- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I am managing around 25mpg combined in my CX5, if I keep my foot out of it, and if I actually make a real effort, 25.5-26mpg. Highway mileage never stacked up to EPA unless I did <65mph. That said, data is out now for the new RAV4's.
0-60 for the hybrid is 7.8 (advertised), and 8.1 for the "regular one". Enough to soundly thrash the 2019 Mazda CX5 in all but turbo trim. That said, I have a 2015 CX5, and those are turning 7.6-7.8 seconds 0-60, so similar performance to Toyota's "performance" model, and I have 8.5" of ground clearance, which is within a tenth of the new RAV4, both of which are significantly more than t he 2019 CX5.
No data yet on handling from Toyota or reviewers.
The AWD RAV4's are advertised at 29, and 27mpg, combined, respectively, varying on trim level, although the hybrid is a beast and gets nearly 40mpg combined.
That said, my 2015 CX5 ain't stacking up too bad with 26mpg combined and faster than even the Hybrid from the RAV line. It kindof makes me happy to see at worst an advertised 3mpg combined drop, with superior performance in exchange, unless we talk about the Hybrid (which is multiple systems vs. my 1 NA motor, so more odds of breaking and more money when both inevitably do).
The newer CX5's? To me, they lose in every way. Perform worse, less clearance, less tech, less mpg, less everything, really. but my 2015? It's still cutting edge in SOME ways, and not down by much at all for having come out 3-4 years ago.
Mazda did the Gen 1 CX5's right. They need to get back to their roots. I won't be trading for a RAV. Partly because the benefits are minimal the way I slice them, and Mazda does have absolute s**** for resale value and my 2015 Touring AWD is only worth $75-9500 because it has 98K miles on it. This does get the award for "Worst resale of any vehicle I've ever owned", from me. That includes my Chrysler with 90K+ miles. At least I'm stuck in something reliable and still doing well by the numbers. I find it ironic that actual data on the RAV4, which will be the leader for this segment, has made me like my CX5 MORE instead of less.
0-60 for the hybrid is 7.8 (advertised), and 8.1 for the "regular one". Enough to soundly thrash the 2019 Mazda CX5 in all but turbo trim. That said, I have a 2015 CX5, and those are turning 7.6-7.8 seconds 0-60, so similar performance to Toyota's "performance" model, and I have 8.5" of ground clearance, which is within a tenth of the new RAV4, both of which are significantly more than t he 2019 CX5.
No data yet on handling from Toyota or reviewers.
The AWD RAV4's are advertised at 29, and 27mpg, combined, respectively, varying on trim level, although the hybrid is a beast and gets nearly 40mpg combined.
That said, my 2015 CX5 ain't stacking up too bad with 26mpg combined and faster than even the Hybrid from the RAV line. It kindof makes me happy to see at worst an advertised 3mpg combined drop, with superior performance in exchange, unless we talk about the Hybrid (which is multiple systems vs. my 1 NA motor, so more odds of breaking and more money when both inevitably do).
The newer CX5's? To me, they lose in every way. Perform worse, less clearance, less tech, less mpg, less everything, really. but my 2015? It's still cutting edge in SOME ways, and not down by much at all for having come out 3-4 years ago.
Mazda did the Gen 1 CX5's right. They need to get back to their roots. I won't be trading for a RAV. Partly because the benefits are minimal the way I slice them, and Mazda does have absolute s**** for resale value and my 2015 Touring AWD is only worth $75-9500 because it has 98K miles on it. This does get the award for "Worst resale of any vehicle I've ever owned", from me. That includes my Chrysler with 90K+ miles. At least I'm stuck in something reliable and still doing well by the numbers. I find it ironic that actual data on the RAV4, which will be the leader for this segment, has made me like my CX5 MORE instead of less.
Last edited:
