Trackday Diaries: In Which Our Author Falls in Love With a Cute-ute.

Jack Baruth
by Jack Baruth

Driving my old 993 to work at 5:30 this morning, listening to the blat of the Billy Boat exhaust competing with Corinne Bailey Rae’s sublime second album for my attention, I had a pair of random thoughts. First thought: I will never own a Ferrari, and that’s okay. This represents a sort of satori for me, because I’d always planned on buying a nice 575 or, resale and sense of aesthetics permitting, one of those awkward 612 Scags, after my all Porsches were paid off. The titles for said Porkers have been in my file cabinet for years now, but there’s no Memorandum Title for a long-nosed Italian next to them.

Second thought: I really, really, liked that CX-5 I drove two weeks ago.


I wonder if those two thoughts are related?

Regardless, something about the way I value and enjoy automobiles has changed. My desire to own the flashiest and sexiest whip I can (not quite) afford has been cauterized by endless exposure to “Cars and Coffee”, YouTube videos, and braying-donkey print-journos Facebook-bragging about selling their souls in exchange for temporary access to the transportation enjoyed daily by their betters. My notions of “fast” have been shattered by cars like Switzer’s thousand-horsepower GT-Rs and 997 Turbos. Fatherhood and occasional forays into performing music have given me new respect for something which can be parked on the street without concern. Racing in spec classes has led me to respect the rider, not the mount. The seemingly irrevocable decline of the American economy makes me wonder if it isn’t possible to consume a bit less and enjoy a bit more.

If the Ferrari 575 was the embodiment of my thirty-something philosophy — fast, brash, pedigreed, aggressive to a fault — then the Mazda CX-5 might just be my fortysomething philosophy embodied. It’s one of the few truly great cars I’ve driven since entering this business. How can a “cute-ute” with modest power and zero curb appeal be great?

Don’t worry, I’ll explain.

There’s a lot to be said about the CX-5’s “SKYACTIV” construction, its precise dimensions, its market positioning, and its competitive prospects. You’ll be able to find all of that in Brendan McAleer’s review, which should come out next week. If you’re in a hurry, you can always check out the short drive review I did for LeftLane here. Prior to leaving for Mazda’s CX-5 preview event, which was held at Laguna Seca, I’d been very dismissive regarding the merits of debuting a small SUV/wagon/crossover/whatever on a racetrack. I’d even considered leaving my helmet at home, since it doesn’t fit in a RegionalJet overhead compartment and I therefore find myself forced to gate-check the thing and spend my flights worrying about whether I will ever see it again. “What’s the point of bringing a helmet for three laps?” I wondered.

As it turns out, I did nearly sixty laps of Laguna Seca in the CX-5. The first three were for you, dear readers; the rest were for me. A few months ago, I asked where all the great Japanese cars had gone. Here’s one answer to that question. The CX-5 is meant to channel the spirit of the Miata in the way that Porsche claimed the Cayenne would for the 911 — but unlike the Germans, Mazda’s pulled it off. Finally, we have a modern small wagon that feels light on its feet, eager to change direction, frisky and friendly.

Truth be told, the least impressive part of the whole package is the much-ballyhooed SKYACTIV engine. It’s no better, or more characterful, than the old 2.3/25 Duratecs found in the old Focus and the outgoing Fusion, and it’s fighting a curb weight which, although it is lightest in the class, is still about a half-ton more than the iconic Japanese compacts of yore had to carry.Still, matched to the six-speed manual which comes standard on the base model, it is fast enough. It’s no trick to stroke along even the tightest California back roads at speeds in the 70-90mph range. Too much more than that, and the four can’t hang. Watching the radar speed displays at Laguna Seca was instructive; the rate of acceleration falls flat just before the magic hundred mark.

The fact that we are even discussing the CX-5’s triple-digit potential, however, is a testament to the chassis. Just like my old Porsche 944 — a vehicle with a remarkably similar power-to-weight ratio, by the way — the suspension is way ahead of the engine, and the brakes are somewhere in the middle. During the press preview, the PR people droned on about the trucklet’s spiritual ties to the RX-8. Having run an RX-8 in SCCA National Solo, I dismissed those claims out of hand, which was a mistake. This is one of the best-steering front-wheel-drivers I’ve ever experienced, and you can rest assured it stands head and shoulders above the rest of the class. The CX-5 can be finessed through fast roads by thumb and forefinger on the wheel and it never fails to inform and reassure. During the rough single-lane sections of my drive, the ground clearance was actually an advantage. I didn’t hit the bump stops a single time during the course of the drive, even though I tried to force the issue a few times by full-throttling my way through some very dicey whoops and camber changes. Something like a Subaru Outback would be left for dead by this nimble little box.

I didn’t have the time or inclination to make a finely-judged comparison of the CX-5’s dash-pad polymer composition or rear cargo-area height with that of the competition, but the overall impression given by the interior is certainly in line with the expectations one would have at the price. Inside and out, the vehicle looks solid, well-finished, and pleasant. The seats are just about up to the task of fast driving, the stereo is acceptable, and nothing fell off or rattled.

Some of LeftLane’s readers took me to task for suggesting this was an “enthusiast vehicle”. They cited the lack of power and inability to either dominate the Autobahn or pose convincingly as a dominator of same. I think they missed the point. Power and raw speed may have distinguished “enthusiast vehicles” in the past, but we live in an era where a Camry on DOT slicks can rip a thirteen-second quarter and your ex-wife’s SUV can bully the air at a buck-forty or above. Ford and Chevrolet both sell ponycars that would humiliate my old dream Ferrari 575, and they sell them brand new for half of what the Ferraris still cost on the used market. The Porsche PanArabia Turbo S Carrera GT2 Orthodontist Edition handily outpaces its own Cayman R on the racetrack. Numbers aren’t telling the story any more. In 2012, enthusiast vehicles are ones which whisper to the driver with steering feel and predictable trail-braking, not scream at him with six hundred horsepower and single-use ceramic brakes. Forget the numbers.

There is, however, one number to remember: $20,895. That’s how much the CX-5 I drove costs new at the dealer, assuming you pay full whack. It’s a complete proposition at that price. Everything you need and more. No reason to be ashamed of buying the entry-level car here. We won’t weigh your worth by the length of your model designation. After three hours in the little Mazda, I couldn’t think of a single change or additional feature that would significantly increase the enjoyment factor.

This being TTAC, I feel compelled to remind you of a few potential issues. This is a brand-new vehicle design from a manufacturer known to suffer from a bit of fragility and oxidationophilia. Your neighbors will call you reckless for not buying a CR-V. If you are one of the henpecked beta-males who make up something like forty-two percent of cute-ute buyers, making the Mazda move may result in your monthly allocation of you-know-what being slimmed-down to bi-monthly. I have no idea whether or not the CX-5 will last to 200,000 miles, and neither does anyone else.

Okay. You’ve been warned. If you haven’t been warned off, good for you. This new Mazda is something we haven’t seen in a while. It’s a great little car. Pun intended. It’s a car for us. If you’re looking in this market, consider yourself advised to look at the CX-5. Maybe you’ll get as excited about it as I did.

Jack Baruth
Jack Baruth

More by Jack Baruth

Join the conversation
3 of 111 comments
  • DeeTee DeeTee on Apr 08, 2012

    Inspired by recent repairs to my German marque and this review, I test drove a CX-5 Auto. The CX-5 is a very good package and I liked (and wanted to like) most of the car very much. I would have bought the thing on the spot if it only had an adequate engine. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Note that my requirement is merely "adequate" acceleration. Not spectacular or mind-altering or or pavement shredding. I just wanted the thing to get out of it's own way. Unfortunately, it can't. Around town the car could keep up with traffic OK, but press the pedal anything more than a quarter of the way down and the transmission will kick down (which is fine) but the engine will rev so loudly that everyone inside the car is in no doubt that the driver wants to "go faster". The engine is loud enough to interrupt a conversation. It is also loud enough to start one. (She said: "Why are you speeding?" He said: "I'm not speeding, dammit!!") Get the thing on the freeway and the driving experience is horrible. Flatten the accelerator at 50 and the engine fairly screams while the view out the window appears to freeze like a old Windows 98 PC. The CX-5 is so slow it made a Chevy Cruze rental car that I drove to the lot feel quick. My guess is that the 0-60 time is around 10 seconds and the 50-70 time could be measured in aeons. (Speaking of which - why not publish a few of the more germane performance specs with this TTAC review? Is it because they are the kind of numbers that don't support the general tone of the article? Can a great car also be a slow car?) If it's the truth we're seeking then I have to challenge the statement that this car is "fast enough". How fast is it? Fast enough for what?

    • Joeaverage Joeaverage on Apr 10, 2012

      And thus why I prefer a stick. I want to give the go-pedal a gentle push without the kickdown of the transmission. Sometimes a car needs a little more gas to climb a hill without the drama of a shiftdown or needs a shift down without first pushing the go-pedal to the floor. And yes, a slow car can be a good car as long as you aren't placing high priority on 0-60 times. That slowness probably needs to be offset with other positive qualities important to the owner - durability, cabin silence, or -insert favorite qualities here-.

  • M.S. Smith M.S. Smith on Apr 12, 2012

    There are quite a few cars out that are slower than the Mazda CX-5. Maybe you don't find it fast enough for your tastes, but it certainly hangs with 4-cylinder cars without specific performance intent. I suspect your feeling that it is slow compared to the Cruze is simply that - a feeling. I don't know about the automatic, but the manual is a hoot. Finally, a cheap car with a manual that isn't terribly geared! You're not going to be winning drag races but otherwise, if you need more power, downshift.

  • Kosmo Love it. Can I get one with something other than Subaru's flat four?
  • M B When the NorthStar happened, it was a part of GM's "rebuilding" of the Cadillac brand. Money to finance it was shuffled from Oldsmobile, which resulted in Olds having to only facelift its products, which BEGAN its slide down the mountain. Olds stagnated in product and appearances.First time I looked at the GM Parts illustration of a NorthStar V-8, I was impressed AND immediately saw the many things that were expensive, costly to produce, and could have been done less expensively. I saw it as an expensive disaster getting ready to happen. Way too much over-kill for the typical Cadillac owner of the time.Even so, there were a few areas where cost-cutting seemed to exist. The production gasket/seal between the main bearing plate and the block was not substantial enough to prevent seeps. At the time, about $1500.00 to fix.In many ways, the NS engine was designed to make far more power than it did. I ran across an article on a man who was building kits to put the NS in Chevy S-10 pickups. With his home-built 4bbl intake and a 600cfm Holley 4bbl, suddenly . . . 400 horsepower resulted. Seems the low hood line resulted in manifolding compromises which decreased the production power levels.GM was seeking to out-do its foreign competitors with the NS design and execution. In many ways they did, just that FEW people noticed.
  • Redapple2 Do Hybrids and be done with it.
  • Redapple2 Panamera = road porn.
  • Akear What an absurd strategy. They are basically giving up after all these years. When a company drinks the EV hemlock failure is just around the corner.