What's old is new, and what's new is new

[John V]

What's new that's new? The replacement for our Mazdaspeed3, which turned out to be a 2017 Mazda CX-5. Certainly not the most exciting vehicle I've ever driven, but my wife was smitten by it enough on the test drive that she asked the salesman to snag the next Grand Touring model that came to our area in her desired color (a deep blue, almost purple in some lights metallic). The Grand Touring model was a must to get heated seats (front and rear) and steering wheel as well as reclining rear seats, nav, leather, and a bunch of driver aids that we are gradually disabling :lol:.

The interior is pretty incredible. The materials and build quality are a huge step up from, say, a GTI, which was our other recent test drive. VW was always my benchmark for interior "niceness" at this price point but there's no comparison here. Panel gaps are very tight, and most of the interior is wrapped in a fairly convincing leatherette. No soft touch painted plastics to chip off in 20,000 miles.

As far as driving it, well, it's a small crossover, so ... blah. It corners very flat, turns in eagerly and has decent grip, but as you'd expect there's little to zero steering feel and it has that slightly tippy feeling you get from these jacked-up wagons. It rides very well. It's super quiet. It brakes very well. Having been in a recent CR-V and RAV-4, the CX-5 feels two classes up from those vehicles. I'm not sure how Mazda pulled it off, honestly.

Maybe it's by what you don't get, which is any meaningful horsepower. The engine pulls well to redline, but it's not quick. And good god, automatic transmissions are still terrible. It's got a manual mode, as everything does these days. Automatics are still awful.

She is ecstatic, but misses driving a stick now and then. Fortunately, we've still got the Boxster (and the Mazdaspeed3). But the CX-5 gets really good fuel economy. Her clients are comfortable in it. The packaging is brilliant. And all that is what really matters. So we're happy.

What's old is new... to me. I bought a 2013 Ram 2500 Laramie. 6.7L Cummins turbo-diesel, 6-speed auto, heated and cooled seats (cooled seats are the best invention since, ever?). Crew cab, 6 1/2' bed. Black over silver two-tone with black leather inside. One owner since new, 75,000-ish miles. Owned by a close friend of mine. I had always planned to buy this from him when he upgraded, I just didn't expect it to happen this year. Well, he found a new truck and asked if I still wanted it for what I thought was a very good price. Hence the for sale ad for my Silverado. We're doing a "courtesy trade" at a dealer near him in PA, so he gets the discounted tax on his new truck, I get the truck below book value and the dealer makes money on his new (financed) truck.

Did I really want to spend the money right now? Erm, no, not really. But Marisa and I talked it over, and we thought it made sense to get a truck that was a known quantity, well-maintained and with no issues. I put about 10k on my truck every year towing to various events around the country and having something quiet, comfortable and better on fuel was important to me. It's massive overkill for the amount that I tow (rarely more than 5,000lbs, with 500lbs in the bed) but that's kind of what I want when towing. Overkill on brakes, stability and power. And with selling my motorcycle and the Silverado the out of pocket cost isn't too bad.

I'm not quite sure what will become of the Mazdaspeed. It still drives great, and we've got winter tires for it, and it costs next to nothing to insure. I'm guessing we'd struggle to get $5k for it given the mileage (though it looks new inside and out) and it's frankly worth more than that to me. Right now. Maybe not in a year. :lol:

Anyhow. pics to come. Just thought I'd share while I had a minute.

[Jeff_DML]

congrats, cx-5 seems like a nice choice. Was wondering how it compared to the new cr-v with the turbo.

[Biggins]

I don't think you can go wrong with either choice!

You mentioned in another thread that Mazda may have fixed the driver/front seat comfort for the new 2017 models. That probably would have made us choose the Mazda, but the front seats in the pre-17 models were pretty uncomfortable compared to the CR-V/RAV4 and we needed something relatively quickly. The overall interior of the Mazda is awesome for sure.

[John V]

I find the seats very comfortable, but I'm not super picky about seats so I'm maybe not the best to ask.

One thing I forgot to mention that I really like is it's got a great steering wheel. It's small (like, Miata-sized!) and fat, but not annoyingly squishy gooey fat like a BMW M steering wheel.

[ff]

The interior is pretty incredible. The materials and build quality are a huge step up from, say, a GTI, which was our other recent test drive.

I rented a Mazda3 last year and had the same thoughts. The quality, fit, and overall feel of the interior are far better than you'd expect in that price bracket.

[clyde]

Enjoy (both of you)!

[equ]

Double congrats!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[rumatt]

Nice.

But if you haven't sold the Mazdaspeed3 yet, aren't you out of garage bays? :speechle:

[John V]

Nice.

But if you haven't sold the Mazdaspeed3 yet, aren't you out of garage bays? :speechle:

I'm not even sure the Ram will fit in the garage.

[ZBB]

Congrats...

My wife will be getting a new car later this year -- current list to look at is the CX-5, CX-9 and the new Countryman...

[equ]

Just how much torque does that thing have? 6.7 is enormous for an I-6. Sounds awesome, also Laramie spec.

I have cooled seats in the Boxster, use them quite a bit. More than AC itself.

[bren]

Glad you said something. If I ever make it out to another autox I would have been confused. :p

[John V]

Just how much torque does that thing have? 6.7 is enormous for an I-6. Sounds awesome, also Laramie spec.

I have cooled seats in the Boxster, use them quite a bit. More than AC itself.

370hp / 800ft-lbs torque. Should that not be sufficient, once the thing is out of warranty (through 100,000 miles) I suppose I could put a programmer on it. Though if I played with anything I'd be inclined to make some changes to improve MPG. Sam says he gets around 16-17 towing a similar load to what I'll have at a similar speed, and around 20 highway unloaded. That may improve slightly as his just got a new particulate filter under warranty.

I didn't really want a truck this big and over-killy. I did a long tow earlier this year with a buddy's 1500 Ram Diesel (3.0L V6) and we got 17MPG. It certainly was up to the task, but it felt strained going up moderate hills. It also wasn't nearly as stable and solid when towing as the 3/4 ton, but it was much nicer to drive around without a load behind it than the 2500 is. The 1500 would probably have been a better fit for my use, but 1) you can't buy it and 2) The Cummins is a known bulletproof engine whereas the 3.0L FCA diesel is a big unknown.

Ford doesn't offer a small diesel, probably for the same reasons the 1500 Ram Diesel has been on government-mandated stop sale since January of this year - emissions cheating allegations. GM offers small diesels, but only in their sub-1/2-ton Colorado and Canyon, and it's an anemic 5-cylinder.

I did consider an F150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 gasser. Friends that own them typically get around 13-14 MPG towing (on cheap regular gas) and you can get up to around 20 on the highway if you stick to the speed limit. But I really despise the Ford interiors from 2010-2015ish timeframe, very cheap and plasticky and I can't get comfortable in them. The gauges are cartoonish and the layout doesn't suit me. So Ford was out.

[bren]

...around 20 highway unloaded. That may improve slightly as his just got a new particulate filter under warranty.



Funny, my father also just got a new "filter" and averaged 20.9mpg on a round trip to the Eastern shore last weekend.

I didn't really want a truck this big and over-killy.
Probably because I'm used to it, but whenever I go back and forth between them, it seems like my truck feels a lot smaller and lighter than the newer one.

[John V]

Funny, my father also just got a new "filter" and averaged 20.9mpg on a round trip to the Eastern shore last weekend.


Probably because I'm used to it, but whenever I go back and forth between them, it seems like my truck feels a lot smaller and lighter than the newer one.

I really liked the way that the 1500 drove (I took it back and forth to work a couple times before leaving for Dixie in early March). Quiet, smooth, much more manageable and less trucky than my 2500HD, which I'd expect being more than ten years newer.

But towing, it wasn't quite what I wanted. You get used to the HD suspension and the load range E tires. You get used to the big brakes. And pulling a moderate grade at 70MPH the oil temp got up to 225F. I don't think that would make me comfortable about long-term reliability. Going up I-68 I can leave my truck in 3rd (:lol:) and it'll hold 75MPH the whole way up with no strain. I imagine the Cummins will have no problem either.

[bren]

I imagine the Cummins will have no problem either.

Trailer? What trailer? :lol:

[lemming]

this post shows displays the pragmatism and decisiveness that comes with maturity.

:-)

perhaps with the full context that we could trust an engineer to sketch out the issues and to solve the problem forthwith.

fun read, too.

[JST]

370hp / 800ft-lbs torque. Should that not be sufficient, once the thing is out of warranty (through 100,000 miles) I suppose I could put a programmer on it. Though if I played with anything I'd be inclined to make some changes to improve MPG. Sam says he gets around 16-17 towing a similar load to what I'll have at a similar speed, and around 20 highway unloaded. That may improve slightly as his just got a new particulate filter under warranty.

I didn't really want a truck this big and over-killy. I did a long tow earlier this year with a buddy's 1500 Ram Diesel (3.0L V6) and we got 17MPG. It certainly was up to the task, but it felt strained going up moderate hills. It also wasn't nearly as stable and solid when towing as the 3/4 ton, but it was much nicer to drive around without a load behind it than the 2500 is. The 1500 would probably have been a better fit for my use, but 1) you can't buy it and 2) The Cummins is a known bulletproof engine whereas the 3.0L FCA diesel is a big unknown.

Ford doesn't offer a small diesel, probably for the same reasons the 1500 Ram Diesel has been on government-mandated stop sale since January of this year - emissions cheating allegations. GM offers small diesels, but only in their sub-1/2-ton Colorado and Canyon, and it's an anemic 5-cylinder.

I did consider an F150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 gasser. Friends that own them typically get around 13-14 MPG towing (on cheap regular gas) and you can get up to around 20 on the highway if you stick to the speed limit. But I really despise the Ford interiors from 2010-2015ish timeframe, very cheap and plasticky and I can't get comfortable in them. The gauges are cartoonish and the layout doesn't suit me. So Ford was out.


I didn't know about the FCA stop sale; that's interesting. You've probably heard that Ford plans an F-150 diesel, but I have to wonder whether that will ever actually come about.

[equ]

Yes the FCA 3.0 v6 diesel may be "affected". Not only that, reliability has been mixed to bad. Imagine that, a first year Fiat product l. I read a bunch of diesel JGC reviews, you know, for my imagined SUV needs.

[Plaz]

Congrats!

[equ]

370hp / 800ft-lbs torque. Should that not be sufficient, once the thing is out of warranty (through 100,000 miles) I suppose I could put a programmer on it. T

800 ft-lbs?

:omg: :omg: :omg:

[wdc330i]

Congrats! My FIL is on his second Ram 1500 and loves it. They briefly had a Mazda CX5 and said they loved it before they dumped it for a Jeep Grand Cherokee. They churn through cars.

[John V]

Congrats! My FIL is on his second Ram 1500 and loves it. They briefly had a Mazda CX5 amd siad they loved it before they dumped it for a Jeep Grand Cherokee. They churn through cars.

The GC is a nice truck, but it's really pretty trucky. My wife is not a fan of driving big vehicles, the CX-5 doesn't drive "big."

800 ft-lbs?

:omg::omg::omg:

iknorite? I think the redline is 3,400 RPM or something like that. :lol:

Lots and lots of my friends have Rams and for the most part they've been very reliable and great workhorses.

[wdc330i]

The GC is a nice truck, but it's really pretty trucky. My wife is not a fan of driving big vehicles, the CX-5 doesn't drive "big."



iknorite? I think the redline is 3,400 RPM or something like that. :lol:

Lots and lots of my friends have Rams and for the most part they've been very reliable and great workhorses.

One of their issues is he is 6'4" and my MIL is 5'2 and there's no one vehicle they both feel comfortable driving.

[John V]

What's old is new, to me.

[rumatt]

Awesome

[bren]

What's old is new, to me.
So how long before you get to actually use it?

And, you know, that giant badge on the door comes off pretty easily. :D

[JST]

Then you can wear it on a rope around your neck.

[John V]

I've never really been a de-badger.

Since I skipped the event today to run and climb, next local event? July? It needs lots of detailing before Oscoda

[Alan]

Congrats. ... can't wait to see some pics of the new SUV ... that pick up is pretty bad ass :thumbup::thumbup:

[John V]

Thanks. I love the truck so far. Driving back from Sam's, I averaged 20.5 MPG (calculated) which seems crazy for a 3/4 ton 4WD truck with a 6.7L engine, and I wasn't exactly going slow.

Initial impressions are that it drives ... big. My Silverado was much lighter. The Ram also has solid axles front and rear. I posted above that I did a long tow with a friend's 1500 Ram Ecodiesel (3.0L turbo diesel). That truck has rack and pinion steering, is probably 2,000lbs lighter, and essentially drives like a large car. The 2500 drives like a truck. Perfect for towing, but pretty cumbersome around town.

I'm very happy with the truck but it strikes me as odd how far apart those two trucks are. I would guess that most people buying a 2500 are towing big enclosed trailers or running businesses. Most people buying the 1500 are people who occasionally tow but mostly want an easy-driving truck that can very comfortably tow 6,000lbs. With how many trucks are sold every year it seems there should be a middle ground. I like the stability of the load range E tires that are on the 2500. I like the bigger brakes (they're phenomenal). I like the stiffer suspension, but it's probably a big much for what I do. Same with the power. The 1500 felt squishy, not that solid and lacked a bit of power and brake margin when towing. The 2500 is just plain overkill. A mythical 2,000 would be perfect for most people doing what I do with my truck.

Oh well, I'll have to settle :D

[ff]

Better too much, than not enough. :)

[Nick M3]

Well, I'm pretty sure that you're also driving the truckiest of trucks out there.

[John V]

I suppose that's true.

Another thing I noticed, the exhaust brake is one of the coolest features of this thing. You can do one-pedal driving on the interstate. It doesn't really work at lower speeds unless you manually downshift the transmission, but it's very effective if the engine is turning some revs.

[bren]

I suppose that's true.

Another thing I noticed, the exhaust brake is one of the coolest features of this thing. You can do one-pedal driving on the interstate. It doesn't really work at lower speeds unless you manually downshift the transmission, but it's very effective if the engine is turning some revs.

It's annoying that you have to enable it manually every time you start the truck, but yes you're really going to like it on i68. I really wish my truck had one.

edit:
I think your truck is a year older, but I imagine it works the same.

Also, if you haven't figure it out yet, the button is actually two-mode. There's a "smart" mode that's a bit more progressive.

[Nick M3]

I suppose that's true.

Another thing I noticed, the exhaust brake is one of the coolest features of this thing. You can do one-pedal driving on the interstate. It doesn't really work at lower speeds unless you manually downshift the transmission, but it's very effective if the engine is turning some revs.
I don't think that the newer GMCs drive larger than the old ones, after all. And the only difference between mine and your old one is that it has extra weight and a lot more power. (But not nearly as much asyour new one.)

[John V]

It's annoying that you have to enable it manually every time you start the truck, but yes you're really going to like it on i68. I really wish my truck had one.

edit:
I think your truck is a year older, but I imagine it works the same.

Also, if you haven't figure it out yet, the button is actually two-mode. There's a "smart" mode that's a bit more progressive.

Sam walked me through all of the controls and features. It does have to be turned on every time you get in. No big deal. I'm used to getting the Boxster and immediately turning the stability control off :D

[kognito]

Pretty sure it is an EGR/emission thing (for startup) that cycles the engine brake off when you stop the engine.

My Cummins 14.9 liter ISM motor had a 2 stage/3 position rocker switch for engine braking. If I stopped the engine with the rocker switch in stage 1 or 2, and restarted, a message would appear on one of the display screens that engine brake was not really enabled yet.