue? We'll see what happens...

[ImStricken06]

no AWD lock mode like the one found in the Rogue = not a big deal since ours turns off at 6mph anyway.

and the only thing i like about the cx-5 is the projector headlights. good luck with that car. looks really nice inside. almost like what infiniti puts in their g37. iv always found the rogue to be super bland.

[insomnia816]

is there going to be a 2014 model of cx-5 or have to wait for 2015 ?
considering the msrp will there be any changes in next year?
My nearest Mazda dealer is not interest friendly, a whopping 3.44%!

[MotorTorqueuk]

Just looking at everyone's comments and thought a video would be useful in the mix.

The site I write for did a review on the CX-5 recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHxTR72tDIo

Just wondering what everyone thinks of it.

Any feedback on the video would be appreciated as well

[kerrton]

Some news about the CX-5:

1) The only engine option to this point has been the 2.0. Mazda has reported that a new 2.5L engine will be optional on the upper trim models, producing 185 hp but the efficiency numbers look to be roughly the same as the Rogue, and remember the Rogue is slightly larger than the CX-5 and has been producing these types of numbers since 2008. This fact alone will keep my loyalty with Nissan - in 2008 when I bought my Rogue they were the only ones to offer a powerful AND efficient 2.5 4-cylinder. Now Mazda is just catching up 5 years later, and so is the Big Bad Toyota:

http://ca.autoblog.com/2012/11/29/mazda ... -for-cx-5/

2) New 2013 Toyota RAV4 details released: 5 Years after the Rogue was released, the RAV4 is finally available with a comparable 2.5 4-cylinder with good power and efficiency, and they FINALLY ditched the old 4-speed transmission and replaced it with a 6-spd. Too little, too late in my opinion. In terms of efficiency, its very close to my 08 Rogue, I think the new RAV beats it by 1 mpg. I'll take my 5-year old Rogue over the new RAV any day, and when its time to buy a new vehicle I'll be looking forward to the redesigned Rogue that should be revealed next year and again put Toyota to shame. What Nissan acccomplished 5-years ago with the Rogue is only just starting to show up in competitors like Toyota - way to go Nissan.

http://ca.autoblog.com/2012/11/28/2013- ... 4-la-2012/

[Rogue One]

Some news about the CX-5:

1) The only engine option to this point has been the 2.0. Mazda has reported that a new 2.5L engine will be optional on the upper trim models, producing 185 hp but the efficiency numbers look to be roughly the same as the Rogue, and remember the Rogue is slightly larger than the CX-5 and has been producing these types of numbers since 2008. This fact alone will keep my loyalty with Nissan - in 2008 when I bought my Rogue they were the only ones to offer a powerful AND efficient 2.5 4-cylinder. Now Mazda is just catching up 5 years later, and so is the Big Bad Toyota:

http://ca.autoblog.com/2012/11/29/mazda ... -for-cx-5/

2) New 2013 Toyota RAV4 details released: 5 Years after the Rogue was released, the RAV4 is finally available with a comparable 2.5 4-cylinder with good power and efficiency, and they FINALLY ditched the old 4-speed transmission and replaced it with a 6-spd. Too little, too late in my opinion. In terms of efficiency, its very close to my 08 Rogue, I think the new RAV beats it by 1 mpg. I'll take my 5-year old Rogue over the new RAV any day, and when its time to buy a new vehicle I'll be looking forward to the redesigned Rogue that should be revealed next year and again put Toyota to shame. What Nissan accomplished 5-years ago with the Rogue is only just starting to show up in competitors like Toyota - way to go Nissan.

http://ca.autoblog.com/2012/11/28/2013- ... 4-la-2012/

Great post KERRTON! With no disrespect to anyone here, there's good reason why I currently have this in my sig line...
Mazda CX5? You'd have to shoot dancing monkeys out of your a$$ to tell me that it's a whole lot better than the competition. - Tripper GTSt

For the longest time, the only claim to fame Mazda had (IMO) was their Wankel Rotary Engine. And they ceased making those back in June. Frankly, Mazda wasn't even on my radar when I first started looking for a compact SUV.

[ImStricken06]

For the longest time, the only claim to fame Mazda had (IMO) was their Wankel Rotary Engine. And they ceased making those back in June. Frankly, Mazda wasn't even on my radar when I first started looking for a compact SUV.

looks like they dropped rotary and went for diesel

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK5SQkEUBdo[/youtube]

[kerrton]

Don't get me wrong, the CX5 looks like a pretty well-designed vehicle, and to me the durability, longevity, and low cost ease of ownership is everything. If the CX5 turns out to reliable and cheap to run over 10+ years I'm all for it, I'm just saying they're a little late to the efficient crossover game, and in 08 when I was looking to buy my new vehicle, Nissan was basically the only option. Honda CRV was a close second but I hated the looks. RAV4 4-cylinder was brutal and overpriced, Mazda's were horrible on gas and I didn't want to buy a re-badged Ford Escape. Volkswagen is overpriced, overhyped and still sucks on efficiency. Hyundai/Kia had nice products but efficiency wasn't quite there and I couldn't afford them. Actually I almost bought a used Ford Escape because the price is very reasonable and they had good reliability. But Nissan was the only one to strike a nice balance with utility, efficiency AND reasonable price. Today if I was buying a crossover it would be a lot tougher decision with many better competitors, we recently purchased a new Kia Sorento and I gotta say its "next generation" in terms of innovation, quality and value. I'm expecting big things from the next-gen Rogue next year, and the new Pathfinder looks pretty impressive too.....we'll see.

If Mazda offers the 2.2 Diesel in North America I'll have to give them big time props, that's really taking a risk and bringing a potentially revolutionary technology to the north american market, similar to what Nissan has done with the CVT transmission. Volkswagen has dabbled in this, but in my opinion has missed the mark. They only offer diesels in the very small cars like the Jetta and charge way too high of a price premium - you also can't get the diesel in their crossovers that I know of, but I don't even care because I'm not able to pay $50k for a vehicle so its irrelevant to me. If Mazda can bring an affordable, efficient diesel with low emisssions and tons of torque to their ENTIRE lineup, they'll absoltely embarrass Volkswagen and their overpriced crap!

[rdub2k4]

I test drove a CX5 before we got the rogue and fell in love with it. Honestly what moved us towards the Rogue over the CX5 was the price. It was only 3-4k more then the Rogue, but it woulda put our payments more then what we wanted to.

All in all, I'm satisfied with the rogue.

[darylzero]

I test drove a CX5 before we got the rogue and fell in love with it. Honestly what moved us towards the Rogue over the CX5 was the price. It was only 3-4k more then the Rogue, but it woulda put our payments more then what we wanted to.

All in all, I'm satisfied with the rogue.

If I price out both cars on their websites the Rogue SV w/ SL pkg comes to $31,015 MSRP. The Mazda CX-5 2 Grand Touring AWD w/ Tech Pkg. comes to $30,715 MSRP.

[Rogue Three]

I bought a 2012 Rogue SL, because it was $5k less than a 2013 CX-5 GT. I know it's a year less in model year, but my wallet feels the difference.

[rdub2k4]

I test drove a CX5 before we got the rogue and fell in love with it. Honestly what moved us towards the Rogue over the CX5 was the price. It was only 3-4k more then the Rogue, but it woulda put our payments more then what we wanted to.

All in all, I'm satisfied with the rogue.

If I price out both cars on their websites the Rogue SV w/ SL pkg comes to $31,015 MSRP. The Mazda CX-5 2 Grand Touring AWD w/ Tech Pkg. comes to $30,715 MSRP.

I was looking at the Touring FWD for $25k and the Rogue Special Edition for $22. That extra 3k was an issue due to my gf's credit. Otherwise We'd be in a CX5 :P