Mazda5 1.6D Sport (2010) review
by David Finlay (1 July 2011)
With its new 5 MPV, Mazda has done much the same thing as it did a few years ago, in more extreme form, with the CX-7 SUV. The original CX-7 had a 256bhp 2.3-litre turbo petrol engine, and although it was endearingly bonkers there was a sense that a turbo diesel would have been much more sensible for that kind of car. It took two years for Mazda to get round to fitting one, and nowadays the only CX-7 you can buy in this country is a diesel.
The latest 5 arrived on the market with a choice of 1.8 and 2.0 petrol engines - again, no diesel - and although I can't speak for the 1.8 (not having tried it yet) I found during a recent test that the 2.0 was very peculiar. It has a decent amount of power, but only if you rev it far higher than normal road driving practice would suggest, so in normal circumstances it feels remarkably gutless.
When driving the 2.0 I practically sobbed - sobbed, I tell you - at the fact that Mazda didn't offer a diesel alternative. But now it does. It's a 114bhp 1.6-litre unit which was introduced earlier this year to the Mazda3, and the 54.3mpg combined fuel economy and 138g/km CO2 emissions it officially provides are several leagues further along the path of righteousness than either of the petrol engines can manage.
Admittedly, it's also a lot less powerful. In terms of both top speed and 0-62mph time, the petrol models leave this one standing. Well, phooey. I didn't drive the 5 flat-out at any time during this test, and I rather doubt that any owner would either. This car has as about as much performance as you need, and when you need it, it's there - press the accelerator pedal and you accelerate straight away, without having to shift down a gear or two first as you do in the notionally much faster 2.0.
You do have to pay for all this. 1.6-litre diesel 5s are £1295 more expensive than their two-litre petrol equivalents (the sole 1.8 version has its own trim level, so it isn't directly comparable). The secondhand MPV market being what it is, I'm reasonably confident that you would get your £1295 back at resale time, and even if you didn't, the 5 is so much nicer to live with in diesel form that I'd consider it worth the premium anyway.
I've concentrated so much on the diesel engine partly because I think it's such an important addition to the range and partly because the 5 has already been discussed at some length in Tom Stewart's launch report and my review of the 2.0. If you can't spare the time to click on those links, the other salient points are that the 5 benefits greatly from sliding rear doors, can carry seven human beings but realistically only four adults, and, rather impressively, has a maximum load volume of 1566 litres if you remove all but the front two seats and pack it up to roof level.
Update (13 July 2011): Having now driven a 5 diesel for a longer period I stand by the remarks made above. A subsequent point is that the diesel has slightly better ride quality than the 2.0 petrol, though other medium-sized MPVs are smoother still.
There are very few cars in which I can match the official mpg figure without bursting a blood vessel, and the 5 diesel isn't one of them. But I managed around 45mpg (sufficient for a range of 570 miles or so, according to the trip computer) and was more than happy with that.
More than happy, too, with the performance. This 5 isn't excitingly quick, but it doesn't need to be, and it doesn't need any more power than the diesel engine provides either.
Add new comment