Mazda CX-5

MODEL TESTED: Mazda CX-5 2.2D 175 Sport Nav AWD PRICE: £29,795 ENGINE: 2.2-litre 4cyl turbodiesel, 173bhp

THE Mazda CX-5 is one of the best-driving crossovers on sale, whichever version you go for. There are SE L and Sport Nav trims available and here we test the latter. Power comes from a 2.0-litre petrol engine with 163bhp, or a 2. 2-litre diesel that delivers 148bhp or 173bhp. We test the latter.

Auto boxes and front-wheel drive are available, but this time around it’s the four-wheel-drive manual model that’s challenging the Edge, and it costs £29,795, which is £200 less than its rival.

Styling 4.1/5

WHEN parked next to the Ford, the Mazda CX-5 looks a lot smaller; it stands 25cm shorter and is nearly 9cm narrower than the Edge, although as it’s marginally taller, it has a more upright look than its rival. Still, it carries plenty of familiar Mazda design cues, such as the big shield-shaped grille and narrow headlights.

There’s plenty of black body cladding and the smatterings of plastic protection around the front and rear bumpers, as well as the wheelarches, give it the look of a proper off-roader. Sport Nav models get 19-inch two-tone alloy wheels, but while these are the same size as the Ford’s rims, the Mazda’s lower-profile tyres give it a racier appearance.

This sense of sportiness is subtly reinforced inside, with cowled dials, a perforated leather steering wheel and a relatively low driving position. It’s easy to get comfortable at the wheel, and there’s plenty of leather and decent-quality plastics, although the Ford does feel like a more upmarket car, thanks to its TFT displays and softer materials. The Mazda is let down by its dated-looking digital displays and the plastics used lower down in the cabin, which feel a little low rent in comparison with the Ford’s.

At least you get plenty of kit; while the Mazda matches the Edge with a reversing camera, climate control and keyless starting, it also comes with front and rear parking sensors, sat-nav, heated leather seats and LED headlights. Some of these features are only available on the Edge if you go for a Titanium or Sport model, both of which are much more expensive than the top-spec CX-5.

Driving 4.0/5

THE Mazda’s larger-capacity 2. 2-litre diesel delivers 420Nm of torque – that’s 20Nm more than the Ford’s 2.0-litre – and with a kerbweight nearly 300kg lighter than its rival, it was no surprise that the CX-5 led the way at the track. We managed both 0-60mph and 30-70mph in 9.5 seconds; these times were half a second ahead of the Edge’s.

In-gear performance was solid, too, especially as the engine picks up from 1,400rpm, while the Ford’s diesel only kicks in at 2,000rpm. That extra torque helps carry you along until maximum power arrives, while the chassis is a match for the car’s speed.

The steering is accurate and beautifully weighted, and the suspension set-up controls the body well through bends, tying its weight down but retaining enough compliance to absorb bumps with the chassis already loaded up.

This high-quality damping is biased towards sporty handling, because the Mazda isn’t as comfortable as the Edge on more relaxed driving.

While the CX-5 is reasonable over uneven tarmac, it does tend to fidget and move around, thanks to its stiff springs and low-profile tyres, where the Ford soaks up all but the worst broken surfaces. Road noise is ever-present, too, down to the low-profile tyres and the car’s relative lack of soundproofing. Compared with the Ford, that means there’s plenty of noise at motorway speeds.

Both cars here have permanent four-wheel drive, but their systems are really designed for just negotiating slippery surfaces rather than rough road use. While the Mazda is a reasonable performer, the reactive 4WD system isn’t as responsive as a permanent set-up, and the CX-5’S lower ground clearance compromises its off-road ability, too.

Ownership 3.9/5

SINCE its launch in 2012, the CX-5 has had one facelift and has built up a pretty strong reliability record. In fact, it finished in 49th place in Driver Power 2016 with owners reserving particular praise for the car’s performance, handling and practicality.

Mazda was well ahead of Ford in the makers’ chart of Driver Power, too, coming 18 places ahead in ninth. However, the brand’s garage network wasn’t quite as far in front, ranking only 19th.

With its autonomous braking technology, LED headlights and six airbags, the CX-5 scored a maximum five-star safety rating when it was crash tested back in 2012. While the Edge has yet to be rated by Euro NCAP, it should match the Mazda for occupant protection, although unfortunately Mazda doesn’t offer advanced kit such as adaptive cruise control like the Ford.

Running costs 3.8/5

DURING our test, the CX-5 returned 36.9mpg, which was the same as the Edge on a similar test route. But the Mazda’s 58-litre fuel tank means you’ll have to stop to fill up more often, and the car has a range that’s around 100 miles shorter than the Ford’s.

Service costs are marginally higher for the Mazda, while our experts predict that the CX-5 will hold on to 45 per cent of its value after three years. This trails the Edge’s 48 per cent residuals, but private buyers will pay slightly less in annual road tax to run the Mazda.

Where the CX-5 has an advantage over the Edge is as a company car. Emissions of 136g/km put it in the 27 per cent Benefit-in-kind band – two per cent lower than the Ford. Higher-rate business users will save £258 a year in tax costs, and if you really want to slash your outgoings, there’s the cheaper and more efficient frontwheel-drive version to consider, too.

Practicality 4.0/5

THE Mazda features handles in the boot to fold the rear seats, rather than buttons like the Ford, but it also offers an extra lever to drop the middle seat independently of the 60:40 split.

There’s reasonable storage under the boot floor, although you only get a tyre repair kit, not a spare wheel. The Mazda’s smaller exterior dimensions affect boot space, and the capacity of 503 litres is 99 litres smaller than the Ford’s. Rear-seat space is also smaller, with less legroom and more intrusions to the middle seat than in the Edge. You get an armrest bin, cupholders plus decent glovebox and door bin storage, but none of these storage solutions is as big as you’ll find in the Ford.