Please tell me why I shouldn't buy a 2017 Mazda CX 5?

See no reason why you shouldn't buy/lease a CX5. I agree with your comments on interior and ride. Just leased a Grand Touring for my wife just before New Years. She loves it.

Boil it down to price with your dealer. It was between the CX5 and Rav 4. Mazda beat the Toyota on price.

For US28,0000 the Equinox will offer more for less money and because of GM's leasing have a bether less desk here in thr US.

Here is a quick +/- between the two:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/10/08/edmunds-how-mazda-cx-5-and-chevy-equinox-compare/731397001/

Then go to autotrader.ca or cars.com in the US to find a Equinox 2.0T is better equipped for $26,000.

Normally I'd be concerned that this was the first year of a redesigned model. But not a single one of the 33 owners participating in the survey reported a repair through the end of 2017.

The only other thing to be aware of is that they'll be adding a cylinder deactivation system for 2018. Advantage of this: about one extra mpg. Disadvantage: potentially a problem area, as some engines with this feature from GM and Honda have been slightly problematic.

Further down the road the CX-5 will probably be offered with the new SKYACTIV X engine, which burns gasoline but ignites it with compression like a diesel. This should dramatically improve fuel economy, but will be available in 2019 or 2020 at the earliest. Given how radical this new technology is, it might not be a good idea to buy one of the early ones.

So...if you need a car now no significant reasons not to buy one, especially not if you can get a good deal.

I like how the Mazda fanboys talk about Mazda's future products like the current cars and cuv's are not good enough to talk about. When Mazda gets a diesel...when Mazda gets Apple Carplay...when the rotary returns...when Skyactiv -X comes...when the turbo comes...

Skyactiv was halved because the fuel economy on the cuv's is not that good so they just shut it off to improve mpg.

There is a reason why Mazda has has a 39% retention rate for customers returning to the brand when industry average is 50%. People can only be marketed a lackluster product once and they are switching brands.

"Five years ago, Mazda's brand loyalty ? the percentage of former owners who buy another Mazda ? was 30%, embarrassingly low. That has increased to 38% by improving the styling, design and performance of its cars and crossovers." Mazda faces a huge challenge keeping customers

Mazda faces a huge challenge keeping customers

Mazda is about halfway through a 10-year plan aimed at changing how the company is perceived globally.
Mazda hasn't gain market share since 1999 and have had dropping sales in 2016 and 2017. Mazda is the most overrated by the journalist no one buys or only buys once.

Well, you've heard from an owner who likes his CX5, from a guy who likes GM products, the man who runs this site and has a lot of data on the car you mention as well as all its competitors, and a couple others. I happen to own 2 Mazdas and would buy a third if the need were there. I also have owned plenty of other cars, four currently. I would agree that there is nothing that should prevent you from buying the CX5, it drives and looks better than the rest of the reasonably priced SUV's of its size. I just bought a Mazda 6 and really like it.

The reasons not to get the Mazda might be its resale value in a few years, compared to CRV or RAV4. But you also have less invested up front. Put the few thousand dollars you saved on a Toyota in a mutual fund and sell it when you sell the Mazda, and i bet you come out way ahead. Also the service from the Mazda dealer vs the Chevy, Toyota, Honda, etc. If that matters to you it might be an issue. Since your new car is under warranty you might see the dealer a few times in the next few years. The more I mature, the less I have patience for an for an inept dealership dealership.

Last reason would be to not upset Norm. Mazda has nice products, I hope they can make a go of it now that they are on their own, and not being a part of Ford. I'd get the CX5.

Norm, a low retention rate doesn't mean Mazda products are "lackluster." You didn't answer the question of why Mazda products are lackluster. So why do you think they are lackluster?

I think the reason the owners don't return to Mazda is because their target demographic is younger people. When the younger people get older, they don't need a pure driving experience; they want a smooth ride and little road noise. Only the newer Mazdas are smooth and quiet-ish, but they still aren't for old folks, like GM is known for. Or it could be that Mazda is trying to become more premium and the older people who have more money are looking for premium badges, like Toyota owners going to Lexus or Chevy to Cadillac. It isn't because their cars are bad.

There aren't as many Mazda dealers where I live compared to Honda and Toyota. Based on our purchase of a Mazda3 last month, our Mazda dealer was way better than our three Toyota and three Honda dealers. Service was way better than expected. The premium ownership experience shows in the dealers, which are nicer than the Mercedes and Audi dealers. They are putting out way better products than just 4 years ago. This doesn't matter unless you will be doing oil changes at the dealer.

I've driven the new Tiguan, but haven't yet written it up. I like that it has a third row that might occasionally prove useful. I also like VW's new, longer warranty and that they recently cut prices.

In many other ways the new Tiguan is disappointing. The engine, though a 2.0T, doesn't perform like a 2.0T. Compared to the new Honda, Mazda, or GM crossovers it sounds and feels quite rough round the edges. The others are considerably smoother and quieter and simply look and feel like more expensive vehicles. Interior materials are well behind the others.

They did a much better job with the new Atlas, though that vehicle also falls a bit short in powertrain performance and interior materials.

I think the VW is supposed to be more premium, but it fails to be. I've heard everything that mkaresh said. I don't know how they could mess up a 2.0T since their other cars with the same engine are refined.

It depends on if you want a European feel. VW is trying to appeal to America with the Atlas and new Tiguan by making it bigger and roomier inside and out. It is around 500 lbs heavier than the previous Tiguan and the AWD Tiguan is 578 lbs heavier than an AWD CR-V. Now, the most European feeling economy CUV is the CX-5, which thankfully is a great car, but now we have less sportier choices. I sat in one at the LA auto show and aside from the hard plastics and the super small third row, I thought it was an OK interior. I like the digital instrument cluster. Standard CarPlay and Android Auto is nice, too. It has a long warranty, but after that I doubt it will be that reliable and repair costs in VWs are usually a little higher.

The engine is efficient, but makes 15 hp less than the previous Tiguan which was 500 lbs lighter. The new one has a little more torque. I feel like the Equinox is the Tiguan's most direct competitor since they are bigger than most crossovers. The Equinox is probably the better choice unless you need two extra small seats.

The Tiguan and Atlas offer 3-rows and a different cross-segement than the smallest 2 row in its segement.

While the Atlas was designed primarily for North America, the three-row Tiguan is also offered in Europe and elsewhere as the "Tiguan Allspace," alongside the two-row Tiguan not offered in North America. I don't know if the former has materials and suspension tuning more like past VWs or if they're essentially the same vehicle in two lengths.

On getting the CX-5, sounds like it fits with your priorities.