I know this is an apples to oranges comparison, but for those looking for a vehicle that is fun to drive, has good handling, good mileage, large cargo capacity, why buy a top of the line 2015 Fit when you can get a base model Mazda CX-5 for a similar price?
The CX-5 has better handling, has much more cargo space, is more fun to drive, has a nicer higher quality interior, and is generally a better looking car. Also a bigger with better safety ratings.
I'm not a big fan of SUVs but I gotta say the CX-5 is a MUCH better value and better car overall than a Fit. Again comparing the base CX-5 vs the loaded Fit.
I know that the CX-5 should be compared to a Honda CRV and not the Fit- but when looking for the qualities listed above, both the CX-5 and Fit appear on my list.

 

Interesting comparison. You might want to look at Reliability/frequency of repair. Consumer Reports magazine rates them. Had a lady at work that had a turbo Mazda SUV and it was a nightmare as far as breaking down and leaving her stranded beside the road (she got rid of it).

 

IIRC, Vanguard's missus drives a CX-5 and his daughter a PBP GK. Perhaps he'll stop buy with a comparison.

 

i have a cx5... great car...

engine power isn't overwhelming, but its good, smooth, and gets good mileage... handling is surprisingly good, brakes are very good, interior space is good, looks good imho...

the only real comparison between the two is interior space... sit higher vs lower, more power vs less, good transmission vs cvt, etc...

 

We do like the Mazda CX-5. The ride is much better than the Fit, but the MPG is worse. Of course, I can remember when 29MPG was not considered poor (pre-Fit days). I'm waiting to see the Honda HR-V, which is like a cross between the CX-5 and the Fit.

Having said that, my Wife loves the Mazda CX-5, and would not trade for our Daughters Fit. She did however get upset my Daughter has a sunroof, and on her Touring version of the Mazda CX-5, she doesn't. At the time of purchase, she would have needed an additional $3,000+ to get the "Grand Touring" version with the sunroof, but my wife is so frugal, she just could not bring herself to make the upgrade.

 

The biggest difference is the fuel economy. This mazda is much heavier and taller.
If you have the Fit, your fill up would cost you, let's say 25$, but to fill up the Mazda for the same mileage, would cost 43$.

Cost of ownership on the mazda will be higher. Let's say you can get decent Fit tires for 350-450$ a set but for the Mazda it would be 700$ +...

Does CX5 comes with the manual?

 

Yes, the CX-5 comes with a 6 speed manual.

 

The cost (excluding tax on all comparisons), with Discount Tires, for the Honda Fit EX is $476.00 (185/55-16) using the Bridgestone, which is what came on the car new. The Mazda CX-5 Touring version comes in at $544.00 (225/65-17), for the Yokohama brand, which is also what came on the car new. The real price jump comes on the Grand Touring version of the Mazda CX-5, that uses Yokohama 225/55-19. They come out to $648.00, and that is much lower than what was quoted a year ago for any 19" tire.

When we were in the process of selecting which Mazda CX-5 model we wanted, the salesman could not understand why we did not want the larger 19"tire. At that time, they were being quoted at well over $200 each. I guess there only two companies making a 19" option at the time.

The moral of this story, with either tire size or brand; ROTATE ROTATE ROTATE ROTATE.....

 

When you compare equivalent transmissions, the CX5 and Fit do NOT cost the same. The 6mt EX Fit has an MSRP of $17,560; the top CVT with nav is 20,925. The base CX5 with a manual is 21,795 ($4200 more than the Fit); an auto brings the price to 23,195 ($2200 more than the fit).

Also, while I haven't driven the CX-5, and I know Mazda always does a good job with driving dynamics, I'm skeptical that the Mazda actually handles objectively better than the Fit. It's much heavier (3200#-3600# versus 2600# for the Fit. It has higher ground clearance. Power to weight isn't any better. I don't have the Consumer Reports slalom data handy, but I would be very surprised if the CX-5 were faster than the Fit through the slalom. The Mazda 3; probably. But you can't raise your ground clearance without handling penalties.

Ultimately, if you're driving your car 12000 miles a year, base CX-5s are going to cost you ballpark $1k to $1.5k more a year in operating expenses (depreciation, gas, repairs, insurance, taxes and fees) than the top of the line Fits. Maybe that's worth it for some folks, but those are not comparable costs.

 

I guess a lot of it would boil down to personal preference too. I am personally a small car kind of person and I have always had a soft spot for little hatchbacks

A very close friend has a 2013 CX-5 he bought brand new and he's had nothing but issues with it, most recently a mysterious electrical problem that causes it to not start at times and the dealer and Mazda Canada have been no help whatsoever. He's actually attempting to trade it in. I have driven his car several times for extended periods and it's comfortable and rides well but there are things I don't like about it. I will have to disagree with you on a couple points - I don't think it looks better than the Fit, and I don't necessarily think it handles better. IME it was not great on gas and I don't think the interior looks nicer than the 2015 Fit's interior.

But then again I'm biased

 

Of course, you could do what we did and purchase one of each. It is easier (and more credible), to compare these two cars when you have actual experience with each one. I think you will find that each has it's own unique characteristics.

As for costs:

"Ultimately, if you're driving your car 12000 miles a year, base CX-5s are going to cost you ballpark $1k to $1.5k more a year in operating expenses (depreciation, gas, repairs, insurance, taxes and fees) than the top of the line Fits. Maybe that's worth it for some folks, but those are not comparable costs".

Each of these cost category's are subjective, and cannot be used to support the "base CX-5s are going to cost you ballpark $1k to $1.5k more a year in operating expenses", statement.

Actual depreciation can not be determined in advance, without knowing condition of car, future demand (which includes many variables from the car buying public), car history, and miles driven. Even the then current price of gasoline will impact depreciation figures, as will many other considerations.

Gas, who knows how many miles are going to be driven. Were they Interstate miles, or short inner city miles? Is the driver a little old lady, or a lead foot kid. Was the car maintained with regular service and maintenance, or was the car only cared for when something stopped working, and required a visit to the shop. Did the cost of oil drop from $100.00 per barrel, to $43.00, as we have recently witnessed, and so on.

Repairs, was the car properly maintained, or neglected? Were there common parts failure (think airbags), or such things like bad driving vs. good driving.

Insurance, is the driver a middle aged women with a sterling driving record or a teenage boy under the age of 25, who is a careless and irresponsible driver (or anywhere in-between)?

Taxes and fee's, what is the sales tax rate of the particular state the car was sold in. Fee's fluctuate from dealer to dealer, even within the same city.

Ultimately, your own personal requirements and tastes will determine what car you buy. Personally, I am of an age where I no longer like dropping into a car, or climbing out of one, so the extra height of the Mazda CX-5 is pleasing to me (I am waiting for the Honda HR-V to come out this spring, to see if it is something I would like to own. It looks to be like a Mazda CX-5 / Honda Fit alternative.

 

Re: relative cost of ownership: A new EX Fit will cost $1000-1500 a year less to own than a base CX-5 for the majority of Americans. Here's why:

Consider an EX manual transmission Fit over a 5 year time horizon; assume you can buy for MSRP and sell for private party KBB value in "very good" condition. A 5 year old (2010) Manual Honda Fit Sport with 60k miles kbb's for $9,743; the new manual EX MSRP's for 17,560. Since the two cars are roughly comparable when accounting for the overall progress of car technology, we can predict that our Fit will likewise be worth $9,743 five years and 60k miles from now. Thus it will have lost $1563 a year in value. I'm ignoring inflation for simplicity.

The CX-5 has not been around that long, but the isport model from the platform it's based off of (Mazda3) depreciates from $18,445 (for the new one)-8,415 over 5 years and 60k per kbb. Thus it's worth 46% of its original MSRP. Extrapolating to the CX-5, the CX-5 will likely lose 54% of 21,795 or $11,769 or $2,354 a year. That's +$791 a year for the CX-5

If we assume $3/gallon gas average over the next 5 years and 30mpg for the CX-5, 35mpg for the Fit, that's $1200 a year for the CX-5; $1028 for the Fit. Another +$172 for the CX-5.

For repairs and maintenance, the Mazdas are good, but the Fit is about as reliable as it gets. The Truedelta website's user reported repair frequencies bear this out. A CX-5 is probably going to run about $1k more ($200 a year) to repair and maintain 5 years than the Fit on average. No formulas for that; just an educated guess. Comparing scheduled maintenance costs, calculating tire costs, etc could let us refine this number. +$200 a year for the CX-5.

Insurance ought to be about a wash; maybe a little higher for the CX-5 if you have collision on it since you're insuring a more valuable car.

Taxes ought to be proportional to purchase price. Add the sales price differential * your local sales tax rate. For a $4200 price differential, that will range from 0 to $380 if you're at 9%. Say the average joe is in a 5% sales tax area; that works out to $42 a year. Say DMV and other driving related fees are a wash (assume no dealer fees beyond just paying MSRP+sales tax for the car).

Opportunity cost could also be factored in here - the more of your personal net worth you have tied up in your car, the fewer $ you can invest and earn interest on. Lets say you're super conservative and hide your money under your mattress, so it's $0.

Thus we're at $791+172+200+0+42+0 = $1205 more to drive a CX-5 than a Fit per year. Refining the opportunity cost and insurance numbers would probably increase the difference. Sure, some folks will change cars after 3 years, or 15; some folks trade in at the dealer versus sell private party (lowers residual value), some folks drive more or less miles per year, or beat their cars into "poor" condition. Some folks have higher or lower insurance costs, you may be able to get a great deal locally on one but not the other, but re-run the numbers for other realistic sets of assumptions and the differential cost of ownership will usually be between $1,000 and $1,500 per year.

Re: handling, I checked consumer report's avoidance maneuver test results - the Fit takes it at 55mph; the CX-5 at 53.5 (better than I expected actually). So the Fit will corner better. Although I'm sure that due to greater ground clearance/suspension height the CX-5 will be more smooth over bumps and potholes; even moreso for the smaller wheels with greater sidewall heights.

Anyway, the CX-5 isn't necessarily a bad car; it is bigger, higher, handles a little differently and it costs more to own. It will suit some people very well. Lets just be realistic about the comparison and not start our comparison out on the wrong foot by mistakenly assuming they cost the same to own.

 

Assuming the cost will be the same to own either, would be as stupid as saying you can accurately project the cost difference between the two, based on subjective cost assumptions.

Take us for instance, since we purchased our CX-5 $2000,00 under invoice, simply because it was one model year old (the new model had already been released), and we maintain a $2000.00 deductible on our car insurance (lowering the cost), and then self insure by investing the same amount in an appreciating asset, we have already skewed your cost assumptions.

Additional variables to consider that can have a substantial increase (or reduction) in cost include such items as , was the car fully or partially financed, and if so, what was the interest rate charged. Some will report 0%, and some will report much higher (on this board, I have seen as high 11%, but some may be even higher), and what were the terms in regard to years financed, and did the car buyer finance options with his car loan, or pay cash for the extra's? Regardless whether the car buyer financed his options, the bigger question is how much was spent on items that will not maintain any real value when the car is sold (things as all weather floor mat's and under dash lighting (just to name a few).

We still have not taken into consideration cost items such as window tinting, clear protectant for the body, or fabric protection. Some of these items cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

And let's not forget to take into consideration the cost of that extended warranty, and whether or not it saved you any money in the long run.

It is simply impossible to project with any certainty what an automobile will actually cost over a certain time period with anything but speculation (assumptions), which is what should prevent anyone from attempting such a comparison to begin with.

 

The MSRP for the base CX-5 with 6 speed manual is $22,995. The base MSRP for the Fit EX Navi is $21,375. That is $1,620 difference, so somewhat comparable. Assuming that you drive 20,000 km per year, the gas savings with the Fit is really not that much more than the CX-5- maybe $178/yr (of course this is dependent on what the fuel prices will be). This savings in fuel will most likely be totally negated by the cheaper insurance costs for the CX-5 over the Fit.
As for the argument that the Fit will be more reliable than the CX-5- I'm not so sure about that. Consumer Reports placed Mazda as number 2 in the list of manufacturers in terms of reliability. Honda is considerably lower down in the list. Plus, the Fit is made in Mexico- so I don't think reliability will be as good as in previous years when it was made in Japan.