Mazda CX5 Vs Suzuki S Cross Sx4

mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 14:38

Friends,

What is your opinion on these two cars. Mazda CX5 absolutely great car but lets say used car of 3 years comes with a price tag of $20000 - $24000.
Fuel Efficiency Around 9 -10 L per 100 Km in City Ride.

Suzuki S Cross Sx4 is around $13500 with 10 years Mechanical Protection Warranty.
7 L per 100 Km and comes 7 Airbags. Boot Space is same as CX5 or better.

The traveling is always within 30 Kms Circle and mostly urban.

What is your opinion or share your experiences on these two cars please.

Poll Options

  • ?
    Mazda CX5
  • ?
    Suzuki S Cross Sx4
Automotive

Comments

  • akd on 05/02/2018 - 14:45

    Is Suzuki S cross $13500 brand new?

    • mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 14:51

      2014 Model; 50000 Kms; 1 Owner; Country Side Driving; Vehicle Looks Fantastic.

  • Oz8argain on 05/02/2018 - 14:50
    +1

    from what you said, if you don't care about the brands / looks then suzuki is a great deal, 10 year warrenty is amazing. I personaly think that the new CX5 looks great, espcially in white, but you cant see it when driving.

    • mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 14:53

      Personally, i have used Suzuki Swift before and no bad experiences. Mazda is still a fantastic car by looks and few other stuff but due to budget constraints I was tossing the mind between these two and just here to clear up the things..It is kind of like $13500 vs $23500.

      • Oz8argain on 05/02/2018 - 14:55

        If that's the price, I would not pay 10K extra for the cx5 unless it offers something amazing… 10k worth of amazing..

        • mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 15:08

          True Oz8argain, Car still looks almost brand new; 50Ks as i said and country side driving with 10 years standard mechanical protection + 10 years Road Side assistance.. 7 Airbags, Bluetooth, USB Input; 12 Cigarette Lighter charging option in boot. Almost 1300 max boot space and Crystal Lime Colour…

        • Oz8argain on 05/02/2018 - 15:11

          @mkar18: oh… lime…hmmm

        • mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 15:14

          @Oz8argain: Well, i personally liked the color, but not sure if it something behind to worry about?

  • whooah1979 on 05/02/2018 - 15:27
    -4

    You should go with the Camry hybrid. Better build and proven reliability.

  • CheapSticks on 05/02/2018 - 16:02
    +1

    Think Suzuki offers best value for money generally. Though interior of Mazda much better. SCross probably not a fair comparison with Mx5.

    • mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 16:15

      True.. Interior is reasonably okay.. Can't complaint much… Well there is a almost $10k to 13k difference and Mazda is great on that…

  • Peter Enis on 05/02/2018 - 16:04

    These are in 2 different categories - S Cross is a small SUV and CX5 is a medium SUV. If that matters.

    Also this 10 year warranty you are raving about - is that a 10 year factory warranty or aftermarket? If its an aftermarket warranty have you read the details? For example, do you have to get it "serviced" (ie ripped off) at the dealer to maintain the warranty?

    • mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 16:13

      Road Side assistance is unconditional as it is a separate company… With the warranty for the engine it is supposed to be with one of their partner who is good company as i know them through my friend and it is around $300 for major which is pretty much the local mechanic charges as well + Spare Parts and you can mutually workout the high priority parts to be replaced and low or minor priority that can be done on next service..

      Service is usually every 15000ks and you looking at once a a year.. With this protection you can make 10 claims upto $1000 each time.

      Kind of looked decent and it is upto me to service with them or i can do it with my local mechanic…

  • yoonibear on 05/02/2018 - 16:53

    Would you consider a Kia Sportage?
    I'd personally go the Suzuki - hard to ignore the 10k difference

  • dogboy on 05/02/2018 - 16:54
    +1

    I find the Suzuki to be quite an ugly car. I quite like the older Suzukis like the Vitara's but this new range is just plain garish. Who designs these things?! Mazda is easily the superior car but also on the pricey side. If you don't care about looks then the Suzuki is better value.

  • Medrad on 05/02/2018 - 17:04

    Suzuki S-Cross is tiny compared to CX5 and nowhere near as comfortable to drive. If you need a mini-commute, look at other options such as the Hyundai/Kia range. Suzukis are by no means bad cars, great small engine get-arounds but as for load-moving, nowhere near as good as a larger-engined vehicle.

    If money is an issue, the classier, bigger, class-leading Mazda is not for you. The Suzuki will be efficient, move you, but nothing more than that.

    Ignore warranties, they're not likely to have anything happen within the first 3 years, anything after that comes with lots of fine-print.

  • enzioFirenze on 05/02/2018 - 17:11

    mate, those two cars are not in the same class, not a fair comparison tbh!

    • mkar18 on 05/02/2018 - 17:20

      sorry enzioFirenze… It is just to get the merits and demerits of these two.. that's all.. Mazda would say is definitely is stylish and interior better than Suzuki.. But for just commuting within 30kms and with just space and ok comfort, i was thinking about Suzuki, that's all.

  • spackbace on 05/02/2018 - 17:18
    +3

    From an ex-Suzuki salesperson here..

    The S-Cross you're looking at is kinda average. The turbo engine really revitalised the range, but the 1.6L with CVT that you're looking at is really average…

    Feature wise it's a good car, but yeah that engine/gearbox combo…

    Oh and that warranty isn't a factory warranty, so double check the inclusions. These came with a 5yr/130,000km warranty as standard (assuming the Capped Price Servicing has been maintained).

  • modsec802 on 06/02/2018 - 07:46

    The traveling is always within 30 Kms Circle and mostly urban.

    Why do people who live in cities need SUVs? 🤦‍♀️

    • whooah1979 on 06/02/2018 - 08:54

      They provide better seating position and increased visibility.

    • mkar18 on 06/02/2018 - 10:23

      Well, the amount of time loading and unloading prams and we have sedan and it is very inconvenient.

      • resisting the urge on 06/02/2018 - 13:12
        +1

        SUVs aren't required for this. Any hatchback works very well too, especially if a kid falls out of an open door one day and greets the ground from higher than they need to have done. They can get under the wheels more easily too.

        Also, better Centre of Gravity costs nothing to buy and offers a far better driving experience. And it's faster, more comfortable round corners, cheaper to operate (less wind resistance, mass, tyre, brake and suspension wear, etc.).

        <TL/DR>?
        Better CoG is faster a-b, more efficient and safer.

        Buying a high CoG can cost you everything. This one wasn't going fast and was very lucky not to have hit anything stationary:
        http://youtu.be/m1dG4heLZb4

        Although, we won't hold it against you for having to buy one. Almost 51% of humans (and a higher % of car-buyers) can't see past their emotion and can only appreciate a driving experience when seated higher up than everyone else.

        And, there is also the subconscious 'draw of the throne' effect, a particular instinct that drives all of us to do whatever it takes to attain a throne over which we can survey our peers.

        My family, not even the dog will be playing pin-ball inside a tin car at speed. A comparable modern SUV is less safe than our small sedan in most accidents- makes it harder to avoid things and easier to roll, so for us, CoG is not negotiable requirement during vehicle acquisition. We'd literally have to live down a washed out dirt track to warrant all these risks & costs.

        • whooah1979 on 06/02/2018 - 14:22

          We've owned sedans, hatchbacks, lwb and slwb. The vehicle we've now is by far the most versatile. It has everything we need including seating arrangements, cargo, towing capacity, ground clearance, safety, power, short and long distance travelling comfortably, etc.

        • whooah1979 on 06/02/2018 - 14:51
          -1

          A comparable modern SUV is less safe than our small sedan in most accidents

          Top selling hatchback/sedan vs SUV.

          http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/corolla/d7090e

          Overall Score:
          34.88 out of 37

          http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/cx-5/650267

          Overall Score:
          35.10 out of 37

        • whooah1979 on 06/02/2018 - 15:05

          Buying a high CoG can cost you everything. This one wasn't going fast and was very lucky not to have hit anything stationary:
          http://youtu.be/m1dG4heLZb4

          Rolling over isn't unique to SUV. Here is a sedan rolling over.
          https://youtu.be/3HvTG9cSTWw

        • modsec802 on 06/02/2018 - 21:07

          @whooah1979: That’s a difference between manufacturers not body styles.

          Like for like:

          Mazda 3 sedan / hatch:

          Overall Score:
          36.40 out of 37

          http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/3/8c1df2

          Mazda CX-5

          Overall Score:
          35.10 out of 37

          http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/cx-5/650267

          Toyota Corolla is still safer than equivalent Toyota SUV

          Overall Score:
          34.56 out of 37

          http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/rav4/908021

        • spackbace on 06/02/2018 - 22:22

          Gimme a break…

          Have a read through this study.

          Basic conclusion, given how people drive SUVs, and modern stability control, the only people rolling them are young people.

          You look at an SUV that's max 3 years old, with electronic stability control, and you'd be hard pressed to roll it. And even if you rolled a modern car, you'd survive. Unless if course you rolled down a sand dune or ditch, in which a car or SUV would still roll.

          So cut the crap, the proof is in the findings, no one is gonna roll an SUV.

          And goddam I hate people who judge other peoples wants and needs… How does it affect anyone here if OP buts an SUV?!

        • resisting the urge on 07/02/2018 - 12:25

          @whooah1979: Indeed! What a shocking result for CX-5.

          Despite being almost 20% heavier it barely 1% safer! I know this is OzB but…

          But ok, let's look at the full picture:

          Weight (kg) Consumption (L/100 km) WxHxD (mm)
          CX-5 FWD 1510 9.4/7.4 4545x1840x1690
          Corolla- 1285 8.4/6.5 4650x1776x1455

          CX-5 weighs 20% more, is about the same size (15% taller, but a lot of it is ground clearance). So we pay for the same size car that is 10% less efficient and impact safety is pretty much the same?

          And we loose CoG.

          However much a CX-5 costs, we pay for air beneath it (brilliant, but in a collision, mostly hopeless) engineering. Why? Mostly because it is primarily designed to make it look less ridiculous in situations like these:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5aM30TFZ-w
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNi7cuUywN0

          CX-5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1FIPXeU7J0
          6 wagon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEmcfwdv_5k

          When a normal car does this kind of test it slides less, turns more sharply, and recovers gracefully, even at far higher speeds. Despite all the 'best effort' engineering in a modern SUV, what can improve physical agility? Is this level of control all you need to avoid a piece of debris on the highway, or someone making a mistake in front, or in the lane next to you… etc. Think of the near misses you might've had in a normal car. What would have happened?

          But @Spaceback, since you raise ANCAP testing:

          1. ANCAP test procedures do not measure a vehicles actual safety. They only measure safety in 2 particular scenarios, front and side impact. These cannot be used to compare vehicles across categories, as propensity to crash, and the way each category crashes, differ wildly.

          E.g. Imagine two vehicles with an ANCAP safety of 5 such as a VW Toureg or a Range Rover vs a Mazda 2.

          Now, crash test the two head-on. Who takes the brunt of the impact injured most?

          To measure avoidance though, you would have to do something like this; a 110kmh/h test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuUBeJSYg4o.

          This is why 4WD enthusiasts fit roll cages, not just crash testers.

          Stability Control only helps up to the loss of traction. Yes it helps you to avoid something, but once too late and the tyres are sliding, your momentum is what counts. Physics takes control.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExQUGk12S8U

          ANCAP propaganda is everywhere, the auto industry never stops using it to sell new models. And now they are selling an entirely new and lucrative segment to every man, woman and child in this world. This benefits the safety authorities too, as they make careers, as well as money, out of testing these products with their industry buddies.

          All they do after all are 2 very basic tests
          http://www.ancap.com.au/crash-testing-explained

          The result is that consumers get more and more cheap bandages designed to fool these tests.

          Cars still cost a lot: Raw material cost of a car is always around $600 https://jalopnik.com/the-fascinating-company-that-tears-cars…. Why should the consumer pay $30k? We've been making millions of cars with combustion engines for a century. This is (partly) why:

          We now get:
          An Air bag for front passenger (Early crash tests)
          Antis skid, slide and traction controls (moose/elk testing)
          More than one airbag per front passengers, and seat belt tensioners (ANCAP)
          Frontal impact protection. (later ANCAP)
          Air bags for rear passengers (later ANCAP)

          With the increased frontal impact protection regulations in 2000, car's had to be made stronger and heavier at the front. The added metal (almost the cheapest raw material they have) made them less efficient and cumbersome. Emissions regulations also tightened, and they added smarts and gear ratios to make them use less fuel. As if by magic, economy ratings became more of a lie- such great 'close collaboration' between industry and goverment resulted in years of deception and concealament; Dieselgate. Mitsygate, Daimlergate… all had stepped up their efforts to fool the regulators, before eventually being caught for one of their scams.

          And a year later, they're still at it, putting monkeys in gas chambers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkatIgyBqw0

          And using ANCAP to sell dangerous vehicles that are getting impossible to see out of, or see around on the road.

          AND instead of a cheaper and better commodity product, made locally to each market, we are only get outdated, old technology, environmentally catastrophic production by robots and the cheapest labour in megafactories situated in places the consumers cannot see the waste pouring out.

          AND we pay more (compared to wages). Servicing is up. Spare parts double and double again. More and more dodgy components and recalls… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzrefFmsLNg

          Spaceback I don't know how you keep the faith! I hope you get well paid!

        • resisting the urge on 07/02/2018 - 12:29

          @whooah1979: Just sayin'

          it isn't the SUV or the car that causes the roll, it is just physics:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Yvroi8CYs

        • resisting the urge on 07/02/2018 - 15:43

          @Spackbace: Why are they rolling all over the place then?

          OK so SUVs may be easy to roll like 4WDs but a study of mostly 4WDs and people movers does not prove your assertion. The study covers 4WDs and people movers on the road to 2007; These kind of SUVs would have made up a very small number in crash results in their dataset.

          Besides I know you are missing the point somehow because I've seen more than a few SUVs roll in Oz, Europe, the US on roads with my own eyes. And I don't drive that much. They do it slowly, at speed, maneuvering in carparks, on slippery roads as well as in the dry. And for some reason, every roll I've seen in the last 5 years a least has been an SUV.

          Stability control can't save you from rolling in so many real-world scenarios:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwbPNauF900
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2pZ6PEIEWQ
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW-cuOUaog0
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4tlqoG0UAw
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK3YCzJYPTk
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcZzTSZNwpg
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlGftJYY-uA
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqy6Y6vSLo
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5bSETEI-Q0

          ESC just stops you losing control in situations where you may over-react. It doesn't stop you rolling, it hopefully reduces the chance of hitting something or going sideways. Once you are out of control ESC is useless. Selling them by claiming ESC stops roll-overs is unproven theory, and given the average persons understanding of auto safety, is deceptive.

          Mistakes, lack of experience and stupidity cause roll-overs.

          Furthermore, using ANCAP safety ratings to sell taller vehicles, let alone comparing ratings across categories, is outright deception given the understanding and perspective of to the average buyer. They should have warnings IMHO.

          Even a low slung car can roll, after all:
          Non-SUV, low speed roll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sbNBZvSx_A

          So much fun to watch, but not to be inside.
          Why is is important? Check out the interior view at 4:05: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nxXYExhNEE

          @Spackbase; No evidence supports your assertions. Have you driven an SUV through a set of those cones at 110mph to compare it to a balanced road car, or been there when they try? They do roll them trying to make them pass these tests… all the time. With pro drivers…

          Why the lack of evidence?
          We're talking about a new vehicle class designed as a front drive platform, then raised and modified to have part-time rear drive as an option, yet marketed to novice and short-distance drivers. And who will pay for such a study before the carnage forces it?

          To take a quote from the monash report that contradicts your 'conclusion':
          "The results overall warn that parents who are 4WD owners – and, to a lesser extent, owners of People Movers – need to be wary of allowing their novice family members to use such vehicles (keeping in mind that for young drivers, regular cars present significantly less rollover risk than 4WDs and people movers)"

          Stability controls only affect the forces in the tyres- except the expensive ones which control suspension too. They make the car feel safer than it is, and encourage bad driving in drivers unfamiliar with the operation of a normal vehicle by supporting lunacy up to the point of a skid. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6FcwLOXvsw

          Chassis engineers combine ESC with massive amounts of deliberate understeer to prevent rollover. It is s so bad in most that they regularly fail the moose/elk testing even when they are designed for it. (Results are all over the web showing them blowing out all the cones or swerving totally out of control.

          Yes normal vehicles can be bad at it too, but with them it is just bad engineering, not tyre size and bad physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR9FDG4VNbY
          Apparently Hyundai have now hired a senior BMW guy to find solutions to their handling challenges.

          The only conclusion possible here is that rolling any car is easy. Making it 10mm higher, let alone 100mm as some are, just makes it a hell of a lot easier to do, and will turn your accident from a simple problem into the worst possible kind.

    • Sunshines bright on 06/02/2018 - 20:50

      Can you recommend a car with a high center of gravity that is not an SUV?
      I am short and my Honda Civic has me almost sitting on the ground, yes I can move the seat up so I can see over the steering wheel but I still manage to bump those corners when I make a sharp turn and bump curbs too since I cannot see where the car ends and the road begins.

      • resisting the urge on 07/02/2018 - 12:48

        Many Hondas sit you low which is why they drive well, some say 'like a go-cart'

        My advice would be a bit left of field. Don't buy a car to suit your size, because they are made to suit as many sizes as possible, and none do a well at the extremes.

        1. Realise that all your time driving cars you've been driving in the wrong position because all have provided a pretty awful compromises in safety and positioning. Think about the best position, one where you can see and are in best physical control. Expect this perfect position to feel weird, and even be uncomfortable until you get used to it. No race car drivers feels comfortable in practice or race, but they are in control and they are safe, so they just get used to it :-)

        2. Find someone that can install a special seat. Maybe another member can suggest better, but a rally/racing workshop can do this for you as a one-off. Anywhere that they build real racing cars is likely somewhere that can help. You could ask one of the racing teams. There are also some retail shops that do it. 4WDs especially, a lot of people do this when they are large, rather than small and have to drive a lot. But, how well they understand fitment with you is critical, not just technical capability- so make sure they have experience doing this, or make a big effort to guide them in terms of what will work for you rather than the drivers they might be used to fitting.

        3. Buy a nice seat to suit your body shape. You can use it a long time, imagine for life- because you simply have it fitted to each car you own. Perhaps ask a professional driver what they think about ways you can find the best position in a seat you like.

        One premium brand to look at is Recaro, which are available in different sizes from Dealers. Any seat should be be bought to work with your car's seat belt (especially position and tensions) both when putting it on and off, and in a collision. There are other brands you can look at. Beware that most are racing seats of some kind and hard core ones focus on very high levels of safety so their design may require using a racing harness instead of a seatbelt, which is too much hassle in a road car, so you will need to compromise on restraint and find a seat that gives medium protection/more versatility in daily use. Not all are compatible, so start with your restraint, then your seat and finding the perfect position.

  • Pip Y on 06/02/2018 - 08:54

    not a very good comparison like comparing apples to kiwifruit
    not in the same class ;)

  • SnoozeAndLose on 06/02/2018 - 09:18
    +1

    When I deciding to buy a Mazda Over Suzuki, the maintenance is the biggest factor.

    I have consulted few mechanic and ask them for opinion, the conclusion was Suzuki always has little problem for the life of the car, bit here and there.

    They all suggested Mazda in term of reliably, comfort, Maintenance and resell value. Mazda CX 5 is quite common and part is cheap and easy to obtain.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join