Mazda CX-5 compared to Suburu Outback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I'm 5'0" and my husband is 6'3". We have a 1 year old baby and are thinking about having a second. We drive only 5,000 miles a year because we work from home. We'll need enough cargo space to load up the stroller, pack n play, etc for road trips. Our daughter is 99th percentile for length, so I'm expecting we'll need some decent leg room in the back. I've seen posts on this forum saying the Outback has more leg room than the CX-5, but how does the cargo space compare? Would you recommend getting a roof rack to put a Thule on top?
Are there any other notable differences between the CX-5 and Outback? For those with a CX-5, I have questions about headlights: -With the 2.5 S trim (the base model), do you feel high beam visibility on curves is poor? -With the Premium, Premium Plus, Turbo, or Turbo Signature trim, have you experienced issues with glare? |
Anonymous
We've been looking at similar cars. From what I've seen, the CX-5 will be sportier to drive but has less space. The Outback is bigger but handles like you think a wagon would handle unless you get the higher end packages. I hope to test drive this week and buy over labor day weekend if there are any sales. Who knows, maybe the sales will be MSRP 
|
Anonymous
| Before you start leaning any direction, go drive the CX-5. I love Mazdas (own a CX-9) but their design, while sharp, leans towards a tighter interior. If I were 6’3 I’m not sure I’d be as happy with it. |
Anonymous
|
Scroll to headlight rating
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/Mazda/cx-5-4-door-suv/2022#headlights |
Anonymous
I already read the IIHS report about headlights. That's why I'm asking what people think of it themselves. It's a decision between increased glare with the high end models or decreased high beam visibility on curves with the base model.
|
Anonymous
So I'm looking through past years, and realized the headlight quality varies by year as well as trim. So if anyone has thoughts on headlights, please let me know the year and trim of your CX-5. Thanks!
|
Anonymous
| Let it get dark earlier in a month or so and then test drive at night. This seems like a tiny detail to make a decision on. |
Anonymous
| Cx-5 is a really good car. Had it for several years and never had any issue. Go with the standard engine and not turbo if you are concerned about any maintenances. |
Anonymous
|
OP here. Everyone is right about the CX-5 interior being tight. A rear facing car seat cannot fit behind my 6'3" husband.
The Subaru Outback, on the other hand, had the perfect amount of leg space! And tons more cargo room in the back. |
Anonymous
OP here: We thought the Outback drove fine, although to be fair, we're used to driving a hoopty. We were surprised at how well the Outback could turn in a tight circle considering it's 10 inches longer than the Mazda CX-5. The dealership we went to isn't doing any mark up and neither are the 2 other Subaru dealerships I called. Much better than Mazda- most of those dealerships are doing a $1,500- $3,000 mark up.
|
Anonymous
This was going to be my warning. I love love love my CX-5 but my 5’4” husband hates the car seat situation. We tried it behind the passenger and pulled over and moved it back because it was even more unbearable to be the passenger and have to sit so far up and upright. Once we switched to a convertible car seat and it’s more upright than the infant it got better but it’s still not super comfortable. |
Anonymous
|
Subaru Forester may be the vehicle that you are seeking. Lots of cargo room, best visibility of any car on the market, reliable, but there is not a turbo option this year or next year.
If you want a turbo engine, then go with either the Mazda CX-5 or the Subaru Outback with a turbo (XT) engine. Consumer Reports rates the Subaru Outback at 86, the Subaru Forester at 89, and the Mazda CX-5 at 83. All are excellent scores. For the CR road test, Forester scored 90, Outback 91, and Mazda CX-5 at 78. Cargo: Mazda CX-5 30.5 cubic feet, 850 pounds, can tow 2,000 lbs. Cargo: Subaru Forester 36.5 cubic feet, 900 pounds, can tow 1,500 lbs. Cargo: Subaru Outback 37 cubic feet (but not as tall an opening as the Forester), 900 lbs, can tow 3,500 lbs. Subaru Forester Wilderness can tow 3,000 lbs even though not a turbo engine, but has special gear ratio, oil cooling, etc. Leg room: Mazda CX-5 42 front, 27.5 back. Forester 43 front, 30 back. Outback: 42.5 front, 30 back. CX-5 weighs 3,590 lbs. Forester weighs 3,485 Outback weighs 3,915. (Forester Wilderness weighs more than the regular Forester.) Front Head room; Forester 5.0, Outback 4.5, Mazda CX-5 = just 4.0 (Headroom clearance above 5 foot 9 inches.) Your 6'3" husband needs headroom of 6.0 or better. Honda Pilot has 6.0, and 48 cubic feet cargo volume. No Mazda has enough headroom for your husband. Honda Pilot has a push button gear selector. Honda Pilot scores 72 from consumer Reports. VW Atlas has 6.5 headroom & VW Tiguan has 6.0 VWs score in the mid-60s by CR. Chevrolet Traverse has 6.5 front headroom. 54.5 cubic feet volume, 1,450 lbs., tows 5,000 pounds. V-6 engine. Chevrolet Traverse scored 95 on the CR test drive. Offers second row Captain's Chairs as an option. |
Anonymous
|
Mazda CX-5 has poor rear & side visibility.
Subaru headlights may turn with the car as it corners. May be on both Forester & Outback or just on one model. I just cannot recall. Car prices are expected to rise next year. The New EV Ford Mustang was just repriced today or yesterday. Raising all EV Mustangs by an additional $8,500 due to increased costs as a result of supply chain issues. Both Subaru models score better than the Mazda for "front crash prevention". The Subaru Forester engine is the same size as the Mazda CX-5, but the Subaru makes a bit of an irritating noise when accelerating. Headroom for your husband might be an issue. |
Anonymous
|
I used to have an Outback and now have a CX-5. The turbo Outback was my top choice, but the cost put it out of reach, and the turbo engine (in my prior experience) had far more maintenance issues.
So, I opted for the CX-5. The biggest difference, as others noted, is space. Much less space in the back seat. The trunk isn't as roomy, but it's met our needs with all the kid stuff - can fit in everything we need for a week at the beach, for example. |
Anonymous
Consumer Reports points out that the Mazda CX-5 has partially blocked visibility in the rear & on the sides. Do you agree ? I think that Subaru Outback turbo engine no longer has any issues. But this family needs more headroom for a 6'3" driver. Chevrolet Traverse or Honda Pilot. |