Jump to content
William Maley

Review: 2016 Buick Cascada Premium & Chevrolet Camaro SS Convertible

Recommended Posts

Summertime means something different for everyone. For some, it’s time to enjoy the sunshine and warm weather. For others, it is the time to take that trip you have been thinking about for awhile. If you’re an automotive writer like myself, summertime means convertible season. The feeling of having the roof down and enjoying the expanded view of the sky is something quite special. This summer saw two of GM’s latest convertibles roll into the Cheers & Gears’ Detroit garage, the new Buick Cascada and recently redesigned Chevrolet Camaro SS convertible. How did these two droptops fare in the summer heat?

Exterior:

There is no denying the Opel/Vauxhall roots of the Buick Cascada as it is just basically the Cascada sold in Europe with Buick basing. But that isn’t a bad thing since the Cascada is handsome for the most part. The front features a new grille design and headlights with LED accents. The side profile reveals short overhangs for the front and rear. These overhangs make the side look somewhat oddly proportioned. A set 20-inch wheels come standard. Around back, a long chrome bar runs along the trunk lid into the taillights. 

On the opposite end is the Chevrolet Camaro. If you’re looking for something quiet and doesn’t bring attention, then maybe you should pass on it. Redesigned last year, Chevrolet retained the Camaro’s basic profile with its sharp lines and rounded corners. But major work was done on the front and rear ends. The front features a narrow top grille and slim headlights. A massive grille sits underneath between a set of deep cuts into the front bumper. The back has been cleaned up with a new trunk lid design, rectangular headlights, and quad-exhaust tips. 

One item both the Cascada and Camaro share is a fabric top. Putting the top down or up takes under 20 seconds for both vehicles. With the tops down, both vehicles look quite good. But put the tops up and the Cascada is the better looking of the two. I can’t put my finger as to why, but I think it deals with how the Cascada has a little bit more glass than the Camaro. 

Interior:

Unfortunately, both the Cascada and Camaro fall on their face when it comes to the interior for different reasons.

In the case of the Cascada, it features the dash from the outgoing Verano and Encore. This reveals that the Cascada is older despite what Buick may have you think. For example, the center stack is laden with buttons and it will take you a few moments to find the specific one you’re looking for. Not helping is the Cascada using GM’s last-generation infotainment system. While the system is easy to use, the interface is looking very dated. It would have been nice if Buick could have slipped in the dash from the updated Encore into the Cascade, but that would have likely introduced more problems than solutions.

On the upside, the Cascada’s interior is well-built and features decent quality materials. A fair amount of dash and door panels feature some soft touch material. The front seats are comfortable for short and long distance trips. Power adjustments for the driver’s seat make it easy to find a position that works. One touch Buick deserves applause for is the seat belt presenter. The front seat belts are nestled away when the Cascada is turned off to make it easier to get in and out of the back seat. But when you start it up, the presenter extends for both the driver and passenger to buckle in. The back seat provides enough space for kids or small adults. Taller folks like myself will find minimal legroom. With the top up, anyone sitting back here will feel very confined. With the top down, this feeling goes away. 

Step into the 2016 Camaro Convertible’s interior and you’ll find the same retro ideas from the previous model such as the shape of the dash and circular vents. But Chevrolet improved the overall usability of the Camaro’s interior. For example, the retro-inspired engine information gauges that were placed ahead of the shifter in the previous generation are gone. In its place are a set of air vents that also control the temperature of the climate control system. 

Our tester featured the optional Chevrolet MyLink system with navigation. We know we’re beating a dead horse with our complaints with MyLink such as a slow response when going from various screens and recognizing devices plugged into the USB ports. But you would think that GM would maybe issue an update or something by now to fix some of these issues? Like other Chevrolet models we have driven this year, the Camaro’s MyLink system comes with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay compatibility. We tried CarPlay and found it to be easier to use than most automaker’s infotainment systems. But, we had issues with apps crashing and the system not always recognizing our phone.

The front bucket seats are quite comfortable and will hold you in if you decide to tackle that special road aggressively. A set of power adjustments makes it easy for anyone to find a comfortable position. The back seat is best reserved for small kids or extra storage as legroom is nonexistent. You would think that the Camaro Convertible wouldn’t feel as claustrophobic as the coupe since you can put the top down, but it isn’t. Sitting in the Camaro convertible with the top down, I felt like I was being contained in a small box. Blame the high belt line for this.

Powertrain:

Power for the Buick Cascada comes from a turbocharged 1.6L four-cylinder with 200 horsepower and 207 pound-feet of torque. This is paired with a six-speed automatic. The figures are impressive for this engine. But drop it into the Cascada and it is quite disappointing. Performance is very lethargic as the engine has to overcome the nearly two tons of Cascada. It feels like an eternity getting up to speed and you’ll find yourself putting the pedal to the floor to get the vehicle moving at a sufficient rate. EPA figures for the Cascada stand at 20 City/27 Highway/23 Combined. My average for the week landed at 21 mpg. 

The Camaro’s engine lineup includes a 3.6L V6, turbocharged 2.0L four, and our SS tester’s 6.2L V8. The V8 pumps out 455 horsepower and 455 pound-feet of torque. We had the optional eight-speed automatic, but you can get a six-speed manual. The V8 makes the Camaro Convertible stupidly fun. I found myself wanting to roll down the window at a stop light to tell the vehicle next to me “let me play you the song of my people” before stomping on the accelerator and having the V8 roar into life as the light turns green. The engine will pin you in your seat if you floor it and there is a never-ending stream of power throughout the rev range. A nice touch is the optional dual-mode exhaust system that only amplifies the noises of the V8. The eight-speed automatic is ofine around town and on the highway but stumbles somewhat in enthusiastic driving where it takes a moment to downshift when slowing down. Fuel economy for the Camaro SS Convertible stands at 17 City/28 Highway/20 Combined. I got about 19 mpg during my week-long test.

Ride & Handling:

Describing the ride and handling characteristics of the Cascada can be summed up in one word; smooth. Buick’s engineers tuned the Cascada’s suspension to deliver an almost magic carpet ride. Even with a set of twenty-inch wheels as standard equipment, the Cascada is able to deal with rough roads with no issues. Around corners, the Cascada feels planted and body roll is kept in check. But don’t plan on doing anything enthusiastic with it. The steering is a little bit too light for it. Drive it like a relaxed cruiser and you’ll enjoy it. Wind buffeting is minimal with either the windows rolled up or down.

The Camaro Convertible is shocking as to how well it handles. Part of this comes down to optional Magnetic Ride Control (MRC) system which limits body roll. Chevrolet engineers also worked on improving the structural rigidity of the Camaro. The combination makes the convertible just as good as the coupe in corners. Direction change is fast and there is plenty of grip coming from the meaty tires. Where the Camaro Convertible falters is the ride quality. The SS comes with a set of twenty-inch wheels. While they do look sharp, it makes for a somewhat unbearable ride. Bumps of any size are clearly transmitted to those sitting inside. MRC does its best to provide a comfortable ride, but it might be worth considering going down to a smaller wheel to improve the ride. Wind buffeting is kept in check with the windows up or down.

Price:

The 2016 Buick Cascada starts at $33,065 for the base model. Our up-level Premium starts at $36,065 and comes to an as-tested price of $37,385 thanks to the vehicle being finished in an optional blue color. You really don’t get much in terms of additional features when compared to the base Cascada aside from some additional safety features - front and rear parking sensors, lane departure warning, and forward collision alert - and automatic wipers. Also for that amount of cash, you could with the Audi A3 cabriolet which offers a slightly more premium interior. But you would lose out on the larger back seat of the Cascada. You would be better off with the base Cascada.

If you have your heart set on a Camaro Convertible, be ready to shell out the cash. The 2016 Camaro 2SS Convertible carries a base sticker of $48,300 - $6,005 more expensive than the coupe. Add on the list of options fitted to our tester such as the eight-speed automatic, magnetic ride control, and dual-mode exhaust system and you’ll end up with an as-tested price of $54,075. I’ll give you a moment to pick yourself up from the floor due to the price shock. The Camaro is nice car all-around, but is it really worth dropping $54,000?! We’re not so sure. 

Verdict:

Both of vehicles have issues that don’t make them as appealing. The Cascada’s engine either needs to be kicked to the curb or head off to the gym to get a bit more power. It would nice if Buick could also figure how to put in the dash from the updated Encore into the Cascada, although that might prove to be an engineering nightmare and something that would be better suited for the next-generation model. The Camaro Convertible’s price tag will make a number of people and their bank accounts cry. Also for being a convertible, the Camaro still feels as claustrophobic as the coupe.

But when you drop the tops in both models, you forget all about the issues. Instead, you begin to take in the sky and rush of the wind. This makes you remember why you bought a convertible, to enjoy the feeling of openness. It is only when you put the top back up that makes you wonder if you can live with the issues. In the case of the Cascada, the answer is no. The Camaro is a maybe.
 

 

Disclaimer: General Motors Provided the Cascada and Camaro; Insurance, and One Tank of Gas

Year: 2016
Make: Buick
Model: Cascada
Trim: Premium
Engine: Turbocharged 1.6L SIDI DOHC with VVT
Driveline: Front-Wheel Drive, Six-Speed Automatic
Horsepower @ RPM: 200 @ 5,500
Torque @ RPM: 207 @ 1,800 - 4,500, 221 @ 2,200 - 4,000 (with overboost)
Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 20/27/23
Curb Weight: 3,979 lbs
Location of Manufacture: Gliwice, Poland
Base Price: $36,065
As Tested Price: $37,385 (Includes $925.00 Destination Charge)

Options:
Deep Sky Metallic - $395.00

Year: 2016
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Camaro Convertible
Trim: SS
Engine: 6.2L VVT DI V8
Driveline: Rear-Wheel Drive, Eight-Speed Automatic
Horsepower @ RPM: 455 @ 6,000
Torque @ RPM: 455 @ 4,400
Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 17/28/20
Curb Weight: 3,966 lbs
Location of Manufacture: Lansing, MI
Base Price: $48,300
As Tested Price: $54,075 (Includes $995.00 Destination Charge)

Options:
Magnetic Ride Control - $1,695.00
Eight-Speed Automatic - $1,495.00
Dual-Mode Exhaust - $895.00
Chevrolet MyLink with Navigation - $495.00
20" 5-Split Spoke Aluminum Wheels - $200.00


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe GM will fix all issues with the Cascada either next year or the year after.  That 4cyl has to go though, since it is as weak as any motor as they always push in displacement-constrained European markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the two the Camaro woudl interest me the most, but I much prefer the Camaro as a coupe.  I have no bias against convertibles, but with both the Camaro and Mustang, the proportions of the current convertible seem slightly off visually.  I am kind of glad in a way that the MOPAR boys have not followed suit and built a Challenger convertible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cascada, being Astra based, should naturally get the new Astra's dashboard. 

cq5dam.web.1280.1280 (3).jpeg

 

The 1.6T is a perfectly fine engine... it's just not enough for this particular application. I would have loved to see this engine as a mid-level engine in the Verano, an optional engine in the Encore, and possibly even the base engine in the Regal.  In a car that isn't so heavy, it reportedly gets fantastic fuel economy and the power band is excellent. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The Cascada, being Astra based, should naturally get the new Astra's dashboard. 

cq5dam.web.1280.1280 (3).jpeg

 

The 1.6T is a perfectly fine engine... it's just not enough for this particular application. I would have loved to see this engine as a mid-level engine in the Verano, an optional engine in the Encore, and possibly even the base engine in the Regal.  In a car that isn't so heavy, it reportedly gets fantastic fuel economy and the power band is excellent. 

I do like that Dashboard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

The new Camaro pricing has gotten awful ambitious. 

I think GM is showing a change of attitude.... they care less about volumes and more about profit. They feel they can set the price, and if they sell fewer of them (them being just about any model except full-size trucks), then they are fine with it.  They're no longer building cars just to keep the lights on like they were 10 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend on another site(facebook) son just bought a 2016 or 2017 1SS with 10k off sticker, walked out for only 28k. Freakin' great deal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I think GM is showing a change of attitude.... they care less about volumes and more about profit. They feel they can set the price, and if they sell fewer of them (them being just about any model except full-size trucks), then they are fine with it.  They're no longer building cars just to keep the lights on like they were 10 years ago. 

Yes, but it is obviously costing them sales. Neither Chevy store I've worked at in the last 2 years sell Camaros for crap. Not even much interest in them. There's no markup in them. The incentives are terrible. The back seat is now almost unusable. The visibility is still poor. And Ford is selling Mustangs hand over fist. And I'm a GM guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Yes, but it is obviously costing them sales. Neither Chevy store I've worked at in the last 2 years sell Camaros for crap. Not even much interest in them. There's no markup in them. The incentives are terrible. The back seat is now almost unusable. The visibility is still poor. And Ford is selling Mustangs hand over fist. And I'm a GM guy.

But are they now more profitable for GM even at the lower rate of sales?  That's the point I was trying to make.  If GM can get $5,000 profit per car (completely made up number) selling 50,000 of them a year, but would have to mark it down $4,000 to sell 70,000 of them a year... where is the financial incentive to do so?  They make more money selling fewer cars at a higher price. 

They are also likely making more per unit than Ford because of the fact they are using a platform shared by 2 other vehicles (both of which are in the premium segment), so the amortization costs of the platform will be much lower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But are they now more profitable for GM even at the lower rate of sales?  That's the point I was trying to make.  If GM can get $5,000 profit per car (completely made up number) selling 50,000 of them a year, but would have to mark it down $4,000 to sell 70,000 of them a year... where is the financial incentive to do so?  They make more money selling fewer cars at a higher price. 

They are also likely making more per unit than Ford because of the fact they are using a platform shared by 2 other vehicles (both of which are in the premium segment), so the amortization costs of the platform will be much lower. 

Therefore the prices could be more aggressive, while GM still made money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But are they now more profitable for GM even at the lower rate of sales?  That's the point I was trying to make.  If GM can get $5,000 profit per car (completely made up number) selling 50,000 of them a year, but would have to mark it down $4,000 to sell 70,000 of them a year... where is the financial incentive to do so?  They make more money selling fewer cars at a higher price. 

They are also likely making more per unit than Ford because of the fact they are using a platform shared by 2 other vehicles (both of which are in the premium segment), so the amortization costs of the platform will be much lower. 

That entire platform has sold less than the mustang last I looked. So while it gets spread out it still sells less units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

That entire platform has sold less than the mustang last I looked. So while it gets spread out it still sells less units. 

 ATS + CTS + Camaro - yes at the moment that is correct.  As of August they are at 72,963 while the Mustang alone is 80,829.   But Cadillac is getting some of the highest transaction prices in its respective classes (even higher than BMW), so that means they are pulling in much higher transaction prices than Mustang. The mustang, quite honestly, is often to be found as an option at the rental car counter while I can never seem to find a Camaro.  That isn't a judgement against the car (I actually quite like the Mustang overall), it's just a reflection of what's behind the sales numbers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 2 years, 3 max as they get their special models out, I believe they will have to start piling incentives on the Camaro just to move it.  I hate that as it is an excellent driving car, but it also has a lot of little issues such as visibility.  Looking at coupes and particularly if I was in the market for a turbo 4 or 6, I would look for a gently used ATS coupe.  My brother got a loaded 15 ATS could for the low 30s with only 4900 miles on the clock.  It was an AWD with the V6 too with driver assist and ever option Cadillac offers.  That is slightly optioned 1LT Camaro territory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Cascada, why not put the 2.0T in there?  It would probably get better FE too as it shouldn't have to stay quite as far in the boost all the time to keep it going.  The 1.6T would be reat in a maybe a sporty Cruise or even Sonic model.  I agree with the Encore (and Trax) too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Today's Birthdays

    1. schuby87
      schuby87
      Age: 31
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Tesla's production hell seems to be only getting worse than better. Various issues at their Freemont plant has caused the automaker to push back their goal of producing 5,000 Model 3s from late last year to June of this year. This, in turn, has caused some holders of Model 3 reservations to have their order pushed back to 2019.
      “As we work hard to meet demand, we wanted to let you know that your estimated delivery timing has been adjusted to a slightly later window,” Tesla said in an email to customers.
      According to Bloomberg, the new date depends on when the reservation was placed and what model was chosen. Tesla is trying to get the more expensive long-range battery model out first before starting production of the cheaper standard battery model. This has buyers of the latter model worried as they might not get the full $7,500 tax credit. The credit begins to phase out once an automaker has built 200,000, something Tesla expects to hit sometime this year.
      The move has caused some reservation holders to take to various forums and Twitter to complain. Others are deciding to jump ship and buy a Chevrolet Bolt. Reuters reports that Chevrolet dealers in California are seeing a noticeable increase of Tesla shoppers interested in the Bolt.
      “We’re getting the Tesla people who wanted their Model 3. We ask them, ‘What other cars are you interested in?’ They’re mostly Tesla. But they want the car now. They don’t want to wait,” said Yev Kaplinskiy of Stewart Chevrolet.
      Kaplinskiy said they sold 15 Bolts last weekend.
      Chevrolet is taking advantage of the delay by emailing some prospective buyers this week with the message of, “Bolt EV: Now available.”
      Source: Bloomberg, Reuters

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Tesla's production hell seems to be only getting worse than better. Various issues at their Freemont plant has caused the automaker to push back their goal of producing 5,000 Model 3s from late last year to June of this year. This, in turn, has caused some holders of Model 3 reservations to have their order pushed back to 2019.
      “As we work hard to meet demand, we wanted to let you know that your estimated delivery timing has been adjusted to a slightly later window,” Tesla said in an email to customers.
      According to Bloomberg, the new date depends on when the reservation was placed and what model was chosen. Tesla is trying to get the more expensive long-range battery model out first before starting production of the cheaper standard battery model. This has buyers of the latter model worried as they might not get the full $7,500 tax credit. The credit begins to phase out once an automaker has built 200,000, something Tesla expects to hit sometime this year.
      The move has caused some reservation holders to take to various forums and Twitter to complain. Others are deciding to jump ship and buy a Chevrolet Bolt. Reuters reports that Chevrolet dealers in California are seeing a noticeable increase of Tesla shoppers interested in the Bolt.
      “We’re getting the Tesla people who wanted their Model 3. We ask them, ‘What other cars are you interested in?’ They’re mostly Tesla. But they want the car now. They don’t want to wait,” said Yev Kaplinskiy of Stewart Chevrolet.
      Kaplinskiy said they sold 15 Bolts last weekend.
      Chevrolet is taking advantage of the delay by emailing some prospective buyers this week with the message of, “Bolt EV: Now available.”
      Source: Bloomberg, Reuters
    • By William Maley
      Mazda has a big dream for itself. It is trying to stand out from the competition by becoming more premium. The first steps of this process took place last year with a refreshed Mazda6 sedan. As we noted in our review at the time, the 6 made great strides in improving noise isolation and material quality. Now, the premium dream is coming more into focus with the redesigned CX-5. Mazda is making some big promises with claims of improved refinement and an upscale look and feel for the interior. We spent a week in a 2017 CX-5 Grand Touring to see if those promises are met.
      The past few years have seen Mazda designing some distinctive looking vehicles and the redesigned CX-5 is no exception. The overall shape is an evolution of the first-generation model with smoother lines and more curves. The small details such as the wider front grille, slim LED headlights, 19-inch aluminum wheels, and a rear tailgate design similar to the Mazda3 really set the CX-5 apart from the competition. The only item that slightly ruins the design is the oversized Mazda emblem on the front grille. This is due to the emblem holding the hardware for various active safety equipment such as the radar cruise control.
      Moving inside, it is clear Mazda has put a lot of effort in making the CX-5 a cut above the rest. The modern design and appointments such as the stitching on the dash and bright trim around the vents make for a very classy cabin. Most materials are soft-touch which add another level of the premium-ness Mazda is pushing. Controls fall readily to hand for both driver and front-seat passenger. 
      The front seats in the Grand Touring come wrapped in leather upholstery and feature power adjustments and heat. It would be nice if Mazda had the option of ventilation to prop up their premium image, but we’re nitpicking here. The seats offer excellent support over long trips and plenty of head and legroom. Back seat passengers will have no complaints as head and legroom are very competitive with other models, and there is the option of heated seats. Cargo space is where the CX-5 falters. Open the tailgate to be greeted with 30.9 cubic feet behind the rear seats. Fold the seats to expand space to 59.6 cubic feet. It pales in comparison to the likes of the Honda CR-V (39.2 and 75.8 cubic feet) and Volkswagen’s redesigned Tiguan (37.6 and 73.5 cubic feet).
      The Grand Touring comes with a 7-inch touchscreen with the Mazda Connect infotainment system and a control knob. It does take some time to learn the various idiosyncrasies such as the touchscreen functions being locked out when the vehicle is on the move and having to jump through various menus to switch between various audio sources. Once you get the hang of the system, it becomes easy to use. Mazda Connect is beginning to show its age with the dark color palate, somewhat dated navigation interface, and the lack of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto integration. 
      Mazda only offers the 2.5L Skyactiv-G four-cylinder engine with 187 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque. This is paired with a six-speed automatic and the choice of either front-wheel or Mazda’s i-Active all-wheel drive. The engine is where Mazda’s premium image takes a serious hit. Around town, the engine is very peppy and is willing to get speed quickly. But the powertrain feels somewhat winded when power was needed to make a pass or merge on an expressway. Mazda has been working on a diesel engine option that was expected to arrive in the second half of last year, but hasn’t come out at the time of this writing. A fix that I’m willing to propose is to offer the turbocharged 2.5L four from the CX-9. The six-speed automatic goes about its business with crisp and smooth shifts.
      Fuel economy for the CX-5 AWD is rated by the EPA at 23 City/29 Highway/26 Combined. My average for the week landed around 25.7 mpg.
      We have praised the previous-generation Mazda CX-5 as being one best driving crossovers. The new one continues that with agile handling and excellent body control. The steering provides excellent feedback and weight when driving down a winding road. Mazda has fitted their G-Vectoring Control that monitors steering and throttle input, and will reduce engine power to improve overall handling. But as I noted in my Mazda6 quick drive last year, I couldn’t tell if the system made a difference or not. The same is true when it comes to the CX-5. This sporting edge does mean the ride quality is slightly rough with a fair number of road imperfections being transmitted inside. The 19-inch wheels don’t help with this and it might be worth considering dropping down to the Touring for the smaller 17-inch wheels. At least Mazda is continuing to improve road and wind noise isolation. Compared to the last CX-5 I drove, there is a reduction in road and wind noise inside. It is almost as quiet as what you might find in a luxury model.
      If I was to recommend a CX-5 for most buyers in 2017, that would be the Grand Touring. While I find the price to be slightly high and the 19-inch wheels make the ride uncomfortable, it was the only way to get a number of active safety features such as radar cruise control and the smart city brake support. Thankfully for 2018, Mazda has migrated a number of those features down to the Touring and Sport trims. If you’re considering a 2018 CX-5, the Touring is your best bet as you’ll get most everything on the Grand Touring at a price that won’t break the bank.
      Has Mazda accomplished their hopes of becoming more premium? The answer is a bit mixed. For the positives, Mazda has been making great strides in improving the noise isolation in their vehicles and the new CX-5 is no exception. There is also the distinctive exterior shape, noticeable improvement in material quality, and the sharp driving dynamics that have made the CX-5 a darling of the automotive press. The negatives on the CX-5 include a slightly stiff ride, smallish cargo area, and certain missing features that would really help with the premium image Mazda is trying to project. But the biggest issue has to be the engine. While 2.5 Skyactiv-G is perfectly adequate around town, it really struggles when more speed is called for. Dropping either the long-delayed diesel or the CX-9’s turbo-four would really do wonders and help foster the premium image.
      The 2017 Mazda CX-5 is so close to the premium edge. It just needs a few more tweaks to reach it.
      Disclaimer: Mazda Provided the CX-5, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2017
      Make: Mazda
      Model: CX-5
      Trim: Grand Touring AWD
      Engine: 2.5L Skyactiv-G Four-Cylinder
      Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic
      Horsepower @ RPM: 187 @ 6,000
      Torque @ RPM: 186 @ 4,000 
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 23/29/26
      Curb Weight: 3,693 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Hiroshima, Japan
      Base Price: $30,695
      As Tested Price: $34,380 (Includes $940.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Premium Package - $1,830.00
      Soul Red - $595.00
      Retractable Cargo Cover $250.00
      Cargo Mat - $70.00

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Mazda has a big dream for itself. It is trying to stand out from the competition by becoming more premium. The first steps of this process took place last year with a refreshed Mazda6 sedan. As we noted in our review at the time, the 6 made great strides in improving noise isolation and material quality. Now, the premium dream is coming more into focus with the redesigned CX-5. Mazda is making some big promises with claims of improved refinement and an upscale look and feel for the interior. We spent a week in a 2017 CX-5 Grand Touring to see if those promises are met.
      The past few years have seen Mazda designing some distinctive looking vehicles and the redesigned CX-5 is no exception. The overall shape is an evolution of the first-generation model with smoother lines and more curves. The small details such as the wider front grille, slim LED headlights, 19-inch aluminum wheels, and a rear tailgate design similar to the Mazda3 really set the CX-5 apart from the competition. The only item that slightly ruins the design is the oversized Mazda emblem on the front grille. This is due to the emblem holding the hardware for various active safety equipment such as the radar cruise control.
      Moving inside, it is clear Mazda has put a lot of effort in making the CX-5 a cut above the rest. The modern design and appointments such as the stitching on the dash and bright trim around the vents make for a very classy cabin. Most materials are soft-touch which add another level of the premium-ness Mazda is pushing. Controls fall readily to hand for both driver and front-seat passenger. 
      The front seats in the Grand Touring come wrapped in leather upholstery and feature power adjustments and heat. It would be nice if Mazda had the option of ventilation to prop up their premium image, but we’re nitpicking here. The seats offer excellent support over long trips and plenty of head and legroom. Back seat passengers will have no complaints as head and legroom are very competitive with other models, and there is the option of heated seats. Cargo space is where the CX-5 falters. Open the tailgate to be greeted with 30.9 cubic feet behind the rear seats. Fold the seats to expand space to 59.6 cubic feet. It pales in comparison to the likes of the Honda CR-V (39.2 and 75.8 cubic feet) and Volkswagen’s redesigned Tiguan (37.6 and 73.5 cubic feet).
      The Grand Touring comes with a 7-inch touchscreen with the Mazda Connect infotainment system and a control knob. It does take some time to learn the various idiosyncrasies such as the touchscreen functions being locked out when the vehicle is on the move and having to jump through various menus to switch between various audio sources. Once you get the hang of the system, it becomes easy to use. Mazda Connect is beginning to show its age with the dark color palate, somewhat dated navigation interface, and the lack of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto integration. 
      Mazda only offers the 2.5L Skyactiv-G four-cylinder engine with 187 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque. This is paired with a six-speed automatic and the choice of either front-wheel or Mazda’s i-Active all-wheel drive. The engine is where Mazda’s premium image takes a serious hit. Around town, the engine is very peppy and is willing to get speed quickly. But the powertrain feels somewhat winded when power was needed to make a pass or merge on an expressway. Mazda has been working on a diesel engine option that was expected to arrive in the second half of last year, but hasn’t come out at the time of this writing. A fix that I’m willing to propose is to offer the turbocharged 2.5L four from the CX-9. The six-speed automatic goes about its business with crisp and smooth shifts.
      Fuel economy for the CX-5 AWD is rated by the EPA at 23 City/29 Highway/26 Combined. My average for the week landed around 25.7 mpg.
      We have praised the previous-generation Mazda CX-5 as being one best driving crossovers. The new one continues that with agile handling and excellent body control. The steering provides excellent feedback and weight when driving down a winding road. Mazda has fitted their G-Vectoring Control that monitors steering and throttle input, and will reduce engine power to improve overall handling. But as I noted in my Mazda6 quick drive last year, I couldn’t tell if the system made a difference or not. The same is true when it comes to the CX-5. This sporting edge does mean the ride quality is slightly rough with a fair number of road imperfections being transmitted inside. The 19-inch wheels don’t help with this and it might be worth considering dropping down to the Touring for the smaller 17-inch wheels. At least Mazda is continuing to improve road and wind noise isolation. Compared to the last CX-5 I drove, there is a reduction in road and wind noise inside. It is almost as quiet as what you might find in a luxury model.
      If I was to recommend a CX-5 for most buyers in 2017, that would be the Grand Touring. While I find the price to be slightly high and the 19-inch wheels make the ride uncomfortable, it was the only way to get a number of active safety features such as radar cruise control and the smart city brake support. Thankfully for 2018, Mazda has migrated a number of those features down to the Touring and Sport trims. If you’re considering a 2018 CX-5, the Touring is your best bet as you’ll get most everything on the Grand Touring at a price that won’t break the bank.
      Has Mazda accomplished their hopes of becoming more premium? The answer is a bit mixed. For the positives, Mazda has been making great strides in improving the noise isolation in their vehicles and the new CX-5 is no exception. There is also the distinctive exterior shape, noticeable improvement in material quality, and the sharp driving dynamics that have made the CX-5 a darling of the automotive press. The negatives on the CX-5 include a slightly stiff ride, smallish cargo area, and certain missing features that would really help with the premium image Mazda is trying to project. But the biggest issue has to be the engine. While 2.5 Skyactiv-G is perfectly adequate around town, it really struggles when more speed is called for. Dropping either the long-delayed diesel or the CX-9’s turbo-four would really do wonders and help foster the premium image.
      The 2017 Mazda CX-5 is so close to the premium edge. It just needs a few more tweaks to reach it.
      Disclaimer: Mazda Provided the CX-5, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2017
      Make: Mazda
      Model: CX-5
      Trim: Grand Touring AWD
      Engine: 2.5L Skyactiv-G Four-Cylinder
      Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic
      Horsepower @ RPM: 187 @ 6,000
      Torque @ RPM: 186 @ 4,000 
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 23/29/26
      Curb Weight: 3,693 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Hiroshima, Japan
      Base Price: $30,695
      As Tested Price: $34,380 (Includes $940.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Premium Package - $1,830.00
      Soul Red - $595.00
      Retractable Cargo Cover $250.00
      Cargo Mat - $70.00
    • By William Maley
      Big January Gains for Chevrolet Crossovers and Trucks Drive GM Sales Increase
      Strong Start for Buick, Driven by Envision, LaCrosse Cadillac Escalade, ATS, XTS and XT5 Retail Sales up Sharply Commercial Deliveries Rise DETROIT — General Motors (NYSE: GM), which ended 2017 as the automaker with the fastest-growing crossover sales in the United States, today reported a 20 percent year-over-year gain in the segment in January, along with a 7 percent increase in truck deliveries. GM total sales in January totaled 198,548 units, up more than 1 percent.
      Demand for Chevrolet trucks and crossovers was very robust, helping the brand increase deliveries by 5 percent year over year:
      Chevrolet was the fastest-growing crossover brand of 2017, and January deliveries were up 40 percent. The all-new Equinox and Traverse, as well as the Trax and Bolt EV, all posted their best-ever January sales. Chevrolet’s unique three-truck pickup strategy delivered a 17 percent increase in deliveries, with the Colorado up 25 percent and the Silverado up 15 percent. It was the best January ever for Silverado crew cabs. Chevrolet Tahoe deliveries were up 22 percent. “All of our brands are building momentum in the industry’s hottest and most profitable segments,” said Kurt McNeil, U.S. vice president, Sales Operations. “Chevrolet led the growth of the small crossover segment with the Trax as well as the mid-pickup segment with the Colorado. Now, we have the all-new Equinox and Traverse delivering higher sales, share and transaction prices.”
      Buick and GMC
      Buick and GMC were major contributors to GM’s year-over-year growth in crossover sales and total sales. Buick also saw a major acceleration in LaCrosse deliveries, which contributed to a year-over-year sales increase of 4 percent for the brand.
      The GMC Terrain, which is all new for 2018, saw a 14 percent increase. The GMC Canyon posted a 5 percent gain. Buick Envision sales were up 14 percent for the vehicle’s best January yet.   Buick LaCrosse sales more than doubled to 3,006 units. Buick’s crossover momentum will continue to grow with greater availability of the redesigned Enclave, launched late last year, and the Regal TourX, which began arriving in dealerships in January.
      Cadillac
      Cadillac was strong in several segments, helping the brand earn a 9 percent increase in retail deliveries.
      Retail sales of the Escalade were up 12 percent year over year, the vehicle gained more than 2 points of retail segment share and ATPs rose by about $2,300. In addition, retail deliveries of the Cadillac XT5 crossover rose 9 percent, and the ATS and XTS were up 18 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Other GM Highlights (vs. 2017)
      Retail deliveries were down 2 percent and retail mix of total sales was 76 percent. Fleet sales were up 16 percent, with combined Commercial and Government deliveries up 44 percent and daily rental deliveries down 7 percent. GM’s incentive spending was 12.8 percent, down 1 point from a year ago, and down 2 points month over month, according to J.D. Power PIN estimates. Average transaction prices were up $1,270 year-over-year, according to J.D. Power PIN estimates.
  • My Clubs

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×