2013 Mazda CX-5 Priced at $20,695

The all-new 2013 Mazda CX-5 goes on sale this month with an attractive entry price of $20,695, excluding a $795 destination fee.

That price beats competitors like the 2012 Ford Escape ($21,440) and 2012 Honda CR-V ($22,295), but it is more expensive than 2012 Hyundai Tucson ($19,145) and 2012 Kia Sportage ($18,500).

The CX-5 comes better equipped than all the above models, however. Standard features on the CX-5 include 17-inch alloy wheels, push-button start, cruise control, steering-wheel-mounted audio controls and a USB port. The CX-5 is available in base Sport, Touring and Grand Touring trims.

Comments

I would like to know how much the Diesel will cost. That's the model I'm really interested in.

IDK about you guys, but I'd rather take the sportage with the arguably better engine, 16" alloys and bluetooth for the base price of 18,500 over a CX-5 that costs 2 thousand more and I don't get bluetooth, but instead I get push-button start, which is irrelevant at this price and level, and 17 inch allows.

In short, you stating that the CX-5 comes better equipped than any of it's rivals is purely your opinion, and definitely not a factual statement.

I think 9 out of 10 people today, especially where these vehicles are targeting as their base market, are going to take bluetooth and a little more power over push button start and 1 inch of wheel diameter. Just my opinion, as are your "statements".

Front end looks like it has jowls, like an old man’s neck

I thought the CRV, etc. competed with the CX7? The CX5 is probably the same size as the Elantra Touring, Juke, etc and not those vehicles mentioned in the article.

If you compare the CX-5 dimensions to say, a 2002 Pathfinder, which is about as midsize of a SUV as you can get, you will find they are almost exactly the same.
I've did some comparing as I have a 2002 Infiniti QX4 which is based on the Pathfinder and I want to get something of similar size but higher MPG.

QX-4 length = 183"
CX-5 length = 179"

QX-4 width = 72.4"
CX-5 width = 72.4"
Wheelbase is 106" for each as well.

However, weight is huge difference. 4352 vs. 3300

So, yes, the CX-5 is competing with CR-v, RAV4, Tuscon, etc.

A lousy 150 hp means this won't be able to get out of its own way. Stinking vw diesels will be as fast as this.

For those of you complaining about the power, have you checked the power ratings of any 4-cylinder compact SUV? It's well in line with the rest. The CRV sells like crazy with no V6 option

@chubby,
Well, if you read the article you would realize it has 155hp not 150. Not that big a difference but if you're gonna bitch....get it right! The torque curve is also more robust so it moves out fairly well. Motor Trend tests show that it is right about the exact time 0-60 as the 180hp CR-V. I think it may have been .1 of sec faster actually.

Pathfinder doesnt compare to this. For one thing it is a truck based body on frame vehicle, not a unibody crossover. Get your facts right.

2chubby
2002 Pathfinder was a unibody crossover :)

@peter
No, chubby is right that is body-on-frame...I am presently driving a QX-4(Pathfinder twin) and it has AWD, 4WD w'/ both hi and lo which to my knowledge only body-on-frames have. Believe me, if it was unibody I would get a lot better mpg.

@chubby
Didn't compare it to body- on-frame Pathfinder types except relating to the overall dimensions. Obviously the fact that it's a "truck" is why it weighs so much more but that doesn't change the fact that the CX-5 is light and the hp is somewhat relative.

My main point was that it doesn't compare size wise to the Juke(it is much bigger) nor is it a hatchback(stationwagon) like the Elantra Touring as it sits up high and is marketed as a CUV...not a hatch.

I just want to know the car engine is of petrol or diesel.And what are the different pricing scheme for both...