Filed under: Crossovers/CUVs, Mazda
Crossover Crazy: Mazda has five people-haulers from which to choose
The well-known zoom-zoom tag-line in every Mazda commercial is being tested by a flood of crossover vehicles that don't exactly fit the company's sporty persona. To complicate things further, all five vehicles are close in price, with the difference from bottom to top being a mere $11,400.
CX-9: Minivan replacement, seats seven
CX-7: Sporty and quick, seats five
Tribute: Seats five, SUV looks
Mazda5: Seats six, minivan-like
Mazda6 Sport Wagon: Not a crossover, but definitely a people and stuff-hauler
Of course Mazda tells anyone willing to listen that the vehicles all have specific demographic targets. The new CX-9, for example, replaces the slow-selling MPV minivan. The CX-7 has drawn rave reviews for its sporty styling and direct inject turbo engine. In addition, we've yet to come by anyone with bad things to say about the Mazda5. The point, though, is how many people movers in a single lineup constitutes too many?
[Source: AutoWeek]
The Mazda3 is still a great vehicle in its forth model-year
All five vehicles are projected to have combined 135,000 annual sales, which wouldn't beat Ford Escape sales numbers strait-up. The company is based off sporty pretenses. The Mazda3, Mazda6, and RX8 are all four or more model years old. All of these crossovers may be great handling vehicles, but at some point Mazda is going to need to throw in another Sedan or maybe a coupe. We love new product, but we don't all have three kids and a dog.
[Source: AutoWeek]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
sam 8:42AM (2/22/2007)
I love Mazda they build great cars. Well i guess more choices for people is a good thing.
Reply
Mike 8:48AM (2/22/2007)
I can't say as I'm a fan of Mazda, but I've never had an issue with their designs.
http://www.internetseriousbiz.com/
Reply
Steve 9:17AM (2/22/2007)
The Tribute is a Ford hold over and I wouldn’t be surprised if that went away. However it does fill the niche of people looking for a basic small SUV. But then they could just buy a Ford Escape so this rebadge is unnecessary. The CX9 and CX7 are fine. The 5 is a small inexpensive minivan and there aren’t many of those on the market so that’s good too. The 6 wagon is a wagon and there are fewer and fewer of those around and it’s good looking so nothing wrong with that. Mazda knows what its doing and is a fairly focused brand. Offer a variety of vehicles with a focus on sportiness regardless of what you offer. A poor man’s BMW seems to be spot on.
I do think they could offer a larger vehicle above the 6, smaller than an Avalon for 500 but bigger than the 6. A good RWD coupe like the Kabura would be a nice fit as well. I’d also like to see some sort of convertible besides the Miata.
I’d expect to see a new 6 sometime soon and hopefully a new RX8 or the Kabura.
Reply
Howard Kerr 9:26AM (2/22/2007)
Mazda is n danger of falling into that "pit" they only just recently dug themselves out of. That is, offering a ton of choice to the buyer while barely making a profit. At least this time there are fewer platforms underpinning these vehicles, so maybe they will be able to pull it off without impacting the bottom line.
That said, I agree that the Tribute is probably no longer needed, and even un-necessary. Thanks Mazda for showing us a smallish company can make several exciting vehicles.
Reply
tikirob 9:33AM (2/22/2007)
I really think Mazda keeps the Tribute around for the tech exchange with Ford just so they look sorta related. I know ford has used a lot of Mazda tech.
Rob
http://www.autoshortlist.com
Reply
Rick Lyon 9:38AM (2/22/2007)
We love our Mazda5. Family of four with a dog, it's perfect. Great mpg, sporty with hot tires/rims, gets a lot of looks. It's just sporty and small enough not to be a wart hog van. Mazda has won me over. I'd but a Mazda3, Mazda6 in a heart beat tho I'm hoping the Mazda2 comes to the states because it would make a great second car.
Reply
Michael Karesh 9:43AM (2/22/2007)
Last time I checked, $11,400 was a pretty wide gap for most people. And some of us do have three kids (but not the dog).
The main mistake here is probably that the CX-7 and CX-9 aren't more closely related. There's very little reason for them to be based on different platforms, they don't even drive all that differently, it just costs Mazda more to develop and build them this way.
My site's info on Mazda's, including price comparisons and links to my reviews:
http://www.truedelta.com/models/Mazda.php
Reply
sam 9:55AM (2/22/2007)
Yeah i know my mazda 2 works perfect for 3 years now.
Reply
polar 9:57AM (2/22/2007)
All, I can say is if they drop one... it shouldn't be the 6 Wagon.
We have enough crossovers, not enough wagons.
Reply
Paul 10:18AM (2/22/2007)
I own a Mazda6 Sport Wagon, and it has plenty of Zoom Zoom Zoom. Yes, it moves people, but it is not a "people mover".
I've driven a CX-7 and that thing is pretty friggin zoomtastic too.
So that leaves 3 cars with little Zoom. Does the RX-8 compensate for the Tribute?
Reply
Vince 10:20AM (2/22/2007)
I think Mazda may have stealth dropped the Mazda 6 Wagon. In Chicago at least, if you go to http://www.mazdausa.com and search dealer inventory for 6 Wagons, they don't exist. They haven't existed here since December.
Also, Mazda needs to distance themselves from Ford in engine development. I can't speak to the new 3.5L V6, but the 3.0L V6 Duratec they put in the Mazda 6 is underpowered and very thirsty compared to it's competition. The same is true of the 2.3L (shared with the Fusion & Focus) I4 and it's turbo twin (in the Mazdaspeed3 & CX-7).
I bought a Mazda3 hatch last year with the 2.3L. Compared to my wife's Camry with a 2.4L, the 3 get's terrible fuel economy (I avg 18 in City, Camry gets 24). However, it may be due to an inefficient torque converter in the auto-trans, since the people with the MTX report better economy (on mazda3forums.com).
Reply
Elliott 10:21AM (2/22/2007)
I think Mazda's doing a great job. Hopefully the new 3, 6, and RX-8 go above and beyond their predecessors.
Here's another story for Autoblog to cover, unless I missed it when it was posted earlier: http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=24804
Reply
Elliott 10:27AM (2/22/2007)
Vince, I average 24mpg with my auto 3 and I drive very aggressively. I would recommend having yours inspected. If you've done the math correctly and aren't driving around with a lot of extra weight, then you may have a mechanical problem.
Reply
Dandy 10:57AM (2/22/2007)
I'm a mazda fan and I'm really intruiged by the CX-7 and new CX-9. I think they look great, not the standard crossover SUV look. I think we can all agree the Tribute looks terrible, probably thanks to ford. The first gen tribute was way nicer looking.
All in all I hope it really works for Mazda, they make good cars that are much less bland then their other japanese counterparts. That doesn't necessarily make them BETTER, but regardless they are still great 'niche' cars.
Reply
Tim UF 12:43PM (2/22/2007)
If you are including the Mazda6 wagon, you might as well throw in the Mazda6 5door!
Reply
Ahura 12:58PM (2/22/2007)
I really don't see the issue.. they all are in different classes so they don't bug eachother
BTW: The new Mazda2 and Mazda6 will be introduced this year and the new Mazda3 in 2008. A facelift of the Mazda5 will come in 2007
Reply
MikeW 4:54PM (2/22/2007)
Lets see what ford has given Mazda to work with. New Mazda6 3.5V6, new GM/Ford 6 speed auto, 2.77 front wheel drive axle ratio, 3.16 haldex axle ratio. Just like the '08.5 fusion.
The 3.0V6 in the mazda6 sucks. No roller follower valvetrain, no variable resonance valve (it has the interconnection chamber, but no dual paths feeding the plenum like the jaguar ford V6)
http://www.geocities.com/mikey9t6/car_uvwxyz_vris.htm
It has variable intake valve timing, that is all. An accord V6 (no variable resonance unless 6 speed stick or hybrid) without using its VTEC-4800-6800, probably 220hp & 200ft-lbs, will beat the Mazda6 V6's 212hp, 197ft-lb
That's bad.
The 2.3, no roller follower valvetrain, no lash adjusters even. Only variable intake valve timing, and tumble valves and a dual length intake manifold, the air filter deal is for noise. It does have balance shafts though.
The 5 speed auto is stilll a dual range 4 speed auto, (1,2,3 underdrive),(3,4 direct drive) this is changed from when the mazda6 had the JATCO 5 speed auto (1,2,3,4 underdrive) 4th direct drive.
Maybe he has the big heavier 17" wheels with the less aerodynamic hatch.
Edmunds got only~22mpg in the 3
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=108601/pageNumber=9
Reply
Typesbad 6:46PM (2/22/2007)
The Tribute certainly ought to be the first to go. It and the truck, have absolutely nothing Mazda-like about them, while the rest of the lineup is throughtly infused with Mazda brand attributes.
I dissagree with Mr. Karesh regarding the CX-7 and CX-9 platforms. He cites increased development costs, but since each vehicle is built from existing platforms (CX-9 from MAZDA6, CX-7 from a MAZDA3/5 combination) there probably wasn't much of a development cost premium while each vehicle sits on a platform more suited to its purpose.
Outside of the Tribute, I'd hate to see any of these vehicles go, as I think each are arguably the best in their class. I suppose the 6 Wagon would be the next on the chopping block (if, as Vince says, the axe hasn't fallen already) as I suspect there will be a fair amount of canibalization from the CX models, but that would be a shame, as it is a really nice wagon without much in the way of direct competition.
Reply
Carletti 6:55PM (2/22/2007)
The CX-9 is, essentially, a van…err CUV. I mean it’s at least kind of nice, if not a bit ungainly. Nonetheless, from most angles, I can easily picture sliding doors being affixed to this CUV. Me, personally, I could really care less about the fate of the CX-9 but questions about its possible success or failure nonetheless intrigue me. For how would the CX-9 compete against the more SUV-looking Pilot and the wimpy, but perennially reliable, Highlander? And even the RDX (although it is a bit of an inept alien machine in my view) is within the price range of the CX-9. I would say that the initial odds are not in the CX-9’s favor. In addition, the face of this car makes me laugh because it’s so dazed-looking and it doesn’t really convey this CUV as a serious car to me.
Reply
John B 7:19PM (2/22/2007)
11. Vince:
My wife has a three year old Mazda3 (GS - 2 litre engine I believe). With the automatic transmission, she gets about 43 mpg. highway (about 35 mpg in US gallons) and in the low 30's around town (again - about 25 mpg US gallons).
Reply