- 2012 Mazda 5 starts at $19,990.
- The new Mazda 5 goes on sale in January.
- The U.S. model will be sold in three trim levels: Sport, Touring and Grand Touring.
IRVINE, California — Mazda said its redesigned 2012 Mazda 5, which goes on sale in January in the U.S., will be priced from $19,990, including shipping.
The updated Mazda 5 was unveiled earlier this year at the 2010 Geneva Auto Show and made its U.S. debut last week at the 2010 Los Angeles Auto Show.
The U.S. model will be sold in three trim levels: Sport, Touring and Grand Touring. Standard features on all variants include dynamic stability control, traction control, antilock brakes and dual front, front-seat and side curtain airbags.
The 2012 Mazda 5 Touring will start at $21,990, while the Mazda 5 Grand Touring will be priced from $24,670.
The 2010 Mazda 5 was priced from $19,305, topping out at $24,035.
Power on the 2012 edition is supplied by a 157-horsepower 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine that comes with either a six-speed manual or five-speed automatic gearbox.
Inside Line says: Despite an extensive makeover, the newest Mazda is priced conservatively. — Paul Lienert, Correspondent
Add A Comment »
akitadog says:
10:54 AM, 11/30/2010
suvguy2005,
I'm convinced that we got some kind of "lemon" engine in our Mazda3. It really seems to be about 10-15% worse in fuel economy than it should be. But what can we do about it? It isn't defective, so we had no recourse during the warranty period. I'm sure we could get better mileage if we let all the other traffic whiz by us on the highway, but I've gotten as high as 33.5 (my calc, not computer) in my '08 GTI, and that's at speeds above 70 mph. Either way, my wife has a city commute to work and gets 18-19 mpg. I expected at least 20 mpg, but apparently that's too much to ask for. We're strict about the service schedule, so that can't be it.
The car is paid for, so we probably aren't going to get rid of it, at least until a second kid comes along in 2-3 years, but I'm just disappointed in what I see as lackluster fuel economy for any modern 4cyl.
suvguy2005 says:
08:59 PM, 11/29/2010
If you are getting 28mpg at 75mph you would get 35 easy at 65mph. I've kept very careful track of my mileage over the years with four different cars and the mileage dropped off significantly after 65mph for all of them*. I used to have a Mazda6 and at 72mph it got 31mpg but at 65..... 38! My CRV gets around 28mpg at 72mph but at 65 I've gotten as high as 35mpg for an entire tank. Mini Cooper: 37mpg at 72, 44mpg at 65. Just a few mph makes a huge difference.
*I write the odometer reading at each fill up on the gas receipt. Then I enter all the info (gallons, station, date, price, notes) into an Excel spreadsheet that calculates the mpg, average mpg, total gallons and total cost. I don't trust the car's computer to give the correct mpg. I've yet to find one that isn't at least 1.5mpg too high.
tbone85 says:
11:52 AM, 11/29/2010
"My wife's 2006 Mazda3 5-door with the 5-speed auto has never gotten better than 28 mpg on any road-trip. That's at 70-75 mph, the flow of traffic. It routinely averages 18 mpg in mostly city-driving (not even 20?). My wife is no lead-foot. For both cases, that's ABYSMAL. I've heard numerous horror stories on the interwebz of pitiful fuel economy for the 2.3 L. Are we all liars?
I don't know what the experience is for other owners. I have a 2007 Mazda3s, and I get 20-21 MPG week in week out in my city cycle commute for 4 years. My highway mileage has measured between 31-34 on a fairly broad variety of road trips. Certainly not stellar numbers, but nowhere near the experience you've mentioned
I don't accuse anyone of lying, my mileage has varied from your wife's--and I'm no light foot. The 3s mileage is not a strong point, but I found it an easy tradeoff versus the performance of the other competitors of that vintage.
suvguy2005 says:
10:23 AM, 11/28/2010
I wish they had AWD as a $1500-$1800 option. And a flip storage seat in the front like in the middle row. Great place to put a bag of groceries or take-out.
davidbecker says:
09:08 AM, 11/27/2010
The grammatical concerns here amuse me as well, but a point lost on the current conversation is that Mazda sells every 5 they bring over. They don't need to advertise; they sell them all. I'm sure there will be some deals to clear the old ones out before the new ones arrive, but anyone looking for one of these already knows about it, and since (at least with the old model) Mazda physically can't import more if there was more demand, that'd be wasted money.
Also: most reviews say there's more than enough power, though you certainly won't be winning drag races with it. With 6 people on board, that shouldn't be a concern anyway, should it?
akitadog says:
08:32 PM, 11/26/2010
@nissmazlover:
Wow, you lack of reading comprehension skills is nauseating.
"In addition, you're assertion regarding the 2010 automatic's EPA figures is wrong:...The NEW 2012 is one with identical EPA figures for both the manual and auto@ 21/28..."
No, YOU are incorrect. I'll quote myself so you don't have to scroll:
"Fuel economy numbers:
The 2012 5 is set at 21/28 for both stick and auto. 2011 5 is set at 22/28 for stick (better), 21/27 for auto (worse). That's what I call a WASH..."
Sources:
2010 Mazda5 - http://mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=MZ5
2012 Mazda 5 - http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/MAZDA5.action?providertag=MazdaSEM&servicetag=T1MZ50311012&sem=1&s_kwcid=TC|21354|2012%20mazda%205||S|p|6826160392#/home/
[Click the "Specifications" link in the Flash for a PDF]
My only mistake was assuming there was a 2011 model. It should be 2010. However, I am correct on all fuel economy numbers, unless, of course, you think Mazda is lying to the public. And you really should double-check before you go correcting people with your own errors.
"You, also, have no specific information on anything you're asserting: neither its gearing, nor any restriction on the intake/outake. No one has test driven the car yet, including you. So a definite conclusion as to its improved driveability is impossible."
I didn't assert anything. I brought up scenarios and asked questions, performed some thought experiments, lamented weak numbers in an engine that has much better numbers in other applications, and expressed opinions. You're right, I have no specific info on gearing, engine breathing, or a test drive. Then again, neither do you. Yet, you're OK with suggesting that the chassis may be to blame (seriously?) for the engine's low numbers. Orangutan is OK with making assertions about aerodynamics, weight and breathing to explain the low power numbers, with no sources to back them up, but that doesn't warrant a call-out from you, does it?
I have no sources for gearing, but I laid out the scenarios for both tall and short gearing. The numbers on the engine are no good in either scenario. Driveability? I never made any comments on driveability. You may well feel a bit more punch when you step on the gas, but with only 157 hp moving a 3400 lb+ vehicle, that surge will peter out quickly, not unlike a diesel engine. My issue, all along, has been with an engine that should be capable of so much more power AND torque, but that has been neutered for no logical reason.
"How this all equates to a 0 for 3 in your book is BEYOND me. But, we are all entitled to our OPINIONS. Let's just not delude ourselves into thinking they're facts."
OK, so you take issue with my opinion, I explicitly started off this section of my comment by stating "My opinion is...," and you warn me against self-delusion? That's rich.
"Again, I have an '08 and the LAST thing I think about my 5's engine is that it's poorly engineered."
Good. You also have opinions.
"...routinely achieves 30+ mpg on the highway..."
My wife's 2006 Mazda3 5-door with the 5-speed auto has never gotten better than 28 mpg on any road-trip. That's at 70-75 mph, the flow of traffic. It routinely averages 18 mpg in mostly city-driving (not even 20?). My wife is no lead-foot. For both cases, that's ABYSMAL. I've heard numerous horror stories on the interwebz of pitiful fuel economy for the 2.3 L. Are we all liars? Maybe Mazda is bipolar when it comes to churning out these engines.
"And, the fact that Mazda decides NOT to advertise the heck out of the 5 shows that their goals for it are NOT for it to be a wild sales success..."
I'd say, NOT advertise AT ALL. But you're right. After all, Mazda is a for-profit business with a miniscule market share in the US. Why would they want to increase sales? The introduction of the first 5 created its own segment here, and, with the exception of the also-slow-selling Kia Rondo, is still the segment's only player. Who would want to capitalize on that? I mean, when your game-changing product sells poorly, thanks to no marketing, the logical next step is to bring the completely redesigned new one to the same market, and, um, NOT advertise it. Maybe the goal is to spend the development money, blow money on the auto show circuit, and... sell fewer. Now that's thinking outside the box.
Look, I can only describe your quote above as apologist. There's no other explanation for it. I've even held off on the fact that your handle just gives away your bias.
It sounds like you don't like it when someone's opinion runs counter to your own, enough to retort, at least. As well, you may be dealing with issues of projection. The 5's engine numbers are weak, compared to what it does in other applications, and compared to other modern 2.5 liter 4cyls. That's not debateable, that's a fact. What's debateable is WHY they are so weak, why the gains from the old 5 are so marginal, and why Mazda has tuned it for such. You love your 5 and would consider another. But that's based on your opinions. We are all entitled to our OPINIONS. Let's just not delude ourselves into thinking they're facts.
tbone85 says:
08:09 AM, 11/26/2010
The new Sky engines won't be available for another year. Do you suggest that Mazda should simply not nave produced their vehicles during 2011 since it wasn't there yet. If the sky engines prove to be more efficient/powerful for similar displacements, will you recommend that the other manufacturers skip a year because their designs have been leapfrogged?
A "fail" is skipping a manufacturing year due to competitors having an edge in one component of a vehicle.
davicho says:
08:03 AM, 11/26/2010
I agree 100% with nissmazlover. The only time the 5 felt a bit remotely cramped was on a trip with 6 people (all seats used) because there was no room for luggage. Nicely though, our OEM roof rack with a yakima basket was enough to accomodate our luggage and provide a comfortable and roomy trip with no complains about cramping. BTW, even with all that load the 5 managed to stay at 70-75MPH on some inclined sections near Palm Springs with A/C blowing at 100 degree temps outside.
nissmazlover says:
03:46 PM, 11/25/2010
@ ronnjc:
Cramped cabin? Have you ever actually sat in a 5? The front and middle rows are very spacious and comfortable and there's loads of headroom. No storage? Are you aware that the five offers a huge glove compartment, a bin in the center console, two hidden storage compartments under both middle captain chairs, plus a fold out table with cupholders and another cloth bin? And, in the back/trunk there's an under the floor compartment plus side bins to hide more stuff? (Also, if you routinely only carry four people, trunk space is beyond supremely capacious - more than many SUVs). Again, have you actually BEEN inside a 5 in order to consider it cramped, having no storage and a "big pass?" I can understand how some might consider it underpowered, but in reality, the power's fine and the drive is sporty. Really, a "big pass" the 5 is not. If one does under pre-conceived notions "pass it," one would be doing themselves a disservice. It's a great little/big car!
nissmazlover says:
03:35 PM, 11/25/2010
@ akitadog:
Wow, your arrogance is nauseating.
You, also, have no specific information on anything you're asserting: neither its gearing, nor any restriction on the intake/outake. No one has test driven the car yet, including you. So a definite conclusion as to its improved driveability is impossible.
In addition, you're assertion regarding the 2010 automatic's EPA figures is wrong: they are 21/27 for the auto, not 21/28 (that's for the manual). The NEW 2012 is one with identical EPA figures for both the manual and auto @ 21/28 (download the specsheet at mazdausa.com). So, it IS an improvement - albeit slight - as is 15 lbs. MORE torque and 4 more HP's. Styling is totally subjective, so your "ugly design" argument is completely moot. And, the interior looks MUCH better and of higher quality.
How this all equates to a 0 for 3 in your book is BEYOND me. But, we are all entitled to our OPINIONS. Let's just not delude ourselves into thinking they're facts.
Again, I have an '08 and the LAST thing I think about my 5's engine is that it's poorly engineered. It is a supremely smooth, eager, refined 4 cylinder, mated to a smooth-shifting and responsive 5-speed auto w/manual function all put in a great-handling, smooth riding car that, for me, routinely achieves 30+ mpg on the highway (hardly "dismal") and can comfortably transport 4 people with A LOT of stuff, or up to 6 people with no complaints from any of them. All amazing engineering to me. And the new one does it all with a more powerful engine, a nicer interior, a more interesting exterior all while getting the same fuel economy. Fail? I think not.
And, the fact that Mazda decides NOT to advertise the heck out of the 5 shows that their goals for it are NOT for it to be a wild sales success - that's dedicated for the 3. Relative to their modest sales targets, the 5 HAS been a success thus far. It is a niche car not meant to be the next Camry or Accord, and I, for one, love having a car that not everybody and their grandmother drives. (On a side note, although it's BASED on the 3, the platform for the 5 is already stretched and carrying a heavier load. Therefore, it cannot take the same exact power application as the 3.)