Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul | Motoring discussion | Back Room Forum

Sun 27 Jan 2019 20:54

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Matt Thrower

Hi,

I've driven petrol cars all my life. But when researching makes and models for a "new used" purchase pretty much everything we looked at recommended a diesel engine. We tried the CR-V 1.6 and the CX-5 2.2 and are currently favouring the latter as it seemed so much more enjoyable to drive.

But we're having sudden second thoughts about the diesel. We're not heavy drivers: there's a daily school run and 20-60 minute weekend drive most of the time. But we holiday in the UK about 3 times a year - visiting relatives mostly - which is 200-300 miles each time. At a guess we do maybe 7-8k per year.

Although we live in a city, it's very hilly. Our current 1.6 petrol struggles with the hills, so there's that. There a a clean air plan coming into force soon but I believe Euro 6 engines - which both these are - are exempt. Also am a bit confused about tax costs - both models list as £30 but I read elsewhere this changed in 2017 & diesels now attract £140 tax minimum?

Really don't know what to do. Worried about the overall fuel efficiency and possible DPF problems. Advice much appreciated!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 27 Jan 2019 21:14

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - badbusdriver

Well you need to rule out the diesel Mazda straight away, they really don't have a great reputation. As a petrol they are absolutely fine though, reliable and dependable. The Honda is fine as a diesel, one of the very few modern diesels which doesn't suffer from all these problems relating to emissions equipment.

An alternative would be a turbo petrol. You have not given your budget, but there are quite a few VAG products with the 1.4 turbo petrol, which offers plenty of grunt for the hills, but won't penalise you too much at the pumps. Just avoid the autos, which are automated dual clutch manuals, and don't have a great reputation for reliability long term (though this wont be a problem if you plan to buy new and get rid of before the warranty runs out).

Edited by badbusdriver on 27/01/2019 at 21:16

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 27 Jan 2019 22:42

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Engineer Andy

As regards the annual VED, personally I wouldn't worry that much about it for cars under 5 years old and that would cost under £200 in that regard - far better to concentrate on a car that will suit your needs and prove a reliable purchase - you'll save far more money be getting the best car for the job that doesn't go wrong and is reasonable to run (fuel, insurance, maintenance costs, etc): VED makes up a relatively small cost over the lifetime of the car for most people if you buy new to a few years old.

As regards specifics, the VED rules (only affecting new cars registered after 1st April 2017) changed so that many cars paying very little VED in the 100 - 120 gCO2/km were now paying a more (in their eyes) 'reasonable' amount, as technology had improved to reduce these levels and the Treasury were getting far less money as most new cars came in that range, only paying the £30 rate. For those emitting slightly higher levels of CO2 (say in the 121 - 140 range), the difference was minor.

For example, a mk3 Mazda3 2.0 petrol (119g/km) registered on March 1st 2017 would pay just £30 VED; the same car regsistered a month later would pay £165 on year 1 and £140pa thereafter (assuming everything stays the same).

Its little brother, the CX-3 2.0 petrol (137g/km) would pay £140 (before 04/2017) and £205 (04/2017 yr1) / £140 (yr2 onwards) respectively.

The CX-5 2.0 petrol (149g/km) would pay £155 (before 04/2017) and £205 (04/2017 yr1) / £140 (yr2 onwards) respectively.

Technically, the 'best' cars to get (if they are the same in all other respects) are those registered between Jan 1st 2017 and March 31st 2017, as they will benefit from being '2017' cars and still qualifying (the lower CO2 ones [100-120 g/km] only) for the £20 and £30 VED rates.

Most larger cars like those you want will not be adversely affected by the VED changes. Ironically, cars which do worse (but not terrible)on mpg and CO2 have actually done quite nicely out of the 2017 budget changes, as long as their list price ([including optional extras] not what you actually pay) is below £40k.

The Mazda CX-5 2.0 petrol is fine, though not quick; the VAG equivalents are more nippy adn better on mpg, but I would avoid the DSG boxes and, currently, the 1.5 TSi EVO petrol as its had some issues that VAG are trying to resolve. You may wish to go for a used 1.4TSI 150 ACT engined VAG equivalent, e.g. the SEAT Ateca. Alternatively you could look at a Suzuki Vitara S 1.4T petrol. The Hyundai/Kia offerings are fine (1.6T-GDI best) if a little thirstier/higher CO2.

The Honda (and its Toyota equivalent) will be the most reliable and have the best dealers (the quality of Mazda and Seat dealers appears to vary quite a bit - check reviews if you consider them as you may need to use one a bit further away for servicing, etc if they are better), the CX-5 the best handling and looking, the Seat the quickest and good value, the Suzuki a decent all-rounder (the styling is an acquired taste) but not the best in any category. Down to you which suits you the best.

Unless you're going to tow anything, I wouldn't bother with a diesel, even the Honda (higher purchase price - better fuel economy only on longer trips and the low annual mileage will mean you won't gain that much in that respect every year).

Best of luck.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 27 Jan 2019 23:08

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Matt Thrower

Thanks for all the information so far - much appreciated. Should have mentioned that we're looking at models made in 2015 as that age seems good value for money. Budget is 12-13k.

Reading around, it seems the Mazada 6 diesels gave the brand a bad name. Opinion on whether newer ones are better seems sharply divided. Although it's sounding like a petrol might be preferable after all.

Edited by Matt Thrower on 27/01/2019 at 23:08

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 27 Jan 2019 23:23

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - FP

When we bought our current 2014 CX-5 in 2017 I discounted the diesel immediately. I know some people said the Mazda diesel problems had been dealt with, but I wasn't going to risk it.

I have to say I am in every way delighted with the car. However, it is no ball of fire. Driven sensibly, it's comfortable and handles immaculately. It carries a lot with the back seats down. Economy is pretty good at over 40 mpg on mixed driving even in the winter. So far, with about 30,000 on the clock, it has had two new tyres and nothing else.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 00:36

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Engineer Andy

Thanks for all the information so far - much appreciated. Should have mentioned that we're looking at models made in 2015 as that age seems good value for money. Budget is 12-13k.

Reading around, it seems the Mazada 6 diesels gave the brand a bad name. Opinion on whether newer ones are better seems sharply divided. Although it's sounding like a petrol might be preferable after all.

Same Mazda 2.2TD engines in the 3, 6 and CX-5 has been updated I believe, but still has suffered from problems (though less) as evidenced in the Good & Bad sections of the reviews of each of these cars in the 'Reviews' section - mainly associated with your type of driving pattern (mainly shorter trips).

You'd get a mk1 CX-3 for that money and not the better looking mk2 model.

You also may find it difficult to get some of those others I mentioned as many are still quite newly released with no viable previous versions. Do you want this sort of car for the higher driving position or bigger boot? Have you considered a larger saloon or estate? The Mazda6 (same engines as the CX-5) mk3 has been around in its current form for a while now and will be affordable and have roughly the same size boot; other alternatives from other makes are far more readily available, although more of them will be diesels.

Those with the belt-drive VAG 1.4TSI 150 (e.g. the Skoda Octavia/Superb) will be available, but, like those others mentioned, in less numbers than the diesels because of more diesels are ex-rentals and dieselgate/city restrictions making people flee from owning diesels. Often, a second-hand larger petrol saloon car like these will be cheaper to buy and more fuel efficient (for the same engine and overall weight) as an equivalent SUV, as they are more streamlined than an SUV and aren't in vogue (apart from German executive sports saloons) generally, thus depreciating more. After 5 years the depreciation will be quite low, so OK for you.

I'd seriously consider a Mazda 6 2.0 petrol, Skoda Octavia/Superb 1.4TSI 150, Ford Focus 1.5T petrol Estate /Mondeo1.5T petrol saloon or estate, Honda Civic (prev model) 1.8 petrol hatch/tourer (big boots, tourer looks an acquired taste). Have a look round this site's reviews section for others.

I would avoid getting anything shod on bling wheels and low profile tyres, something sensible around the 16in or 17in mark will do fine. You'll save money on replacement tyres (and from damaged wheels) and get better mpg, a smoother ride and will help the suspension parts last longer, saving you money on maintenance.

I'd also avoid high trim level cars and go for newer, lower to middle (lowest spec you need) trim levels to get the best value. I'd go for a decent A/C system (climate control is nicer than manual A/C [on the base models], but not essential) and at least rear parking sensors, especially if you do consider saloons. Not sure on other makes, but the Mazda satnav systems aren't great, and you can always use a mobile phone or a shop-bought satnav in a cradle off the windscreen, dash or centre vents for that purpose.

If you live in a rural area or you regularly do trips away from areas with tyre dealers/garages, I'd also make sure that whatever you buy has a spare tyre (nicer if its a full-sized one) fitted in the under boot area. Don't bother with a car that doesn't have any space for one in that area that only comes with a tube of tyre sealant goo - they only work at all (and not always) on certain small-scale punctures and not on sidewalls.

If it has the space for one but no tyre, use the lack of it as an extra bargaining tool on the price. Find out how much the one designed for that car will cost - some require a specific shaped polystyrene insert 'kit' [including the wheel, tyre and tools] that can be hard to source from anyone but the car manufacturer - some, like in the Mazda 6 and CX-5 (all Mazdas are like this now) cost a whopping £395; other makes like Skoda considerably less.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 09:21

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Andrew-T

At a guess we do maybe 7-8k per year.

Without reading much further than that, it's a no-brainer. You can't justify a diesel on that amount of travelling, certainly with petrol costing about 10p less a litre.

If you can justify one strongly on other grounds, that might swing the argument I suppose.

Edited by Andrew-T on 28/01/2019 at 09:21

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 10:04

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Matt Thrower

Do you want this sort of car for the higher driving position or bigger boot? Have you considered a larger saloon or estate?

Both. We like the elevated driving position of an SUV, and the height also seemed to be a way of getting a decent boot space without making the car long or wide. Parking is very problematic where we live - we don't have a drive or garage - so the physical size of the vehicle is an issue. So while we did look at saloon and estate cars, we rejected them as too long.

Hence the CX-5. It's actually slightly smaller than the C-MAX we have at the moment, drives much better, but only has 10% less boot space. The third seat in the back is cramped but we use that only very rarely, and mostly for children.

The dealer is offering me a very tempting price on a 2.2 Diesel and now I guess I know why. Unfortunately, the only petrol they have is 2017 and way above budget.

If you can justify one strongly on other grounds, that might swing the argument I suppose.

Only the pulling power on the hills, that's why I mention it. It is a pretty big issue: quite fed up of crawling up them at 10mph with a queue of impatient diesel drivers behind me.

Edited by Matt Thrower on 28/01/2019 at 10:08

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 10:53

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - FP

"Only the pulling power on the hills, that's why I mention it. It is a pretty big issue: quite fed up of crawling up them at 10mph..."

This seems odd to me. Having driven both diesels and petrols, it seems to me that you just need to rev the petrol in a lower gear - yes, it's noisier, but that's what petrols are like. There are a few scenarios where you just have to thrash a petrol engine.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 12:29

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - galileo

"Only the pulling power on the hills, that's why I mention it. It is a pretty big issue: quite fed up of crawling up them at 10mph..."

This seems odd to me. Having driven both diesels and petrols, it seems to me that you just need to rev the petrol in a lower gear - yes, it's noisier, but that's what petrols are like. There are a few scenarios where you just have to thrash a petrol engine.

Exactly - that's why the rev counter on petrol cars goes to higher numbers than on a diesel. Look at the specs to see where the peak torque is achieved on petrol vs diesel engines. If you have been crawling up hills at 10 mph either the vehicle is worn out or you need instruction on how to drive it.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 12:58

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Matt Thrower

If you have been crawling up hills at 10 mph either the vehicle is worn out or you need instruction on how to drive it.

Haha, in my defence it's neither. The hills are extremely steep and I often drive them with a fully-loaded vehicle. It's not a small, light car and the 1.6 engine isn't really big enough - we bought it in a moment of fairly urgent need and I remember at the time reading the 1.8 was far preferable.

So to get it up to speed on the worse sections I have to absolutely thrash the engine in 1st or 2nd gear. Which I do do when it's necessary but I am perhaps more worried about the effects on the engine than I need to be.

I will reiterate - all this advice is really helpful, and I very much appreciate the time taken to pass it on. Thanks very much. Am currently checking out the petrol versions of the CX-5 and CR-V as the height and capacity of both remain big selling points.

Edited by Matt Thrower on 28/01/2019 at 12:59

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 14:10

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Engineer Andy

I undertsnd your perfectly valid reasons - my old Mazda3 has a 1.6 petrol engine, which works fine when it's just me in the car, ok-ish when I've got the boot fully loaded with holiday gear, but it's not exactly great if its also full with 3-4 passengers.

The newer SkyActiv-G 2.0 (not the same as the original 2.0 in my version and the ealier 6s) in the CX-5 is fine, nothing great compared to the better VAG 1.4 TSi 150, but will be fine for what you want, and probably more fuel efficient than the Honda with its older-spec N/A petrol engine. Unfortunately for you, the diesel versions make up far more of the range, and, as the petrols are more reliable and thus liked by owners, there's far less around than the diesels.

The Honda is a very hardy car as a long-term buy. A former boss swore by (and not at) them, owning two over a 10 year period (he only just changed to a new one shortly before I left the firm).

A left-field possibility (HJ seems to like them, especially the latest petrol engines and often recommends Pugs with them) is the Peugeot 3008 1.2 Puretech 130 - a late example of the previous model (latest one cam out in 2017 and is likely above your budget at present). I have no personal experience with this car, but others may do. I'm not sure if the 3/5 review mainly pertains to earlier examples (e.g. midlife pre-refresh) or the last models in production, both of which include diesels and older design petrol engines.

You may find it takes a while to source such petrol cars, especially the Mazda, given petrol cars are now in favour compared to diesels, especially non Euro6 diesels that may soon be banned/heavily punished with high fees when trying to travel into major cities.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 17:27

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - galileo

Matt, I appreciate your reluctance to 'thrash' your petrol engine, my petrol car is geared about 8 mph per 1000 rpm in 1st, to get really good torque needs 3000 to 4000 rpm, which gives 24 to 32 mph in 1st.

The redline is 6200 rpm so it is well within design speeds to use 4000 or even 5000, as I do for overtakes if needed.

I hope you find a car that suits you.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 20:34

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - 72 dudes

Matt, I appreciate your reluctance to 'thrash' your petrol engine, my petrol car is geared about 8 mph per 1000 rpm in 1st, to get really good torque needs 3000 to 4000 rpm, which gives 24 to 32 mph in 1st.

The redline is 6200 rpm so it is well within design speeds to use 4000 or even 5000, as I do for overtakes if needed.

I hope you find a car that suits you.

H'mm, that means your car would do almost 50 MPH in first gear, don't think so!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 29 Jan 2019 12:44

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - galileo

Matt, I appreciate your reluctance to 'thrash' your petrol engine, my petrol car is geared about 8 mph per 1000 rpm in 1st, to get really good torque needs 3000 to 4000 rpm, which gives 24 to 32 mph in 1st.

The redline is 6200 rpm so it is well within design speeds to use 4000 or even 5000, as I do for overtakes if needed.

I hope you find a car that suits you.

H'mm, that means your car would do almost 50 MPH in first gear, don't think so!

Certainly does 40 in 1st at 5000 rpm, I haven't needed to redline it but don't see why it wouldn't.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 29 Jan 2019 15:37

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - 72 dudes

Matt, I appreciate your reluctance to 'thrash' your petrol engine, my petrol car is geared about 8 mph per 1000 rpm in 1st, to get really good torque needs 3000 to 4000 rpm, which gives 24 to 32 mph in 1st.

The redline is 6200 rpm so it is well within design speeds to use 4000 or even 5000, as I do for overtakes if needed.

I hope you find a car that suits you.

H'mm, that means your car would do almost 50 MPH in first gear, don't think so!

Certainly does 40 in 1st at 5000 rpm, I haven't needed to redline it but don't see why it wouldn't.

OK, my bad! Unusual for a car to be this high geared in first.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 28 Jan 2019 23:03

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Avant

Have a look at a Skoda Yeti. Our regular member KB has a 1.2 petrol and says it has ample performance.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 29 Jan 2019 16:47

Mazda CX-5 - Petrol or Diesel for city & occasional long haul - Engineer Andy

Have a look at a Skoda Yeti. Our regular member KB has a 1.2 petrol and says it has ample performance.

I thought of that as well, but hesitated following the number of faults the car generally has had (see its Good and Bad Section). Not sure if they updated the 1.2 during the Yeti's lifetime (I think so) - perhaps the later variant was more reliable that earlier versions - hard to tell as many of the later faults documented regarding the 1.2 may have referred to early cars. Timing chains in particular seemed to be an issue, but I wasn't sure that design/manufacturing fault was rectified at some point for newer models.

A former employer of mine had a late 2016 1.2 DSG model as a pool car (never drove it myself) - it seemed fine by all accounts, but it was still quite new and I left not that long after.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Ask Honest John

Sell Your Car

Real MPG

Fuel Calculator