2013 Mazda CX-5 and 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Ford Escape front three-quarter view 2013 Mazda CX-5 front three-quarter view 2013 Ford Escape rear three-quarter view 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear three-quarter view 2013 Ford Escape front three-quarter view 2013 Mazda CX-5 front three-quarter view 2013 Ford Escape rear three-quarter view 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear three-quarter view 2013 Ford Escape profile view 2013 Mazda CX-5 profile view 2013 Mazda CX-5 and 2013 Ford Escape profile view 2013 Ford Escape head-on view 2013 Mazda CX-5 head-on view 2013 Ford Escape rear-on view 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear-on view 2013 Ford Escape driving 2013 Mazda CX-5 driving 2013 Ford Escape driving 2013 Mazda CX-5 driving 2013 Ford Escape driving 2013 Mazda CX-5 driving 2013 Ford Escape driving 2013 Mazda CX-5 driving 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape 2013 Mazda CX-5 2013 Ford Escape interior dashboard 2013 Mazda CX-5 interior dashboard 2013 Ford Escape interior dashboard from driver's side 2013 Mazda CX-5 interior dashboard from driver's side 2013 Ford Escape interior dashboard from passenger's side 2013 Mazda CX-5 interior dashboard from passenger's side 2013 Ford Escape instrument panel 2013 Mazda CX-5 instrument panel 2013 Ford Escape speedometer 2013 Mazda CX-5 information display 2013 Ford Escape tachometer 2013 Mazda CX-5 tachometer 2013 Ford Escape steering wheel 2013 Mazda CX-5 steering wheel 2013 Ford Escape left steering wheel spoke 2013 Mazda CX-5 left steering wheel spoke 2013 Ford Escape right steering wheel spoke 2013 Mazda CX-5 right steering wheel spoke 2013 Ford Escape infotainment system 2013 Mazda CX-5 infotainment system 2013 Ford Escape climate control system 2013 Mazda CX-5 climate control system 2013 Ford Escape transmission shifter 2013 Mazda CX-5 transmission shifter 2013 Ford Escape transmission shifter 2013 Mazda CX-5 transmission shifter 2013 Ford Escape cupholders 2013 Mazda CX-5 cupholders 2013 Ford Escape storage bin 2013 Mazda CX-5 storage bin 2013 Ford Escape front door 2013 Mazda CX-5 front door 2013 Ford Escape front door controls 2013 Mazda CX-5 front door controls 2013 Ford Escape front seats 2013 Mazda CX-5 front seats 2013 Ford Escape rear seats 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear seats 2013 Ford Escape rear seat legroom 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear seat legroom 2013 Ford Escape rear cargo area 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear cargo area 2013 Ford Escape rear cargo area with seat folded 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear cargo area with seat folded 2013 Ford Escape rear cargo area with seats folded 2013 Mazda CX-5 rear cargo area with seats folded
Brothers From Another Mother Face Off

Not a single part is shared between these two crossovers.

We couldn't do this comparison test a year ago. No, not because the CX-5 is a new nameplate and all-new vehicle for the Mazda brand (okay, that's technically a valid reason), but because until now, Mazda's only small crossover offering was the Tribute – a rebadged version of the trusty last-gen Ford Escape. In fact, it's always been sort of tricky to put Ford and Mazda vehicles in the same comparison test, only because nearly every product in Mazda's stable could be traced back to some sort of Ford platform.

But with the two automakers having officially parted ways, Mazda was forced to create an all-new platform for a small crossover that would play in the same segment as the Escape. And under the lights of the 2011 Los Angeles Auto Show last November, both the 2013 CX-5 and 2013 Escape debuted, with representatives from Ford and Mazda alike reassuring us that not a single part is shared between the two crossovers, noting that the two companies were in no way involved in the development of each other's vehicle.

That in mind, we thought it best to pit the Escape and CX-5 against one another to see how the family lines have matured after the divorce.
Both crossovers are completely new for the 2013 model year, the Escape ditching nearly everything that could possibly tie it to the boxier-than-thou 2012 model in favor of something decidedly more European in design and execution. Underpinning the new Escape is Ford's global C-segment platform, found elsewhere in the United States under the bodies of the Focus and C-Max.

Mazda, on the other hand, went in a different direction. Rather than borrowing the bones from its Mazda3 compact, the Japanese automaker created an all-new platform that uses the full suite of lightweight, fuel efficiency-minded Skyactiv technologies – stuff that will quickly spread to every new model in the company's lineup, the next of which being the shapely new 2014 Mazda6. The end result is a crossover that sizes up very nicely to the Escape while being a full 230 pounds lighter in this spec.

Speaking of spec, let's talk about the vehicles that are being compared. We chose to go with the front-wheel-drive volume models for both, and various reasons contributed to this decision. Most importantly, price was a huge factor – you've no doubt heard about the fact that 2013 Escape models can retail as high as $37,000. But we also wanted the two vehicles to be as close as possible in terms of equipment levels and powertrains. Bigger-budget Ford offers three different four-cylinder engines in the Escape – one naturally aspirated, two turbocharged – while Mazda presently offers just the one Skyactiv four-cylinder in the CX-5. And while both crossovers can be had with all-wheel drive, we chose the front-wheel-drive versions simply because they're the ones most commonly purchased.

Dimensionally, the two crossovers are remarkably close in size. The Ford is 1.2 inches shorter in length than the Mazda (178.1 inches versus 179.3) and rides on a 0.4-inch shorter wheelbase (105.9 vs. 106.3). Both CUVs are identical in terms of width (72.4 inches) and the Ford is 0.6 inches taller (66.3 vs. 65.7). But while the widths might be the same for the two, it's important to note that the CX-5's front and rear tracks are a full inch wider than the Ford's – something that indeed helps with handling, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

In the metal, we found the Escape to be a far more handsome devil from every angle.

Numbers don't accurately portray how these vehicles look on the road. In the metal, we found the Escape to be a far more handsome devil from every angle. As Senior Editor Seyth Miersma succinctly put it, "The Escape wins the 'wow factor' comparison, hands down." The Ford's stylized exterior is certainly more evocative, and unlike the Mazda, no design elements look awkward or misplaced. Even on the smaller 17-inch wheels, the Escape has a nice stance on the road, whereas the base wheels on the CX-5 almost look two inches too small.

So, meet our 2013 Escape: An SE model with an as-tested price of $27,860, including $825 for destination. Under the hood is Ford's 1.6-liter EcoBoost inline-four, good for 178 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 184 pound-feet of torque at 2,500 rpm, all of which is sent to the front wheels via a six-speed automatic transmission.

2013 Ford Escape front view2013 Ford Escape rear view2013 Mazda CX-5 front view2013 Mazda CX-5 rear view

In terms of options, there aren't many here to talk about. SE models come standard with niceties like tinted rear windows, foglights and the five-spoke, 17-inch alloy wheels seen here. The only add-ons found on our vehicle were the $1,570 MyFord Touch navigation/infotainment system and the rolls-off-the-tongue Equipment Group 201A ($450; cargo cover, roof rails and perimeter alarm).

For the Mazda, we chose a 2013 CX-5 Touring, also riding on (decidedly more ordinary) 17-inch alloy wheels and powered by a 2.0-liter naturally aspirated Skyactiv inline-four that pumps out 155 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 150 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 rpm, also mated to a six-speed auto 'box. The as-tested price: $27,005, including $795 for destination.

Again, we absolutely prefer the Ford's design in nearly every way, as specific elements of the CX-5's styling stick out as a bit odd to us. "The grille on the CX-5 looks outsized to me, and the front end too bluff, particularly from the dead-on front," writes Executive Editor Chris Paukert. "I'm not sure which will wear better over the long haul, but for the moment, the Ford looks fresher to my eyes." What's more, Touring models like our test car are only fitted with the smaller 17-inch alloys that leave huge gaps in the wheel wells, making the CX-5 look a bit awkward from most angles. If you want larger rollers, you have to option up for the Grand Touring, where you'll find attractive 19-inchers at all four corners.

2013 Ford Escape headlight2013 Ford Escape wheel2013 Ford Escape taillight2013 Mazda CX-5 headlight2013 Mazda CX-5 wheel2013 Mazda CX-5 taillight

The base stereo in our test Escape was one of the worst modern units this author has ever tested in terms of sound quality.

Our Mazda arrived packed with options like a power moonroof; a technology package that includes things like auto-leveling HID headlamps, navigation and rain-sensing wipers; and an upgraded Bose audio system. (For what it's worth, the base stereo in our test Escape was one of the worst modern units this author has ever tested in terms of sound quality.)

But even with this longer equipment list, a few of our editors took issue with the Mazda's option packaging. Paukert writes, "I find the CX-5's Byzantine trim and option scheme to be irritating. For example, short of the base Sport model, as a CX-5 buyer you're stuck with a mandatory Blind Spot Monitoring system, which can be annoying. I'm not convinced it's a feature everybody wants." Furthermore, "If you want satellite radio, you have pony up a pricey $525 for the stand-alone Sirius option on Touring models, splurge for the full-house Grand Touring or get a dealer-installed aftermarket system. What's up with that? That's standard equipment on a base $15k Hyundai Accent."

2013 Ford Escape2013 Ford Escape infotainment system2013 Ford Escape shifter
2013 Ford Escape interior

2013 Mazda CX-5 interior2013 Mazda CX-5 infotatainment system2013 Mazda CX-5 shifter
2013 Mazda CX-5 interior

A lot of our discussions about the two crossovers' interiors are direct reflections of how we feel about their exterior designs. Basically, the Ford again impressed us with its more stylish cabin – "the interior feels like more design muscle was flexed in its creation," states Miersma.

But that isn't to say the CX-5 is anything even remotely bad. Miersma again: "Overall design makes the Mazda seem like a much older vehicle, too; the cabin doesn't feel 'ugly' so much as 'plain.'" We did find the CX-5's tech simple and easy to use, though far less pretty than the often-finicky MyFord Touch unit in the Escape. The Ford's larger display screen (that doesn't include a backup camera in this spec, unlike the Mazda) is a visual treat to behold, but even with the upgraded software, many of us had issues with the technology on board.

2013 Ford Escape front seats2013 Ford Escape rear seats2013 Ford Escape rear cargo area
2013 Ford Escape seating and cargo

2013 Mazda CX-5 front seats2013 Mazda CX-5 rear seats2013 Mazda CX-5 rear cargo area
2013 Mazda CX-5 seating and cargo

Cargo space in the CX-5 falls short of the Ford, even with the rear seats folded flat.

That said, both CUVs offer comfortable, well-appointed interiors in their mid-grade trim levels. All of us agreed that the Mazda felt roomier, despite the Escape's rakish windshield that creates a more airy feeling to the front cabin. The numbers don't lie, though – the CX-5 boasts 103.8 cubic feet of overall passenger volume whereas the Escape makes due with 98.1. We found the rear seats in both to be spacious and comfortable places to spend time. Headroom is identical in both vehicles, though the Mazda has an additional 2.5 inches of rear legroom. Cargo space in the CX-5 falls short of the Ford, though, even with the rear seats folded flat. The Mazda offers 65.4 cubic feet versus a more capacious 68.1 in the Escape.

When we hit the road for some back-to-back driving, we quickly saw just how different these two seemingly similar crossovers really are. There's no doubt in our minds that the Escape offers the better engine. Not only is it more powerful – offering a full 23 hp and 34 lb-ft more oomph than the Mazda – it delivers its grunt in a much more balanced manner. The CX-5 suffers from a lack of low-end power that's easy to feel under acceleration, both from a stop and at speed, and you'll have to really rev it for maximum thrust. Various instrumented testing from other publications quotes 8.9-second 0-60 times for both CUVs, but the Mazda simply feels slower off the line.

2013 Ford Escape engine2013 Ford Escape engine detail
2013 Ford Escape 1.6-liter turbocharged EcoBoost inline four-cylinder

2013 Mazda CX-5 engine2013 Mazda CX-5 engine detail
2013 Mazda CX-5 2.0-liter Skyactiv inline four-cylinder

Still, we prefer the smoother shifts and calmer demeanor of the CX-5's six-speed Skyactiv automatic transmission. The Escape's six-speed automatic has a tendency to hunt for gears and downshift when you really only need a bit of torque thrust to increase speed, and even then, the changes aren't always smooth. In the CX-5, there are plenty of times where you don't even notice the transmission doing its work, which is greatly appreciated.

Both crossovers use electric power steering, but Mazda indeed has the better formula for making its helm feel more engaging.

But this isn't the only area where the Mazda earns high praise – it's downright better to drive, full stop. The steering has a direct, linear feel with a solid on-center feel, whereas the Escape has moments where its wheel feels jerky and overboosted. Both crossovers use electric power steering, but Mazda indeed has the better formula for making its helm feel more engaging. Regarding the Escape, Editor Miersma writes that "the steering is so light and so numb that, driven back-to-back with the Mazda, it feels almost difficult to use confidently by comparison." There's also quite a bit of torque steer in the front-wheel-drive Escape under hard acceleration. Not cool.

In every other aspect of driving, we continued to prefer the Mazda. It may be underpowered compared to the Ford, but remember, it's 230 pounds slimmer, and that sense of lightness really carries through to its driving dynamics. "The whole package just feels spryer on its feet," says Paukert. The CX-5's brakes felt better at both city and highway speeds, and there's less body roll in the corners. Suspension setups on both are well-tuned for typical crossover driving, but the Mazda just feels more willing to be pushed. Even so, we never found the Escape to have anything short of a smooth, comfortable ride, while still giving plenty of feedback to the driver that's in no way jarring.

2013 Ford Escape driving2013 Ford Escape driving2013 Mazda CX-5 driving2013 Mazda CX-5 driving

A big credit to the Ford, though, is the fact that it's quieter in terms of wind noise – by a significant amount, actually. We also noted that the Mazda was more prone to being blown around in heavy crosswinds. Interesting note: despite its wider track, the Mazda rides on P225/65-series tires whereas the Ford uses more robust 235/55-series rubbers, although the disparity doesn't seem to hurt the Mazda's handling any.

The Mazda had no issue returning highway fuel economy numbers around 31 mpg, while we never saw anything higher than 29 in the Escape.

Speaking on fuel efficiency for a moment, both of these vehicles offer very respectable numbers for the class, though we mustn't forget that the base CX-5 Sport with the truly excellent six-speed manual 'box takes the best-in-class award for fuel efficiency. That said, the Escape 1.6L with front-wheel drive will net you 23 miles per gallon in the city and 33 on the highway, while the CX-5 FWD Touring is rated at 26 and 32, respectively. And while you might think the two would average out to the same sort of combined rating, that isn't necessarily the case.

"I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Mazda's naturally aspirated Skyactiv four will return closer to EPA fuel economy numbers than the Ford's EcoBoost for just about every kind of driver – turbo DI engines just seem to have a harder time returning their advertised numbers," Paukert suggests. And from our week of driving each vehicle, he's right, too. While we didn't conduct any strict fuel economy testing, the Mazda had no issue returning highway fuel economy numbers around 31 mpg, while we never saw anything higher than 29 in the Escape. Take that all with a grain of salt, though – as they say, your mileage may vary.

2013 Ford Escape badge2013 Ford Escape badge2013 Mazda CX-5 badge2013 Mazda CX-5 badge

If we were only to judge these two crossovers based on their driving dynamics, the Mazda would be the outright winner, no question. But when you start to consider what makes each of these vehicles a good choice for shoppers in the segment, the Escape becomes more and more attractive with each item we list.

That in mind, picking a winner isn't as clean-cut as other comparisons. The Ford is more stylish both inside and out, but some of the Mazda's materials are just plain better and it offers more room for passengers. The Escape has a more powerful, more willing engine, but the Mazda counters by being lighter and using its power in a way that's absolutely more engaging out on the road.

2013 Ford Escape vs 2013 Mazda CX-5

What we have here are two crossovers that offer a lot of kit and caboodle for buyers.

At the end of the day, the CX-5 continued to be the crossover that we wanted to drive and the one we wanted to park in our driveways. And when it came time to vote for our favorite, every editor cast a ballot for the Mazda. "As a driver's car, the CX-5 is the pick," says Paukert, "but with its compelling styling and richer option count (not to mention a bigger dealer network and more generous roadside assistance warranty provision), I can see why the everyday driver would prefer the Escape. What's more, I don't think they'd be wrong for doing so."

What we have here are two crossovers that offer a lot of kit and caboodle for buyers – one tailored more toward folks seeking an automobile as a stylish appliance, and the other with a sharper focus on being a rewarding vehicle to pilot. Mazda no longer needs Ford to have a worthy contender in this highly competitive segment, but there's no doubt in our minds that if the Escape took a few cues from its estranged brother, the outcome of this test would have been very different.

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 2 Years Ago
      The CX-5 is my choice, I prefer the driving experience over flashiness
      Brad Heathcock
      • 2 Years Ago
      I am buying a Mazda CX-5 this Christmas. I loved the looks of the new Escape but can't believe what they want in price. I went to the Mazda dealership and the CX-5 Grand Touring is $27,800. I went to the NC Ford dealership here in San Antonio and the Escape SEL without the extra lift gate option, just leather and sunroof as in the CX-5, and it was over $35,000. When I brought up the fact that the Escape was $7000 more the Ford dealership stated that the Escape was much better quality. They need to look at their competition. Totally ridiculous.
      Sunny Lo
      • 2 Years Ago
      I like the Escape, but hope they look more like the Europe Kuga. The interior of Escape is very busy, the package option offered from escape is very busy too. The CX-5 and Escape both looks somewhat handsome to me, but the CX-5 offer a projector headlight which i think it's more modern than the Escape. The standard back-up camera and blind spot detector are must have feature for my family(don't know why the author questioned not many ppl will get the blind spot detector). I understand the CX-5 has a lot of plastic on the both to save cost, but they doesn't look too bad to me, but I wish I can update to 19 inch wheel. We decided to go with the CX-5 because it gives a better interior quality and driving experience. I am a bit disappointed about the mpg on the CX-5 which i only get 24-25 mpg average since mostly city driving. But if I am in the escape, am I getting 19-21 mpg? Anyway, they both are good choice and way better than the super ugly CRV, and outdated Rav4 and Rouge. I am very very happy to be a CX-5 owner and I believe I won't feel far off if I ended up getting the Escape.
      • 2 Years Ago
      Parked face-to-face, the Ford Escape looks like a Mommievan compared to the masculine Mazda CX-5. No doubt the CX-5's styling and quality will endure longer than the gimmicky Ford.
      • 2 Years Ago
      Frankly I prefer the exterior design of the first generation Escape over this current one. It was purposeful, solid and well-proportioned. This 2013 design is too fussy and seems to have a confused identity. It's a crossover alright: a cross between a minivan and a station wagon. From the profile shot, the schnoz sticks out too far out from the front wheels and yet the hood looks awfully short. The windshield and headlamps look disproportianately humongous, dwarfing that slit of a side vent and making the wheels look too small, even though they're larger than the CX-5's. And that huge blacked-out area on the front fascia does nothing for me-- it looks like you're supposed to write something on it like a blackboard. That concavity in the rear makes it look like it was pre-rearended, and that D-pillar looks like it belongs to a much smaller vehicle. And yes I own a CX-5. My metallic silver shows the character lines and creases more prominently than the dark grey featured here, giving it a more tailored appearance. Mazda should offer more lighter metallic colors because the darker colors don't do justice to the design of the CX-5.
      • 2 Years Ago
      Reading these reviews can be very frustrating. A lot of the reviews I've read of the Escape say that it totally blows the doors off the competition when it comes to driving dynamics, yet AB just about said it was a chore to drive. Some reviews say that the SkyActive engine is anemic and totally underpowered. AB says it's good enough and the weight differential more than compensates. Some hate the looks of the Escape. AB loves it. I give up!?
        • 2 Years Ago
        Don't listen to what the reviewers say about the looks. Judge for yourself. I think the Ford has awkward design cues whereas somehow AB found the CX-5 to have awkward design cues. I was rooting for the escape but I personally think that given everything being compared, the CX-5 wins hands down.
        Benoit Venne
        • 2 Years Ago
        I did read the same comments on Car and Driver. They said that the Escape was the best in terms of driving and dynamic. So I think that someone does not give the right time! But if I judge by the professionalism of the magazine, Car an Driver, I mean, I would chose there comment.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Benoit Venne
          ... And which one did Car and Driver end up picking as the best? The CX-5!!
      • 2 Years Ago
      Yup that Ford Escape front catfish gaping mouth grille does it for me...make me puke!
      • 2 Years Ago
      Nice comparison. I wholeheartedly prefer the style used here where you take each comparison element and then compare the two directly on that subject. It makes me feel far better informed at the end than the style of most of the magazines where they introduce the competitors, immediately rank them, and then you read about each in isolation as though they were separate tests. As a lover of the Mazdas I've owned and own, I had a clear bias toward the CX-5 going in. And its not gone completely, though I concede on the front end and interior styling. The better handling of the Mazda was expected, though it is nice to have confirmed. But the Escape is quieter, which is no small deal except that the stereo sucks, and two and half more inches of legroom in the Mazda trumps the slightly smaller cargo room, but on the other hand.... What this test tells me is the clear necessity of personally looking at both before declaring a preference.. Station wagons top my list for next vehicle but the choices are few, and these two likely top the the list of CUV alternatives.
        • 2 Years Ago
        Both crossovers are great, there are just clear tradeoffs with each. The Escape is bigger, more stylish inside and out, more powerful, quieter/higher quality interior, and has better highway mileage. The CX-5 is slightly smaller, less powerful, but lighter, more agile, fun to drive, and has simpler styling that might appeal to more or age better (only time will tell that one). It's pretty clear what direction Ford and Mazda take when they design vehicles, Mazda 2 vs. Fiesta comparisons would be almost identical to this review.
          Gavin Varitech
          • 2 Years Ago
          The Ford does NOT have a higher quality interior. It's interior, both in design and materials, is garbage by today's standards.
      • 2 Years Ago
      I own a 2013 CX-5 & love it. I was not and am not a fan of front wheel drive due to the torque steer, but I freaking love the steering on the CX-5. Zero torque steer! Next, I'm sorry, but the editor is b-l-i-n-d! A Ford 5-spoke wheel looks like crap compared to the multi-spoke wheel of the Mazda. Wheel well spacing? It's fine, wear out the factory tires and bump up a size next time when tires are purchased and it'll be awesome. The interior, to me, is much more user friendly, stylish than the Ford. Ford's gear shift area looks like it's from the 80's. Mazda has the gated shifter and I love it! The CX-5 has the BMW or Audi import look about; better lines and styling on the outside than the box looking Escape. My husband is 6'4" and fits comfortably in the CX-5. Gas mileage: my window sticker on my Touring CX-5 said 27/35; we drove from FL to VA to MA back to NC to FL and only spent $200 in 10 days. We were getting 33 on the highway @ 80 mph!!! Around town I get 27. Can't beat that. Now for the downside, I hate that the head rests sits your head/neck area too far forward, so I pulled my driver's headrest and installed it backwards. I sit more straight up rather than a laid back driving style. Yes it's alittle sluggish on take off, but when you need punch it power; it'll move along just fine. BTW, I paid out the door for my CX-5, $24,000, Touring pkg, moonroof & Bose sound system only. On a side note, I've brought home 2x4x8's in the car, drop the center rear piece seat and covered the console with my sweat jacket to prevent scrapes; worked just fine; they fit. So it's a CUV with a little extra.
      • 2 Years Ago
      I am with a lot of you on here... I do not see the Escape as the better looking vehicle. Too me the Ford lost a lot of the charm that it's concept car had: The Ford Vertrek: http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/v/main/auto-shows/2011-detroit-auto-show/ford/vertrekconcept/FordVertrekConcept_09_HR.jpg.html Some how it looks like a minivan to me from side view and some 3/4 rear views. The Mazda has a lot more sporting look to me than the Ford. The Ford in person looks HUGE too. Not sure why, think maybe because it feels so slab sided, so minivan like. The Mazda in person felt like it was a CUV... the look and everything. So yeah I don't get it AB... unless you are seeing something I can't see...
      • 1 Year Ago
      I really like both cars. They look good and are efficient. But I'd take the Mazda, simply because of the Sport model with the manual transmission. No, it's not fast, but the manual will aid in acceleration (not by much, but the car feels much faster, trust me I've been driving a '93 Eurovan with a 5 speed and it loses drag races to Prius's regularly) and you can get it for about $21,000.
      • 2 Years Ago
      Ok, so "The grille on the CX-5 looks outsized to me"... So what do you say about that MASSIVE pile of horizontal plastic on the front of the Ford???? You pretty much surrendered ANY credibility on styling right there.
    • Load More Comments