As I rarely ever have rear seat passengers and can just use my Chevy Silverado 2500 6.6 diesel 4x4 when
I do ,this isn't an big issue for me personally . I mostly have no passengers in the rear seat and just use the CX5 for getting around alone or with 1 front seat passenger 99 % of the time to save money on fuel . The Chevy gets 16 to 17 MPG . All I'm saying is owners and prospective customers need to know so they can make an informed decision . As far as the statement "You can probably guess my opinion on which one is looking out for the public's safety, and which one is looking out for their own bottom line." they rated some good, some acceptable ,and some poor . There was never any doubt about their motive to limit their exposure to loss's. They are in business to make money for their shareholders . However they are making us aware of the issue ,so we as consumers know and decide if it is important to us or not. Would you rather be ignorant of the facts B4 owning or purchasing a product ?

 

Mazda will probably make some change in the next model year, at least in the US, to address this issue since the testing service is one that services the insurance industry. Ergo, new car sales won't be impacted and used cars sales don't put money into Mazda's pocket. And, as far as I know, the fed testing hasn't changed, so Mazda can still tout that it has a high safety rating.

As Callisto said, it it bothers you that much, get something else.When I started driving, seat belts were an option and the dealer usually thought you were a hot rodder if you specified them on a new car. Back then, you relied on mass and weight to protect you in a crash. Today's cars have many more safety features and more are being offered each year, but the mass and weight are gone. There is good and bad in that. I once hit a Fiat that ran a stop sign with a 1954 Packard. It didn't even scratch the bumper on the Packard, but the Fiat was a mess.

 

Not going to beat a dead horse any longer ,so as long as those who care know that's good with me. Ignorance is bliss ,and knowledge is power. Take your choice .

 

Exactly so a few of us are giving you knowledge ..... LOL
And yes you are beating a dead horse but that's fine I do that often it tenders the meat. And the funny thing is I am Vegan. LOL
as for ignorance I don't really see that fits anywhere in this thread even with you?

 

Yup.

Current costliness of vehicles declared insufficient by those with incentive to see costlier vehicles. So, vehicles are declared insufficiently built, are then made tougher, stronger, and essentially more-costly ... then insurance companies get to "value" the cost of a loss at a higher spot on the chart. Ka-ching. Nice job if you can get it.

 

Sounds like PR spin from competitors trying to knock down some of Mazdas biz - As overall its #1 - standard automotive war or words - on that other car you thought you might have purchased ..a Rav something ....yeah have fun with the CVT transmissions on most other competitors -

 

We all have different personal preferences and priorities. If the OP places safety of back seat passengers ahead of other things like CVT's and handling, that is his perogative.

 

Well the " OP" seems to see it as a full deal breaker- a bit extreme in my opinion-- New cars have issues - but unless its a major lemon law type inconvienience - best give the Mfgr the opportuity to fix it - Mazda has had excellent reliablity with this vehicle as well have been diligent and honest with recalls on my other Mazdas going back 30 years -They have even replaced struts and engine mounts when I said nothing at 60k miles - No car is perfect , since humans build em- and the humans at Mazda seem to be paying attention .....but as one other person noted its a good opportunity to do the right thing -Op never mentioned the CVt - I did - so its merely one of the big differences between Mazdas and thier competitors, that most people are not aware of - I say " most " based on my personal experience asking people if they knew the difference .

 

And he didn't say anything about handling. Both of those omissions suggest they are lower on his priority list.

 

He did say handling and performance were why he bought the Cx5 over the other vehicle - unless i misread it ?
But - Im not trying to be right - only that like the news , what bleeds ...leads .....not the 99% of the other things that are good ....and the car biz is not so different -