Mazda 5

Mazda 5: Which Version Should You Buy?

The Mazda 5 catalogue covers a front-wheel-drive Compact Van produced from January 2005 through August 2015. The data contains the first generation, its restyling, and the second generation, with Gasoline and Diesel engines, Manual and Automatic gearboxes, and outputs from 110 hp to 157 hp.

The Mazda 5 catalogue covers a front-wheel-drive Compact Van produced from January 2005 through August 2015. The data contains the first generation, its restyling, and the second generation, with Gasoline and Diesel engines, Manual and Automatic gearboxes, and outputs from 110 hp to 157 hp. The best choice depends on priority: the second-generation 2.5 MT delivers the quickest measured acceleration at 9.7 seconds to 100 km/h, the first-generation 143 hp 2.0 MT Diesel reaches the highest measured top speed at 197 km/h, and the second-generation 1.6 MT Diesel records the lowest measured combined consumption at 5.2 l/100 km. Buyers seeking a balanced Gasoline version should compare the 150 hp second-generation 2.0 MT with the 145 hp restyled 2.0 MT; those wanting an Automatic should compare the 2.0 AT and 2.5 AT specifications carefully.

Mazda 5 generations and version changes

The first-generation Mazda 5 ran from January 2005 to July 2008 as a Compact Van with seven listed versions. Its Gasoline range comprised 1.8 MT, 2.0 MT, 2.3 MT, 2.3 AT, and 2.0 AT, while two 2.0 MT Diesel versions were distinguished by outputs of 110 hp and 143 hp. Depending on the version, the catalogue lists Manual gearboxes with 5 or 6 speeds and Automatic gearboxes with 4 or 5 speeds.

The first-generation restyling ran from August 2008 to September 2010, retaining the Compact Van body and seven-version structure. The version names remained the same, but some measured figures changed. For example, the 1.8 MT improved from 11.4 to 11.3 seconds to 100 km/h and from 7.9 to 7.5 l/100 km combined. The 145 hp 2.0 MT improved from 10.8 to 10.2 seconds and from 8.2 to 7.9 l/100 km combined, while its Manual gearbox gained one speed, moving from 5 to 6. Both Diesel versions retained 6-speed Manual transmissions, and their measured combined consumption fell from 6.3 to 6.1 l/100 km.

The second-generation Mazda 5 ran from October 2010 to August 2015 as a Compact Van with six versions: 1.8 MT, 2.0 MT, 2.5 MT, 2.5 AT, 2.0 AT, and 1.6 MT. All remained FWD. The generation introduced 2.5 MT and 2.5 AT choices with 157 hp, while the Diesel option changed from the earlier 2.0 MT units to a 115 hp 1.6 MT. The 1.8 MT was listed only through October 2011; the other second-generation versions continued through August 2015.

Mazda 5 engine specs

Among Gasoline engines, the second-generation 2.0 MT has the strongest calculated specific output at approximately 75.0 hp per litre. The first and restyled 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT Gasoline versions produce approximately 72.5 hp per litre, while the second-generation 2.0 AT produces approximately 72.1 hp per litre. Although the second-generation 2.5 MT and 2.5 AT have the highest nominal output at 157 hp, their calculated specific output is approximately 63.1 hp per litre.

The Diesel comparison emphasizes torque rather than peak horsepower. The 143 hp 2.0 MT produces 360 Nm, which is 50 Nm more than the 110 hp 2.0 MT and 90 Nm more than the second-generation 1.6 MT. The smaller 1.6 MT nevertheless produces 270 Nm from 1560 cc, or approximately 173.1 Nm per litre, compared with approximately 180.2 Nm per litre for the 143 hp 2.0 MT.

Mazda 5 performance and fuel economy

For economy, the second-generation 1.6 MT is the clear measured leader. Its 5.2 l/100 km combined figure is 0.9 l/100 km lower than either restyled 2.0 MT Diesel and 1.1 l/100 km lower than either original first-generation 2.0 MT Diesel. The trade-off is acceleration: its 13.7-second result is 2.7 seconds slower than the restyled 143 hp 2.0 MT Diesel and 3.3 seconds slower than the original 143 hp 2.0 MT Diesel.

For Gasoline performance, the second-generation 2.5 MT reaches 100 km/h 0.5 seconds sooner than the 2.5 AT. The second-generation 2.0 MT is 1.9 seconds quicker than the 2.0 AT and consumes 1.4 l/100 km less on the combined cycle. The 2.0 MT also has 6 hp and 11 Nm more than that 2.0 AT.

Mazda 5 dimensions, weight, clearance, tank, and wheels

Every listed Mazda 5 version has a 60-litre fuel tank. First-generation kerb weights range from 1470 kg to 1610 kg where measured, while gross weights range from 2090 kg to 2230 kg. Ground clearance is not measured for several first-generation versions; where supplied, it is 140 mm. Listed wheels are 195/65 R15, 205/55 R16, and, on selected versions, 205/50 R17. Wheel sizes are not measured for the 2.3 MT, 2.3 AT, and first-generation 2.0 AT.

Restyled first-generation kerb weights range from 1400 kg to 1549 kg, and gross weights range from 2100 kg to 2250 kg. Every restyled version has 140 mm of ground clearance. Wheel sizes are not measured for the 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT; other versions list combinations of 195/65 R15, 195/65 R16, 205/55 R16, or 205/50 R17.

Second-generation kerb weight is 1485 kg for the 1.8 MT, 2.0 MT, and 2.5 MT; 1540 kg for the 2.0 AT; 1490 kg for the 1.6 MT; and not measured for the 2.5 AT. Every second-generation version has a gross weight of 2125 kg and ground clearance of 130 mm. Only the 2.0 AT has measured wheel sizes—205/55 R16 and 205/50 R17—while wheel sizes for the other versions are not measured.

Using measured kerb weight, the second-generation 2.5 MT has the best calculated weight-to-power figure at approximately 9.46 kg per hp. The restyled 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT are approximately 10.12 kg per hp, while the second-generation 2.0 MT is 9.90 kg per hp. The second-generation 1.8 MT carries approximately 12.91 kg per hp.

Which Mazda 5 version should you choose?

Choose the second-generation 2.0 MT for the strongest all-round Gasoline specification supported by complete measurements. It combines 150 hp and 191 Nm with a 6-speed Manual gearbox, 11.2-second acceleration, a 194 km/h top speed, and 6.9 l/100 km combined consumption. Compared with the second-generation 1.8 MT, it adds 35 hp and 26 Nm, accelerates 1.6 seconds sooner, and uses 0.3 l/100 km less on the combined cycle.

Choose the second-generation 2.5 MT when measured acceleration matters most. Its 157 hp output and 9.7-second result make it 0.5 seconds quicker than the 2.5 AT. However, top speed and all fuel-consumption figures for both 2.5 versions are not measured, so the data cannot support an economy comparison.

Choose the second-generation 1.6 MT when fuel economy is the priority. Its 5.2 l/100 km combined consumption is the lowest measured figure, while 270 Nm provides 107 Nm more torque than either second-generation 2.5 version. It is not the performance choice: 13.7 seconds to 100 km/h is the slowest second-generation result except none—every listed second-generation version has a measured acceleration figure, and the 1.6 MT is the slowest among them.

Choose the original first-generation 143 hp 2.0 MT Diesel if the catalogue’s best measured Diesel performance matters more than choosing the later car. It combines 360 Nm with 10.4-second acceleration and a 197 km/h top speed. The restyled equivalent has the same 143 hp and 360 Nm and improves combined consumption by 0.2 l/100 km, but its measured acceleration is 0.6 seconds slower and its top speed is 1 km/h lower.

For an Automatic, the second-generation 2.5 AT offers the quickest measured acceleration at 10.2 seconds, but its top speed, consumption, and kerb weight are not measured. The more completely documented second-generation 2.0 AT provides 144 hp, 180 Nm, 13.1-second acceleration, a 186 km/h top speed, and 8.3 l/100 km combined consumption. The restyled 2.0 AT reaches the same 186 km/h, accelerates 0.7 seconds sooner, and consumes 0.1 l/100 km less combined.

The data therefore points to three particularly clear choices: the second-generation 2.0 MT for a measured Gasoline balance, the second-generation 1.6 MT for minimum measured consumption, and the original first-generation 143 hp 2.0 MT Diesel for maximum measured torque and top speed. Mechanical problems, reliability, repair costs, engine-swap suitability, and sale prices are not measured in the supplied catalogue data, so they cannot be used to rank these versions.