PDA

View Full Version : CX-5 vs. CR-V and Escape



ManMachine
04-16-2012, 02:14 PM
Just wonder how people decide on the CX-5 vs. the new CR-V and the upcoming Escape.

The powertrain (with 6MT) and the design are the biggest draw for me.

CX-SV
04-16-2012, 02:31 PM
I made that decision with CX-5 over Escape and CRV. The CRV was ruled out first.

smithsm1984
04-16-2012, 03:22 PM
The CR-V was not on my radar because it is boring to drive and look at. Simply not what I wanted.

As for the Escape, I think it does look nice. But I doubt it will be any better to drive and it is certainly more expensive. Recent Ford vehicles have impressed be a lot in terms of their styling, but I've found they seem to give up a lot in practicality and interior simplicity. Besides, we're not going to see Escapes in reasonable numbers for awhile, I imagine.

CX-SV
04-16-2012, 05:17 PM
I might get an Escape later (the discounts for my family are very deep). I think the Escape will please those that need lots of power, given the available 2.0L turbo with nearly 240 hp.

reggie5
04-16-2012, 08:43 PM
I chose the CX-5 one because of the 6spd and two because I wanted something fun to drive. Yeah the new escape looks nice but really the only fords that are fun to drive are the mustangs and the F150 Raptor. And well the Honda is Honda and I refuse to drive one.

drmoll2011
04-16-2012, 09:42 PM
If you mean the Escape hybrid, I chose the CX-5 because the gas mileage was better on the CX-5 for highway (35 versus 30), and it was a lot less expensive. Same thing for the CR-V - plus we needed the additional ground clearance that the CX-5 has.

CX-SV
04-16-2012, 10:52 PM
No, most are talking about new and redesigned 2013 Escape not available until May.

It will offer 3 engines, all 4-bangers (2 wturbo) no hybrids.

hollis
04-17-2012, 08:35 AM
top vehicles for us were:
- Forester
- CRV
- Outback

Sorry, I wont go with Kia/Hyundai just have too many bad memories still and their not proven in reliability for the long term in my book.

Forester/Outback- great packages especially with the 5SP Manual but nothing inspiring about it and gets horrible ~25MPG... the outback got too pricy for us

CRV is a Honda. no I mean it. I've owned about a dozen Honda/Acura models and each have similar attributes. Every Honda is very lousy on the highway, very crude firm suspension, and cheaper and cheaper made materials (to the point its a no thrills feeling). Over the years, I experience the downfall of Honda and after test driving the 2012 CR-V and even the Acura RDX I felt it getting worse and wont stand for it any longer. Yes, it had 30HP more, but never could tell and the engine is much louder inside the cabin. Hate sunroofs are forced on you in EX and up models, I rather have the additional headroom. On Hwys, I had to scream to talk to the person next to me. What is up with the Green illumination light surrounding the entire instrument cluster? It gets lighter and darker automatically depending on instant car MPG economy and nope you cant turn it off. LX model fabric was subpar. And finally the emergency brake is RIGHT above the dead pedal?!?! what?!? there is only 2-3 inch clearance between them.... unacceptable. its right on top of it, I even took a pic of it during the test drive if anyone is interested in seeing it.

Escape - Just price it out. To get the Eco boost engine your getting into the 26K range and thats just for a FWD model. Basic engine is a joke, really? why bother.... I also dont like the dashboard, way too busy and funky, takes away from the enjoyment of driving.

hooked
04-17-2012, 10:18 AM
I checked out the following:

Honda CR-V
--------------
This was my first choice. I eagerly anticipated the arrival of the new model, but I was disappointed. It's an excellent vehicle and probably a bit more refined in looks and ergonomics. The exterior styling is good but a bit too conservative. The engine was okay. It probably has a bit more pep than the CX-5 but I definitely felt and heard the downshifts when I pushed on the gas pedal. If I didn't know the Horsepower/Torque numbers of the CR-V and CX-5, I wouldn't really be able to tell you which had the bigger engine. The highway noise was quite noticeable. On the testdrive, my wife noticed it immediately and she doesn't normally keep an 'ear' out for these things. I'm not a Honda hater (I own an Accord right now) and this was my first choice, but in the end, the CR-V did not live up to my expectations.

Subaru Outback/Impreza
----------------------------
The Impreza wagon was an intriguing option, but it was ultimately too small in the cargo area to fit my dog and the concern about the rear seat comfort for my two close to teen kids ruled it out. We didn't even test drive it. The Outback was a definite contender. We liked the space and the looks (a bit outdated though). It's a bigger car than the CX-5, so it's more expensive and the gas mileage is worse. We don't need AWD, so the price and mileage penalty were negatives. Also, I didn't like the center stack looks. The siver really bugged me. It reminds me of a cheap '80's Hi-Fi system. After all that, though, I was just about to go fight it out with the dealer when we decided to go check out the Mazda dealer.

Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI
----------------------------------------
Another strong contender. We liked the mileage of the TDI and it probably would have been less expensive than the CX-5. The exterior was okay, nothing to brag about. The interior was excellent and my wife fell in love with the radio - the salesman definitely did his job on that one! Again, we were concerned about the family fitting comfortably in a couple of years. Also, the reliability/quality issues were a big worry. I asked several friends who own VW's about it, and they were happy with theirs, but it still weighed heavily on our minds.

Mazda 5
---------
I made my wife check this one out. I thought the space, versatility, and sliding rear doors were great. And the kids would have liked the separate captains chairs that slid and reclined. The engine was okay but the mileage was not great. Ultimately, my wife said she didn't want another mini-van. She's always liked SUV's. But there's no denying that the Mazda 5 is a great package that meets the needs of a small family.

The funny thing is that we went early on a Saturday morning to check out the Mazda 5 and Jetta since the two lots were close to each other. My wife chose to look at the VW first, but they were not open yet (What? They don't think people go shopping on Saturday mornings?) so we walked over to the Mazda dealership, and we saw the CX-5 sitting out front. I had read about it, but did not know that they were already available in early March. It was not even on my radar of vehicles to check out. Fate is a funny thing.

awmenard
04-17-2012, 11:43 AM
For me the choice was based on 3 things

Looks
Full economy
Price/features

The CRV was ruled out pretty quick, took a look at some pics and did not even bother to check it out in person

The escape was not available and for a fully loaded model it is nearly 10k more then the CX5.

For the same price you loose a lot of the bells and whistles.

smithsm1984
04-17-2012, 12:12 PM
I really don't get the engine selections on the Escape. Why does Ford want to doom some buyers to an old 4-banger with poor gas mileage? That doesn't seem to vibe with the affordable-premium feel they're trying to put in to their cars. The new Fusion, which is beautiful, looks like it is going to have the same problem.

Perhaps Ecoboost really is that cost prohibitive for them, but if that's the case, maybe they should have thought of that earlier.

CX-SV
04-17-2012, 12:37 PM
2013 Escape's mainstream engines will be 1.6 Ecoboost (turbo) and 2.0 Ecoboost (turbo). The old base 2.3 4-banger will be sold almost exclusively to rental or fleet customers. It's expected that the 1.6 Ecoboost will have highest EPA gas mileage ratings, probably very similar to EPA ratings of CX-5.

smithsm1984
04-17-2012, 03:14 PM
I think the use of turbo is going to bite Ford in the ass five years down the road, by the way. I see the turbos eventually failing and buyers getting angry about it.

CX-SV
04-17-2012, 04:13 PM
Too early to tell about new Ecoboost 4's. The 2.0L turbo is in the Edge, Explorer and Range Rover Evoque but none have been out long enough to acculate big miles.

Since this is a Mazda forum, what's the durability like on the Mazdaspeed turbo engines?

smithsm1984
04-17-2012, 06:31 PM
It's not bad but it is worse than NA Mazdas. Most of the turbo versions of vehicles I've seen rated for reliability on Consumer Reports and Truedelta seem to be less reliable than the NA version, which is why I'm skeptical of EcoBoost.

Certainly, Ford is in unexplored territory. I'm not aware of anyone ever pushing turbos on virtually all models across an entire brand. Except for the Germans...and it often hasn't work out well for them, reliability-wise.

CX-SV
04-17-2012, 06:53 PM
Yes, German automakers in US market have mixed results with turbo engines (Audi head gaskets, BMW fuel pumps, newer Mercedes turbos tbd).

Ford turbos (Ecoboost) still too early to know.

Maybe same can be said for Skyactiv engines and trannys, maybe still too early to know (high compression, light weight pistons, small torque converters, clutches in auto tranny, direct injection, who knows....). Certainly Mazda has a better track record than Ford in recent years with reliability.

I'm still open to a new Escape in a couple of years (if one of my family members wants my CX-5), but I'm z-plan so the discounts are deep.

Modshack
04-19-2012, 10:35 AM
Having driven a Honda Element for the past 5 years, the CRV (as well as the Escape) were on the radar. I'm a Honda Guy, having worked for the corporation of 20+ years (in the Motorcycle division). My pension counts on them doing well! I was sorely disappointed with the recent make-over. Little to no advances technically, frumpy styling etc. My wife wanted something with the same utility. As news of the CX5 started leaking out, I became intrigued with the ground up development and the whole Skyactiv package. My daughter has a Mazda 3 5 door and I've had 3 Miata's as well, so I had good Mazda experiences. The CX5 turned out to be everything I'd hoped it would be. This is my 64th car so I've been around the block a little!. We've had it a few weeks and 1000 miles now and we both love the car. Great handling, terrific mileage, attractive styling. I couldn't be happier with the choice. My Honda sales guy was not so happy though...Honda's been off their game for a few years now. I have no doubt the CRV will wildly outsell the CX5 in the grand scheme of things though just due to Honda's footprint and reputation. Those that make the CX5 choice will be getting the better car though..

inodes
04-19-2012, 11:03 AM
My Honda sales guy was not so happy though...Honda's been off their game for a few years now. I have no doubt the CRV will wildly outsell the CX5 in the grand scheme of things though just due to Honda's footprint and reputation. Those that make the CX5 choice will be getting the better car though..

The Odyssey and CR-V were on my radar as well. I've always been a fan of Honda products. They're one of the Japanese brands I would consider. Toyota, Honda and Mazda are typically up the top in terms of reliability. I have owned two Mazda's myself, and my Mum has had several Mazda's going back to the early 60's. But I have driven many a Honda and Toyota as well.

Toyota is instantly struck for me. Although they're reliable, they have poor styling, terrible seating positions and the majority of their cars lack any excitement. Jumping into a Lexus brings in another step in quality, bells and whistles - but of late the styling is awkward and the driving experience feels very assisted electronically.
Honda gets thumbs up for style in some of their vehicles. The Accord Euro (Acura TSX in US), drives well and has received a Car of Year award in Australia. The CR-X was awarded car of the year, this year.
But having driven the Odyssey and the CR-V, I was left scratching my head before promptly falling asleep from boredom.
Jumping in the CX-7 instantly made me feel alive again. And the CX-5 was a more mature version of that (albeit a lot slower).

JTNY
04-19-2012, 02:19 PM
after owning a VW Jetta 1.8 Turbo, i will never ever buy a car with any kind of turbo. The extra hoses, excessive heat, oil consumption, requirement of using premium fuel far outweighs the fun factor esp as the car ages and picks up more miles.

kampfire
04-19-2012, 02:28 PM
So I priced out a a FWD 2013 Escape 1.6 SE FWD and tried to build it the same as our Touring FWD. The major differnce between the two is that the CX-5 comes with Bi-Xenon headlamps. The CX-5 comes in 27,205 MSRP and the Escape 29,2XX! $2000 is alot of coin. Not to mention the escape has 3inches less legroom in the back. Plus you have to realize that sure a turbo engine can get great gas mileage, but once you get into boost the mileage will tank. You'll have to baby the Escape to get the EPA numbers.

Modshack
04-19-2012, 03:16 PM
after owning a VW Jetta 1.8 Turbo, i will never ever buy a car with any kind of turbo. The extra hoses, excessive heat, oil consumption, requirement of using premium fuel far outweighs the fun factor esp as the car ages and picks up more miles.

On the other hand, I've got plenty of Audi and VW buddies with 200K + miles on original turbos. I'm sure the Ecoboost will be fine having seen the 165K torture test they put the F-150 through.. Low pressure turbo systems are pretty reliable these days... Not to say they can't be occasionally problematic....

smithsm1984
04-19-2012, 08:09 PM
So I priced out a a FWD 2013 Escape 1.6 SE FWD and tried to build it the same as our Touring FWD. The major differnce between the two is that the CX-5 comes with Bi-Xenon headlamps. The CX-5 comes in 27,205 MSRP and the Escape 29,2XX! $2000 is alot of coin. Not to mention the escape has 3inches less legroom in the back. Plus you have to realize that sure a turbo engine can get great gas mileage, but once you get into boost the mileage will tank. You'll have to baby the Escape to get the EPA numbers.

The Escape's pricing is a bit nutty, but then again, the Focus also looks expensive. Then you realize Ford dealers are laying $2000-$3000 on the hood of the car before you even start negotiations.

Not that Mazda won't do that either...dealers seem to be taking big chunks off the MSRP of the Mazda 3 as well.

CX-SV
04-19-2012, 08:20 PM
^ I have the same concerns about bloated MSRP pricing of the new Escapes.

With a loaded CX-5 GT AWD stickering just under $31K and it seems like a similar Escape AWD 1.6L turbo would be about $34-$35K, that is a significant difference. But as you pointed out Ford customers are used to discounts of several thousand dollars off MSRP on a regular basis.

inodes
04-20-2012, 04:53 AM
One thing to remember for the Ford Escape sold in the US is unfortunately based on the now extremely old Ford Kuga.
We've just released the Ford Kuga in Australia, many years too late (it's a 2008 model). And car magazines here are being critical of it.

The big question is... why release it now?

The model will be replaced in Europe (and also Australia) in a very short period of time.

The Escape is based on the old C1 platform (also found on the Mazda 3). The CX-5 is arguably a far more advanced platform (otherwise the CX-5 would have been based on the C1 as well).

CX-SV
04-20-2012, 10:59 AM
Note: The 2013 Escape is not same as old 2008 Kuga (yes, the 2008 Kuga came to Australia late or just over a year ago), even though C1-derived. Fortunately it's based on the redesigned Kuga which is far superior to the 12 year old non fuel-efficient EOL Escape it replaces here. In the US domestic market I expect the new 2013 Escape to outsell the CX-5 by a ratio of at least 3 to 1.

Test mules caught by spies were new 2013 hardware in old Kuga bodies over a year ago but that was not the redesigned body and platform. That's a typical test mule scenario for automakers.

In the US, automakers realize the importance and growth potential of the compact SUV market. I'm certainly glad about increasing levels of competition. I think Mazda and Ford will stand out as drivers choices over Honda in this class.

The redesigned 2013 Kuga just made its debut in Geneva in March 2012 as a 2013 model and will go on sale in Europe and ROW later in 2012 as a global platform (new Kuga= new Escape). Critical magazine reviews of the 2008 Kuga (first generation) are not applicable to 2013 Ford Escape or the 2013 Ford Kuga (2nd generation).

VK Sefirosu
04-20-2012, 08:30 PM
^ I have the same concerns about bloated MSRP pricing of the new Escapes.

With a loaded CX-5 GT AWD stickering just under $31K and it seems like a similar Escape AWD 1.6L turbo would be about $34-$35K, that is a significant difference. But as you pointed out Ford customers are used to discounts of several thousand dollars off MSRP on a regular basis.

I honestly haven't checked the specs of the 1.6L Ecoboost engine but am I the only one here seeing where Mazda could position their diesel CX-5 in regards to that ? A little pricier, but better performing engine and, probably, better MPG ?

I'm still hoping.

Lando
04-20-2012, 09:02 PM
I have checked out the Forester, Sportage and Outback, as well as the CX-5. Of those, the CX-5 gets my vote. The dealer in Bend, OR, had a manual Tiguan, but it had not been prepped yet, so I couldn't drive it, but I have since ruled it out due to reliability issues reported by owners.

One vehicle that no one has mentioned yet in this discussion is the new Acura RDX. Yeah, I know it's in a higher price bracket, but I still wanted to check one out. I drove the first generation, and found it to be a bit too high strung with terrible gas mileage, although people on the RDX forum seem to love it. When I read that the new one was ditching the turbo in favor of a V6, and was going to be about the same size as the CRV, I thought it warranted a look.

So, I checked out the new one yesterday, and was impressed with the overall package. The dealer had one in stock for test driving purposes, and it was the top of the line with AWD and tech package and every other option that they could jack up the price with. It is very nice on the inside with a great, but very expensive, tech package. It's got a 273 hp engine hooked to a 6 spd auto with paddle shifters. It's about 500 lbs heavier than the Cx-5. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to drive it, and at $40,000, it's going to have to be really exceptional for me to want to spend that much, but we have owned 2 Acuras and they have been absolutely bulletproof as far as reliability, and low maintenance costs. I am going to try to test drive one next week and I will post my impressions.

Canadian-ES-GT
04-20-2012, 09:35 PM
I honestly haven't checked the specs of the 1.6L Ecoboost engine but am I the only one here seeing where Mazda could position their diesel CX-5 in regards to that ? A little pricier, but better performing engine and, probably, better MPG ?

I'm still hoping.

Mazda must be waiting for the new Rav4 and Escape to come out. They will probably (well, hopefully) introduce the new 6 with the diesel, and put it in the CX-5 shortly after. It would be a great competitor for any hybrid or small turbo CUV.

CX-SV
04-21-2012, 11:49 AM
In the US (California) diesel fuel is about 5% more expensive than premium high octane gasoline. What is diesel pricing versus gasoline in Canada?

smithsm1984
04-21-2012, 02:20 PM
Guys, no one is going to buy a diesel in the states, because its a diesel and doesn't have a Volkswagen badge.

Okay thats not the real reason...the real reason is that it will be a lot more expensive than the gas version and diesel is a bit more expensive than gas to buy. So it really only ends up making sense if you drive a lot of highway miles.

VK Sefirosu
04-21-2012, 07:58 PM
In the US (California) diesel fuel is about 5% more expensive than premium high octane gasoline. What is diesel pricing versus gasoline in Canada?

Here 87 octane gasoline (standard) is 1.44$/L and diesel is 1.36$/L right now.


Okay thats not the real reason...the real reason is that it will be a lot more expensive than the gas version and diesel is a bit more expensive than gas to buy. So it really only ends up making sense if you drive a lot of highway miles.

If VW can sell diesel cars I can't see why Mazda wouldn't be able to as well. I know most buyers probably won't think that way but even if it would be a little pricier to buy and marginally pricier to fuel up per gallon or litre than, let's say a more powerful gas car like the turbo CX-7 or the new 1.6 or 2.0L ecoboost Escape for example, won't possible better fuel economy on the diesel CX-5 make a better deal in the end ?

Just a thought.

bamirault
04-22-2012, 10:12 AM
In the US (California) diesel fuel is about 5% more expensive than premium high octane gasoline. What is diesel pricing versus gasoline in Canada?

Thursday night in Ottawa diesel was point 2 cents per litre (ie less than a penny) cheaper than regular. I have seen it up to 8 cents per litre more costly. Generally in this market gas can fluctuate over a day while diesel prices are set by the week. I will get the diesel when available as the dollar-over savings on consumption remain greater than the per litre savings on gas - in this market.

Even if there were no consumption savings making it impossible to recover the increased investment in diesel technology I would still get the diesel for the actual reduction in the physical volume of fuel consumed over distance. Call me crazy but it has to be better for the environment to just burn less of it.

Disclosure - I don't own a CX-5. I will be replacing my thirteen year old Volvo S70 as soon as the new Escape is available at local dealers. The Mazda is current first choice but the Ford is too close to not consider it. I like Mazda. I am currently on my second MX-5 (2010 GT PRHT). The best car I ever owned (not the nicest) was a 1990 Mazda 626 bought new and sold in 1999.

Brian

Canadian-ES-GT
04-22-2012, 11:23 AM
If the diesel is marketed as a "high performance" engine... well, as the sportier choice, it will be easier to sell. People buying a more performant version of a car tend to know more about cars, and should be more open to the diesel.

CX-SV
04-22-2012, 12:46 PM
But CX-5 diesel is not significantly better from a measured/instrumented testing performance standpoint, despite torquey feel in regular driving. It does get much better MPG, that's a big difference in measured data. That's why economy aspect is played up.

Magbarn
04-22-2012, 03:29 PM
But CX-5 diesel is not significantly better from a measured/instrumented testing performance standpoint, despite torquey feel in regular driving. It does get much better MPG, that's a big difference in measured data. That's why economy aspect is played up.
Isn't it a better drive though? Just test drove a new 328i with 4 cyl turbo. Supposedly the mpg is just as good as my 335d diesel, but my diesel is definitely a much more relaxing drive as I don't have to rev the engine at all to get awesome power. I noticed I had to work the cx5 petrol engine quite a bit to get it moving on the freeway with 4 adults. Wife and I are thinking about waiting for either diesel option or possible rumored turbo petrol variant.

CX-SV
04-22-2012, 08:33 PM
Yes more relaxed drive. Now we see why the Marketing group plays up fuel economy. Sporty drivers of sport sedans bouncing off rev limiters is not something BMW plans to advertise. The 335tt gasser is faster and more fun.

In California with diesel at 5% more expensive than premium gas it's a tougher sale than Canada.

Canadian-ES-GT
04-22-2012, 09:34 PM
ohh, I guess I thought the extra 20hp and 100-some torque would have made a bigger difference. Would still be nice to bring the diesel as the diesel market is growing and they are being more and more accepted.

zsawyer
04-22-2012, 10:21 PM
I'm worried because I really want to pull the trigger on a CX 5 NOW. But, I also would really love the diesel if I could get it (in Canada).
Things Im worried about:
1) Is the diesel THAT much more powerful? I am kind of worried the petrol would be underpowered for me and I would kick myself for not waiting.
2) How long would I actually have to wait? If it would be not until fall 2013 for a 2014 CX5 then I would probably just buy now
3) How much more would it cost? I want the GS version with Navigation installed, in Canada that comes to about 32K. I wouldn't want to pay much more than that for diesel... Maybe 2k more max.

smithsm1984
04-23-2012, 01:04 AM
Just go ahead and buy now if you like the CX-5. Maybe they'll bring the diesel and maybe they won't, it will be more expensive, it won't be that much more powerful in terms of raw speed.

You can spend a couple years waiting or you can enjoy the CX-5 now. Talk about the gas engine sucking is just the usual enthusiast circle-jerk. The gas engine is fine.

zsawyer
04-23-2012, 08:23 AM
Sweet, I needed someone more reasonable to come say that. So thank you.

It is a CUV and not a sports car so I am not really worried about how fast it is, as long as its decent enough for every day driving.

inodes
04-23-2012, 10:43 AM
But CX-5 diesel is not significantly better from a measured/instrumented testing performance standpoint, despite torquey feel in regular driving. It does get much better MPG, that's a big difference in measured data. That's why economy aspect is played up.

Having both available to drive in Australia. You're actually incorrect.
The difference in terms of driving between the diesel CX-5 and the petrol CX-5 is significant. It almost feels like going from a standard Mazda 3 to a Mazdaspeed 3. (And I can state this on the basis of 7 years Mazda 3 ownership and racing Mazdaspeed 3's at a race track).

The power doesn't seem like a lot of paper. But it's the torque.
Both engines hit 1000rpm quite quickly and often.... But at 1000rpm the diesel already has 50% of it's total available torque, and the max at 2000rpm. The max torque the petrol has at 4000rpm (which you don't get to unless pressed), is a figure the diesel has with zero effort at 800rpm.

This translates into extremely quick take offs if you need them. To get the same torque, the petrol has to wait until 4000rpm - which make it only useful for overtakes.

The petrol seems to be begging for more. The diesel has everything you need, then more.
The torque difference is noticeable in two situations:

1. From a standing start (e.g. set of traffic lights).
2. On highway for overtaking

The 0-100 is roughly a second faster for the diesel due to the fact that it's only available in auto (slower), AWD (heavier) and it's 80kg heavier to begin with.

Basically the car dealerships are starting to strip back their petrol orders here. Consumers who are in market for either mid or top end who test drive both, are refusing to purchase the petrol.

The fact that emissions are better. Performance is better. Resale is better.
There isn't a need to play up the economy.

In regards to the apparent negatives of diesel being noisy and sooty - the CX-5 lacks both.
The only comment I get from passengers is how silent the vehicle is. And it's mainly because in normal driving rpms are MUCH lower than the petrol, and there is practically no effort (or rpm) to travel at normal speeds.

inodes
04-23-2012, 10:51 AM
It is a CUV and not a sports car so I am not really worried about how fast it is, as long as its decent enough for every day driving.

The petrol is superb for everyday driving. The fuel economy is superb as well. You don't need to worry.
But the comparison is there for when the diesel is finally released into the North American market.

inodes
04-23-2012, 11:04 AM
1) Is the diesel THAT much more powerful? I am kind of worried the petrol would be underpowered for me and I would kick myself for not waiting.
2) How long would I actually have to wait? If it would be not until fall 2013 for a 2014 CX5 then I would probably just buy now
3) How much more would it cost? I want the GS version with Navigation installed, in Canada that comes to about 32K. I wouldn't want to pay much more than that for diesel... Maybe 2k more max.

My comments are already on this thread. But if you want a second opinion, search for any reviews in non North American countries - because we all have diesels and there is no comparison.

If you can't wait - then don't. But if you have six months to think about it, then it would be well worth the wait.

The car magazines in Australia are being blunt about the situation. Actually, they're writing off the petrol CX-5 as complete rubbish. But they're only saying that because the diesel exists.
In isolation, the Petrol CX-5 is excellent.... but only the US and Canada have the luxury of rating it in isolation.

The British are more polite about the situation:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/mazda-cx5-first-drive-2012-04-17

And remember, the British are comparing a high spec petrol (14:1 compression, high octane fuel), with two diesels (including a low end diesel - which we don't even bother selling in Australia). Also keep in mind that British mpg differ in calculation to US mpg.

The new 165bhp 2.0-litre petrol isn't worth bothering with. Yes, the bewilderingly high compression ratio (14:1) has helped ensure it's impressively economical (a claimed 47.1mpg), but it's actually noisier than the new 2.2-litre diesel and lacks the torque of turbocharged rivals.

The oil-burner, predicted to account for 85 per cent of sales, is a force to be reckoned with, though. It's remarkably smooth-revving, and even the lower powered 150bhp version is plenty quick and torquey enough.

In Australia, the diesel is so much better that it's accounting for 85% of sales.
In Japan, a country that has 1% Diesel sales - it's accounting for 85% of sales.

CX-SV
04-23-2012, 11:09 AM
Inodes - As I pointed out correctly the difference in measured fuel economy is greater than difference in measured performance (typical measured and instrumented testing data is what I'm taking about, not subjective drivability). That is why manufacturers emphasize that. My comment only explains why auto makers emphasize the economy aspect, because in terms of measured data, the increase in economy (%) is more significant than the increase (%) in typically measured performance data. (This has nothing to do with racing Mazda 3's or the the difference in driving the diesel version is significant for the CX-5.)

I already mentioned the diesel's better torque and better drivability and I do appreciate the driving review you gave above. Like you, I think the CX-5 diesel is the better ride for most SUV typical users in most markets. None of the CX-5's are high performance SUVs (not the gas or diesel engine). The list of SUVs with better performance is too long to list here.

btw - More on topic, did you see clarification on new Ford Escape=new Ford Kuga, both not yet for sale in Australia or ROW, but coming soon. Sounds like an example of high performance compact SUV will be the 2.0L turbo Escape, it should have significantly better measured performance than CRV or CX-5 with engines currently available.

xwedge
04-23-2012, 11:47 AM
I'm worried because I really want to pull the trigger on a CX 5 NOW. But, I also would really love the diesel if I could get it (in Canada).
Things Im worried about:
1) Is the diesel THAT much more powerful? I am kind of worried the petrol would be underpowered for me and I would kick myself for not waiting.
2) How long would I actually have to wait? If it would be not until fall 2013 for a 2014 CX5 then I would probably just buy now
3) How much more would it cost? I want the GS version with Navigation installed, in Canada that comes to about 32K. I wouldn't want to pay much more than that for diesel... Maybe 2k more max.

1) A skyactiv-D will have DOUBLE the torque of the gas engine. It will definitely be faster.
2) There are rumors that'll it'll be launched in March of next year. If they don't have news about the diesel or it's not launched by then, the diesel will never come and you can take the plunge for the petrol version. It doesn't hurt to wait 11 months. I'm actually in the same boat as you are.

zsawyer
04-23-2012, 12:22 PM
Yeah, I suppose I could wait. I'm driving a little Saturn Astra XR right now, its a 2008 and in fine shape so its not like I NEED another vehicle, I just want something a bit bigger and AWD.
Maybe I'll just save a larger down payment in the mean time, to offset the higher cost of the diesel.

I saw on the Mazda Australia site that the diesel was about 4000 more expensive, but their prices in general seem a lot higher than what we pay here in N.A.

xwedge
04-23-2012, 05:48 PM
Yeah, I suppose I could wait. I'm driving a little Saturn Astra XR right now, its a 2008 and in fine shape so its not like I NEED another vehicle, I just want something a bit bigger and AWD.
Maybe I'll just save a larger down payment in the mean time, to offset the higher cost of the diesel.

I saw on the Mazda Australia site that the diesel was about 4000 more expensive, but their prices in general seem a lot higher than what we pay here in N.A.

I'd say a $1500-$2000 premium for the diesel is about right.

bamirault
04-23-2012, 05:52 PM
1)
2) There are rumors that'll it'll be launched in March of next year. If they don't have news about the diesel or it's not launched by then, the diesel will never come and you can take the plunge for the petrol version. It doesn't hurt to wait 11 months. I'm actually in the same boat as you are.

My opinion only, but waiting for the diesel from ANY maker is a mugs game which will eventually grow very old. My '99 Volvo was to be replaced in '09 so I started the replacement search in '08 to discover that the preferred model (Forester) was being released in Europe in '99 with a diesel. With the rumour that this engine would be coming to Canada in '10, I opted to wait until then so as to get the diesel. I have continued to drive my '99 Volvo in the face of continued rumour that the diesel Forester would be coming 'next year'. Since '10 the Tiguan diesel has been coming 'next year'. Now the diesel CX-5 may be here in the fall of '13.

Life is too short. If the '13 Escape can't best the CX-5 on its own spring release I will be ordering the CX-5 with the only available gas engine. In the event that a diesel eventually arrives I will consider an upgrade to it. It has been an error to put off for so long replacing the sedan with a CUV, as the latter will so much better meet my needs.

Brian

inodes
04-24-2012, 08:46 AM
I saw on the Mazda Australia site that the diesel was about 4000 more expensive, but their prices in general seem a lot higher than what we pay here in N.A.

Prices are higher for the typical reasons. Supply, demand and ability to pay.
Our salaries are closer to Western European level and significantly more than the US or Canada (then again, our costs of living are significantly more as well).
Prices also seem more expensive because it's against Australian law to provide prices unless every single tax and cost is included. Providing pre- prices is considered to be misleading to customers and leads to dealers cheating some customers.
What you see is what you get - you can only argue the price down.
It's against the law for the dealer to increase the price to their benefit.

Our exchange rates should have fixed the cost though. The Aussie dollar is among the strongest currencies which should have made the CX-5 cheaper. European cars has plummeted in price in Australia - the CX-5 is a tad high.

The $3000 price difference for diesel is fairly standard though. Only on Chinese manufacturers will you see it dip down to $2000.
But Australians will blindly pay the money without a thought. It's not considered to be very much money at all.

inodes
04-24-2012, 09:08 AM
My opinion only, but waiting for the diesel from ANY maker is a mugs game which will eventually grow very old.


Anything could happen. Wind back the clock 4 years, and Australia was identical to the US. Auto makers wanted to sell diesels. We wouldn't buy them.
For us diesel is more expensive fuel, it was considered too dirty and there was no apparent advantage. We even had to pay more.

Decent marketing, a few world records set by Peugeot diesels driving between major cities in Australia and we were convinced.

Australia has a similar size and urban rate to the US. But our cities are further apart with very few petrol stations in between. To be shown that with a diesel we could go from city to city on one tank, was the marketing pitch we required.

Within 4 years Australia went from practically zero diesels, to being a market in which an auto manufacture has to offer diesel if they're serious.

The Japanese have a low rate of diesels than the US. They're less convinced. No Euro car maker has dared enter the diesel market seriously in Japan. They'd fail.

I watched Mazda's marketing though (was in Japanese, but wife helped translate). It was a convincing case.
They highlighted two points:
1. CX-5 had extremely low emissions, PM and NOx - thrashing every government's diesel standard
2. Japan was producing diesel, but the usage was low and it was exporting diesel - a waste.

Both points are valid for the US as well.
The US is lucky in that it produces a very high quality diesel that complies with all standards (albeit production at a ratio that favours gasoline). But domestic diesel consumption in the US is so low, that in the past the US has been exporting excess to Europe for their consumption.
It is diesel that *could* be consumed domestically instead.

It might not be this year, or the next.... but when the US finally gets why the rest of the developed world is in love with diesels, there will be a rapid conversion.

With the CX-5 the argument is even more convincing...

Diesel CX-5 is the better performer, better fuel economy and much better CO2 emissions with very low pollution for a diesel (NOx and PM are far less of a concern with petrol engines)

ADVWannabe
04-24-2012, 11:49 AM
but when the US finally gets why the rest of the developed world is in love with diesels, there will be a rapid conversion.

I signed up to reply to this. I believe that the US has long been ready for diesel but the auto manufacturers refuse to give them to us. I had a 2002 Ford F-150 and the rumor was that Ford was working on a baby diesel for it. Everyone on the F-150 forum was ready to trade their gas trucks for it. But the word was they couldn't meet the upcoming EPA laws and ditched it. The only real choice for diesel in the US is VW which has quality issues or high end/expensive cars like BMW and Mercedes. I am sure that when Mazda or any other mainstream mfg gives us a viable diesel, it will sell very well. I and a friend of mine are waiting on the CX-5 diesel to hit the states.

CX-SV
04-24-2012, 01:12 PM
Now that this is the thread is focused on diesel, we've had a lot of posters report on diesel pricing from around the world. It sounds like the US in the only major market with diesel pricing that's about 10% over the price of regular/low octane gasoline.

Certainly Mazda should consider offering diesel option in all markets for a competitive advantage with better selection of engine choices, especially in markets where Escape and CRV (the topic here) have been so dominant.

smithsm1984
04-24-2012, 03:07 PM
I signed up to reply to this. I believe that the US has long been ready for diesel but the auto manufacturers refuse to give them to us. I had a 2002 Ford F-150 and the rumor was that Ford was working on a baby diesel for it. Everyone on the F-150 forum was ready to trade their gas trucks for it. But the word was they couldn't meet the upcoming EPA laws and ditched it. The only real choice for diesel in the US is VW which has quality issues or high end/expensive cars like BMW and Mercedes. I am sure that when Mazda or any other mainstream mfg gives us a viable diesel, it will sell very well. I and a friend of mine are waiting on the CX-5 diesel to hit the states.

The real issue is that diesel is more expensive in the United States than gas, and because we have stricter emissions standards, there are additional costs associated with bringing a diesel engine here.

Our fuel prices are also low in-general, so whatever cost savings you might end up with at factoring in the price you paid for the diesel and the higher price of diesel is likely to be small, for the same reason that the money you save by going diesel is small.

inodes
04-24-2012, 08:26 PM
I signed up to reply to this. I believe that the US has long been ready for diesel but the auto manufacturers refuse to give them to us. I had a 2002 Ford F-150 and the rumor was that Ford was working on a baby diesel for it. Everyone on the F-150 forum was ready to trade their gas trucks for it. But the word was they couldn't meet the upcoming EPA laws and ditched it. The only real choice for diesel in the US is VW which has quality issues or high end/expensive cars like BMW and Mercedes. I am sure that when Mazda or any other mainstream mfg gives us a viable diesel, it will sell very well. I and a friend of mine are waiting on the CX-5 diesel to hit the states.

The US is a very sophisticated market. The quality of diesel full is done. The environmental requirements are tough.
But the CX-5 exceeds all government emission requirements by such a large margin it's not funny (even California).

The CX-5 Diesel would be acceptable in the US here and now. It's CARB friendly.

But would it sell? Would Mazda bet on it?

thatwazmysn
04-24-2012, 08:52 PM
If Mazda brings the diesel in the cx-5 to the US early next year, is it likely that it will only be mated to the automatic tranny and not the manual?

smithsm1984
04-25-2012, 12:13 AM
I'd a manual is unlikely unless they need the manual to meet an MPG magic number they can't hit with the automatic.

inodes
04-25-2012, 08:17 AM
If Mazda brings the diesel in the cx-5 to the US early next year, is it likely that it will only be mated to the automatic tranny and not the manual?
It really comes down to the market. The US is an auto market, so Mazda USA would be foolish requesting a manual to be imported.

When the CX-7 was developed, Mazda in Japan was listening to two major markets - the US and the UK.
For the US, a turbo charged petrol + auto was created. For the UK (and Europe), a turbo charged diesel + manual was created.

When Mazda Australia looked at the product they hit a quandary. They wanted both engines, but they thought that the Australian market would embrace the diesel but turn their nose up at the manual (Australia is 90% auto). That's exactly what happened.

The CX-5 Diesel is selling *extremely* well. The fact it's tied to an auto (that makes all their old autos look pathetic), is only helping.


I'd a manual is unlikely unless they need the manual to meet an MPG magic number they can't hit with the automatic.

The diesel is good enough. Add the extra weight of AWD and Diesel, add the slower auto - and the fuel economy and performance still outdoes the manual FWD petrol.

Australian Government tests fuel economy, because it's illegal for Mazda to do so.

Definition:

Combined: Mix of city and highway
Urban: City
Extra: Highway

Results:

CX-5 Petrol FWD Manual
Comb: 6.4L/100km (36.8mpg)
Urban: 8L/100km (29.4mpg)
Extra: 5.5L/100km (42.8mpg)

CX-5 Diesel AWD Auto
Comb: 5.7L/100km (41.3mpg)
Urban: 6.7L/100km (35.1mpg)
Extra: 5.1L/100km (46.1mpg)

I think the greatest benefit here is that the CX-5 Petrol varies far more between city and highway than the diesel.

I'm not getting figures close to this. More work required. But very happy. Thrashes my Mazda 3.

But I digress...... need to get back on topic :)

zsawyer
04-25-2012, 01:37 PM
Back to topic then:

I am curious what North Americans would buy OTHER than the CX-5 in this segment. Without the diesel available currently, what other products are there out right now that give the CX-5 Petrol the most competition? I suppose being a mazda forum everyone will probably re-iterate whats already been said.

For me, the Kia Sportage looks pretty nice, but I don't really like the looks of the new escape.

CX-SV
04-25-2012, 01:45 PM
^ Yes, given the topic being CX-5, CRV, Escape, we still have a bit to learn about new redesigned Ford Escape/redesigned Ford Kuga. The high-volume Escape configuration for US market is expected to be the 1.6L turbo, but EPA gas mileage estimates are still TBD and availability at dealers is not expected until May.

I agree the Kia Sportage certainly is very stylish, but I found inventory variety to be lacking at several dealerships. CRV rates well for those seeking practicality (including roominess, ride quality, quietness, refinement, reliability, resale value, safety) over driving enjoyment, but not something I wanted to own. The CX-5 has many of these attributes and some others too.

smithsm1984
04-25-2012, 04:54 PM
Back to topic then:

I am curious what North Americans would buy OTHER than the CX-5 in this segment. Without the diesel available currently, what other products are there out right now that give the CX-5 Petrol the most competition? I suppose being a mazda forum everyone will probably re-iterate whats already been said.

For me, the Kia Sportage looks pretty nice, but I don't really like the looks of the new escape.

Well, the CR-V is a lot more practical. I love my CX-5 but let's face it - that sporty hatch-like rear end is kind of dumb if you view your car as practical transportation rather than driving enjoyment. The CR-V also has a lower load floor and more accessible seats (i've heard older folks complain that the bolstering in the CX-5 makes them harder to get in/out of). The Honda may not be exciting but they have really done their homework on the features its buyers use most.

The Escape is going to get a lot of people who are looking for something that feels a bit more modern inside. Personally I would take the CX-5's interior any day, but it looks dated. When the Ward's Best Interiors list came out the arm-chair enthusiasts were constantly whining that the CX-5 doesn't belong on the list. Why? It looks boring! Ford has a certain modern design philosophy that a lot of people enjoy.

And every competitor on the market has more power. Nevermind the fact that many of them actually aren't much quicker in instrumented testing - they have more torque and feel faster. Here in America you have people saying stupid things like accusing the CX-5's mill as being so slow that it's unsafe. What the really mean by that is that they're not comfortable taking an engine above 3K RPM.

prhac
04-25-2012, 05:37 PM
The Escape is going to get a lot of people who are looking for something that feels a bit more modern inside. Personally I would take the CX-5's interior any day, but it looks dated. When the Ward's Best Interiors list came out the arm-chair enthusiasts were constantly whining that the CX-5 doesn't belong on the list. Why? It looks boring! Ford has a certain modern design philosophy that a lot of people enjoy.


Interior design: It must be difficult for manufactures to satisfy not just individuals, but also regions of the world. In the UK (and obviously Germany!) most motoring press 'love' the design of the VW cars, especially the Golf. They say how simple it is to look at and ergonomically. In France, they like the more flamboyant design even though it may be 'messy' to use. One thing I have noticed over the years is that some very modern designs look great for a couple of years then trends change and they suddenly look out-of-date whereas the moderate designs (like the Golf and now the CX5) still look fine.

smithsm1984
04-25-2012, 06:03 PM
Oh, I agree. Though the CX-5 base model was really the only one in my budget, the fact it lacks even Bluetooth is not a problem for me. I am not a technophobe - in fact, I am employed as a writer and reviewer for several large websites that focus on consumer electronics. Its that experience that makes me prefer cars without tech - because I know today's fancy gadget is going to feel horribly out of date three years ago. I feel sorry for the people who are buying Ford products with MyFordTouch. I know they're going to be insanely jealous when new versions debut with better, higher-resolution displays, additional app support and faster processors.

CX-SV
04-25-2012, 06:10 PM
Interior design: It must be difficult for manufactures to satisfy not just individuals, but also regions of the world. In the UK (and obviously Germany!) most motoring press 'love' the design of the VW cars, especially the Golf. They say how simple it is to look at and ergonomically. In France, they like the more flamboyant design even though it may be 'messy' to use. One thing I have noticed over the years is that some very modern designs look great for a couple of years then trends change and they suddenly look out-of-date whereas the moderate designs (like the Golf and now the CX5) still look fine.

I agree, I think Mazda made right decision to go conservative on interior style, more along the lines of successful premium cars. Good taste ages well in automotive interiors.

thatwazmysn
04-25-2012, 07:56 PM
I'm looking to purchase a new vehicle early next year. Will they still be selling the cx-5 manual petrol if they bring the diesel to the U.S.? If so, what kind of upgrades/improvements do you think it will have over this years vehicle if any? I really want to drive a manual. Even if they don't offer a manual diesel, I will just have to settle with a manual petrol.

Canadian-ES-GT
04-25-2012, 08:32 PM
The CX-5 in North America is already being sold as a 2013 model (kind of weird to me). There shouldn't be any noticeable changes since it should in fact be the exact same model as we are getting now, probably just minor problems being fixed. They should still offer manual next year. If they do get rid of the manual, it wouldn't be until mid-cycle refresh which would be in a few more years (3-4) I guess.

Question for the folks who are informed about the diesel; is there a conformation that Mazda will bring the diesel to NA or is it still rumours/what Mazda plans to do?

(sorry for going off topic again)

zsawyer
04-25-2012, 10:40 PM
I don't think that anyone knows for sure.

The guy at the dealer emailed me saying that: "The diesel version has no release date at this time, but we think that we will see it sometime in the 2014 model year. That is when we are expecting the diesels in the other models as well."

Sounds like its something still in the works, with no concrete plans as of yet....

kampfire
04-27-2012, 11:06 AM
1.6L Escape EPA rating released.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/2013-ford-escape-1-6l-ecoboost-officially-rated-at-23-33-mpg/#continued

23 city and 33 highway. So the highway is better than an auto CX-5 which isnt surprising with a small turbo engine. However I suspect that actual combined mileage will be much lower than the CX-5 since the city rating is 26mpg.

CX-SV
04-27-2012, 11:10 AM
Escape 1.6L still not on EPA website, FWD and AWD will be separate (different ratings).

smithsm1984
04-27-2012, 12:24 PM
1.6L Escape EPA rating released.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/2013-ford-escape-1-6l-ecoboost-officially-rated-at-23-33-mpg/#continued

23 city and 33 highway. So the highway is better than an auto CX-5 which isnt surprising with a small turbo engine. However I suspect that actual combined mileage will be much lower than the CX-5 since the city rating is 26mpg.

And...

"The other powertrains offered in the Escape are returning some pretty impressive fuel economy numbers, too. The naturally aspirated 2.5-liter base engine is rated at 22/31 mpg, and the range-topping 2.0-liter EcoBoost with 240 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque is good for 22/30 mpg. Scroll down for the full details in Ford's press release."

CX-SV
04-27-2012, 01:43 PM
1.6L Escape EPA rating released.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/2013-ford-escape-1-6l-ecoboost-officially-rated-at-23-33-mpg/#continued

23 city and 33 highway. So the highway is better than an auto CX-5 which isnt surprising with a small turbo engine. However I suspect that actual combined mileage will be much lower than the CX-5 since the city rating is 26mpg.

Yes, since we are talking about front wheel drive (automatic) versions, CX-5 is rated as 26/32, 29 combined

Using same calculation that EPA references on website (55% city, 45% highway), Escape 1.6L fwd combined should be 28 combined.

1.6L (given that 1.6L is planned as top selling engine) AWD still tbd.

bamirault
04-27-2012, 05:34 PM
See this link: http://autos.ca.msn.com/reviews/2013/2013-ford-escape-first-drive?page=3

"2013 Ford Escape SE/SEL
Price: $26,899-$33,799
Type of vehicle: FWD or AWD compact crossover
Engine: 1.6/2.0-litre, DOHC, 16-valve, I-4 turbocharged
Power/Torque: 178 hp/177 lb.-ft. / 240 hp/270 lb.-ft.
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
0-100 km/h (est.): 9.5/7.5 seconds
Fuel consumption (city/hwy): 1.6 FWD: 9.1/6.0 L/100 km / 1.6 AWD: 9.2/6.6 L/100 km / 2.0 FWD: 9.5/6.7 L/100 km / 2.0 AWD: 9.8/6.9 L/100 km"

cptkloss
04-28-2012, 03:19 PM
1.6 turbo requires premium gas (at least 5% extra, translates to 1-1.5 mpg)

CX-SV
04-29-2012, 01:05 AM
Escape 2.0L turbo runs on regular, per EPA website. Don't know about 1.6L turbo, not listed yet.

inodes
04-29-2012, 09:44 AM
It's so unfortunate that this Ford is coming so late to the party still.
The complete replacement for the Ford Kuga (Ford Escape), will be on sale in Australia in February 2013. So it's likely that it will be on sale in Europe before year end.

A purchase of the Ford Escape now stands for the purchase of an old vehicle on an ancient platform that will be the old model very quickly.

At least the CX-5 is on a new platform and isn't expecting to be replaced for at least the next 4-5 years.

CX-SV
04-29-2012, 01:54 PM
Note: The 2013 Escape is not same as old 2008 Kuga. Fortunately it's based on the redesigned 2013 Kuga.

Test mules caught by spies were new 2013 hardware in old Kuga bodies over a year ago but that was not the redesigned body and platform. That's a typical test mule scenario for automakers.

The redesigned 2013 Kuga just made its debut in Geneva in March 2012 as a 2013 model and will go on sale in Europe and ROW later in 2012 as a global platform (new 2013 Kuga= new 2013 Escape).

New Kuga timing in Europe above. New Escape in US showrooms in late May hopefully.

prhac
04-29-2012, 02:42 PM
New Kuga timing in Europe above. New Escape in US showrooms in late May hopefully.

This (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/282523/ford_kuga.html) will be the European version with a few minor changes to the exterior.

ManMachine
04-29-2012, 09:58 PM
I tested the CR-V. Currently owning a 2nd Gen CR-V, the new CR-V doesn't seem to offer that much more after 10 years. The design looks awful in the rear, and the worst part is the right leg area. I tend to sit close to the pedals, and my right knee keeps banging into the hard plastic.

I tested the CX-5 touring. Manual shifting the 6sp auto is kind of fun. Almost comparable to our bimmer with the ZF 6sp auto.

CX-SV
04-30-2012, 01:22 PM
This (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/282523/ford_kuga.html) will be the European version with a few minor changes to the exterior.

Yes, the US gets the redesigned Kuga first. New 2013 Ford Kuga and 2013 Escape are the 3rd of Ford’s One Ford strategy where a model is sold as a global vehicle. In Europe expect 2 diesel offerings and 1.6L turbo gasser.

mace
05-01-2012, 10:30 PM
My wife (33) and I (36) - expecting first baby in August chose the CX5. We had narrowed our search to it, the CRV and the Forester - I would have liked to see the new Escape but couldn't/didn't want to wait. We were looking for Fuel efficiency, practicality and comfort. I'm average height, average weight and I couldn't find a comfortable seating position in the CRV, it got better in the leather 8-way power seat but we didn't want to spend the extra money. I had confidence that the Forester would be a great, safe, reliable vehicle but the styling is dated, the 4spd auto is of another era and the fuel efficiency is OK but no where near the Mazda. We chose the CX5 because it's the most fuel efficient, has nearly as much room as the CRV, the seats are supportive and comfortable and in my opinion, it's design style, in and out is the most appealing.

ourlee
05-02-2012, 09:18 AM
Just go ahead and buy now if you like the CX-5. Maybe they'll bring the diesel and maybe they won't, it will be more expensive, it won't be that much more powerful in terms of raw speed.

You can spend a couple years waiting or you can enjoy the CX-5 now. Talk about the gas engine sucking is just the usual enthusiast circle-jerk. The gas engine is fine.

a very slow circle jerk. too fat for 155 hp.

Canadian-ES-GT
05-02-2012, 11:11 AM
Here's a review on all three.

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1204_ford_escape_vs_honda_cr_v_vs_mazda_cx_5_compa rison/
http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac3/mek4563/2013-Ford-Escape-vs-2012-Honda-CR-V-vs-2013-Mazda-CX-5-group-left-side-view.jpg

In the end, they prefered the CX-5

smithsm1984
05-02-2012, 12:01 PM
a very slow circle jerk. too fat for 155 hp.

I know. A high 8-second 0-60 time with a manual and low 9s with an automatic is just dangerous. Why, you'll die the moment you try to merge into highway traffic! (because you're a terrible driver texting your brosef while stuffing french fries in your gullet and steering with your kneecaps).

Every time I see a Ford Fiesta on the roads I cry a little, because due to the slow acceleration those cars instantly explode the moment they make contact with an interstate.

CX-SV
05-02-2012, 12:42 PM
I know. A high 8-second 0-60 time with a manual and low 9s with an automatic is just dangerous. Why, you'll die the moment you try to merge into highway traffic! (because you're a terrible driver texting your brosef while stuffing french fries in your gullet and steering with your kneecaps).

Every time I see a Ford Fiesta on the roads I cry a little, because due to the slow acceleration those cars instantly explode the moment they make contact with an interstate.

Yes, lol, I have the same dramatic non-reaction, not that it matters.

The CRV's extra horsepower is blunted by extremely tall gearing, outdated 5 speed tranny and extra 100+ pounds of weight. It even looks slow.

No doubt the Escape 2.0L turbo is faster, gas mileage isn't even close. The 1.6L turbo should be somewhat quicker than CX-5, with only slightly lower (1mpg) combined EPA gas mileage rating, so that's the most comparable model and intented to be the highest volume config.

Canadian-ES-GT
05-02-2012, 02:20 PM
I think the escape is an extra 300 pounds compared to the CX-5. The 0-60 times should be quite similar.

I still have a hard time understanding why 0-60 in 9 seconds is slow (for some). (eyeballs)

CX-SV
05-02-2012, 07:31 PM
1.6 turbo requires premium gas (at least 5% extra, translates to 1-1.5 mpg)

Yes, Ford allows you to run with regular or premium fuel and they list horsepower accordingly for 1.6L/2.0L (recently updated by Ford):

178 @ 5700 (premium fuel)
173 @ 5700 (regular fuel)

240 @ 5500 (premium fuel)
231 @ 5500 (regular fuel)

plemieux
05-02-2012, 09:50 PM
Not to mention Ford's higher price point on the Escape. To get similarly equiped to the CX-5 Touring you're looking at over $2500 more. Yeah 33mpg hwy instead of the Cx-5's 32. I'll take one less mpg for a lower monthly note and car that is leaps and bounds more fun to drive.

GAXIBM
05-02-2012, 11:41 PM
I bet the milage rates are using premium fuel...

prhac
05-03-2012, 05:42 AM
Many manufactures' quoted mpg can be way out these days as they jockey for position. The motoring press here are now commenting on this as some manufactures are quoting, for example, more than 65 mpg for a car and in the real world it only achieves, say, 50 mpg. One magazine has a True MPG calculator. Of course this is an estimate. (This link (http://www.whatcar.com/truempg/) won't apply to most on the forum as models vary so much with country and fuel ratings, but it's there for anyone interested. Just click on the red box to fill in what's relevant. The number of cars listed at the moment isn't very many)

CX-SV
05-04-2012, 01:44 PM
I bet the milage rates are using premium fuel...

Not sure. EPA (US) website shows regular fuel.

btw - The EPA gas mileage figures were just released today for the 1.6L turbo AWD Escape: 22 city / 30 highway / 25 combined.

So the CX-5 AWD is in solid 1st place for fuel economy in its class (25/31/28).

ManMachine
05-04-2012, 05:16 PM
CR-V 4WD is also 22/30/25. So Ford's turbo isn't that efficient.

thatwazmysn
05-06-2012, 05:43 PM
Does anyone have any predictions on when the 2014 cx-5 will be released in the US? There probably won't be any noticeable changes but I will be buying a new vehicle sometime early 2013 and would love to get the manual cx-5. I just would like to know if the 2014 model year cx-5 will be out by Feb/March of 2013 so I can get the new one instead of the current 2013 cx-5.

DougNuts
05-06-2012, 06:50 PM
CR-V 4WD is also 22/30/25. So Ford's turbo isn't that efficient.

Same mileage and 22 more torque at half the RPMs? That sounds great (and efficient) to me.


Does anyone have any predictions on when the 2014 cx-5 will be released in the US?

I would guess August of 2013.

cmceleste
05-06-2012, 09:52 PM
Just saw a commercial to boast the new Ford line: Focus, Fusion and Escape. One feature I noticed exclusively to the Escape was a feature when a man put his foot under the rear bumper and the lift gate opened. It seems like a pretty useful feature when your hands are full.

IMO Ford is, and has always, been geared around the luxuries in technology including SYNC and self parking monitors seen in the new Fusion.

Mazda has roots of style and gas efficiency. Loving my CX5

ALafya
05-06-2012, 11:28 PM
Considering only AWD vehicles, I've been considering the Forester, CX-5, CR-V, RAV-4 and Escape.
The cheapest Escape AWD is $27K, which is $3K more than the others. MPG is average in the group.
The CR-V's back-end is functional but does not look good. MPG is average. It has higher HP figures but does not have anymore torque and is practically one of the slower vehicles in the group. Honda might be changing it again, to receive a DI engine and different transmission, but it's not clear when.
The CX-5 is the most underpowered but is not the slowest in the group. It has the best MPG in the group and probably looks the best. It definitely rides the best. The Diesel should be available Jan - April 2013 in the US, only with 6AT. Based on the Australian price ratio gas/diesel, I guestimate it will be around $25K USD.
The Forester has below average MPG and has only 4 speeds in it's AT. However, it probably has the better AWD system of the bunch.
The RAV-4 will be all-new in 2013. No information is available, though I'd guess it will have the same engine, tweaked to get better MPG, but all-new look. Hopefully, all-new transmission 6AT to replace the 4AT in the 4cyl model. It should be available early 2013 AFAIK. The current 2012 model is pretty peppy but with below average MPG (again, "average" is in this set of cars I've mentioned).

Personally, I really want the Diesel CX-5. However, the uncertainty of when it will be available when I am ready to buy now is killing me.
Based on non-US numbers, CX-5 Diesel should have ~15% better MPG than the gas model, where diesel is ~7% more expensive than regular here in California, so overall, it should be a modest improvement in $/mile compared to the gas.

zsawyer
05-19-2012, 12:32 AM
Im having a hard time deciding between the cx-5 and forester right now.

rmac
05-19-2012, 01:12 AM
Just saw a commercial to boast the new Ford line: Focus, Fusion and Escape. One feature I noticed exclusively to the Escape was a feature when a man put his foot under the rear bumper and the lift gate opened.I'm just trying to imagine someone sitting at a stoplight in busy traffic and a cat or something runs under the rear bumper and the lift gate opens. : )

CX-SV
05-19-2012, 01:37 AM
Speaking of new Escape, it should be here in about a week.

inodes
05-19-2012, 08:46 AM
Personally, I really want the Diesel CX-5. However, the uncertainty of when it will be available when I am ready to buy now is killing me.
Based on non-US numbers, CX-5 Diesel should have ~15% better MPG than the gas model, where diesel is ~7% more expensive than regular here in California, so overall, it should be a modest improvement in $/mile compared to the gas.

Diesel is more expensive in Australia too. You don't choose on the basis purely of fuel economy. It's false economy given the expense of the engine over the petrol.
I personally chose because the performance is significantly better than the petrol. Performance is about 20% or more better.

prhac
05-19-2012, 12:15 PM
Diesel is more expensive in Australia too. You don't choose on the basis purely of fuel economy. It's false economy given the expense of the engine over the petrol.
I personally chose because the performance is significantly better than the petrol. Performance is about 20% or more better.

Likewise. I'm choosing the diesel for the high torque and hence good in-gear acceleration for overtaking.

MarysCX-5GT
05-19-2012, 08:11 PM
I have the CX-5 GT on order -- it will be 6 weeks waiting by the time I finally get it -- I won't get it until the first or second week of June, but it will be worth it. Before I made the decision on the CX-5, I was seriously looking at the 2012 Escape Hybrid and then looked at the 2013 Escape. It had to be AWD for going up in the mountains during the winter. I also checked out the VW TDI Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3, Subaru Outback, Honda CRV and Toyota RAV. I am mainly focused on gas mileage; price and looks. It all came down to the CX-5 having the best price for all the goodies you get; the gas mileage is great and I think it is a really nice, sporty-looking vehicle - inside and out. I don't like the looks of the 2013 Ford Escape and the gas mileage and price sucks. The extra money for the 2012 Escape Hybrid isn't worth it. I do kind of wish the CX-5 Bose Surround Sound would accommodate more than one CD at a time, but I'm sure I'll adjust. I just went and bought the car without having my husband go with me -- he doesn't want a new car but I wanted to replace the Focus I was driving after 6 years of trying to be "thrifty". He is driving the gas sucking but extremely comfy Chrysler Town & Country that I gave up for the Focus... I'll bet money he'll fall in love with the CX-5. He can get his own!! LOL!!

erhayes
05-19-2012, 08:52 PM
I'm surprised the Bose SS holds only one CD. The unit in my CX7 holds 6 CDs.

inodes
05-19-2012, 09:26 PM
Im having a hard time deciding between the cx-5 and forester right now.

See my comparison of 11 SUV's in Australia including the Forester and CX-5.
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123815578-Wheels-Magazine-(AUS)-11-SUV-Mega-Test

Forester came 6th with 6.5/10 while Mazda CX-5 came 1st with 9/10.

Quote for the Forester:
"How the mighty have fallen. The one class leading Forester now finds itself in a mediocrity-sandwich between the Renault Koleos to the north and the Korean cousins from Hyundai and Kia in the south. And the Koreans are only a decent suspension tune and, in the case of the Kia, a better engine away from pushing the Forester south."

But more convincingly:
"Buyers will still default to the Forester on its past reputation, but it must rattle the brand when Mazda's first-time* attempt at a compact SUV beats it on almost every score"

* The definition for a compact SUV changed in Australia last year, and it excludes the CX-7 from being including in the same definition. So effectively, the CX-5 is the first attempt.

inodes
05-19-2012, 09:29 PM
I'm surprised the Bose SS holds only one CD. The unit in my CX7 holds 6 CDs.

They changed the design shortly after the CX-7. The stackers were seem as a complicated, non required design.
Given that each CD can hold 10 CD's of music, and you can get endless CD's worth of music from the bluetooth, AUX and iPod connectivity... there is absolutely no requirement for a 6 stacker. And it also reduces warranty claims from the 6 stacker.

inodes
05-19-2012, 09:34 PM
Likewise. I'm choosing the diesel for the high torque and hence good in-gear acceleration for overtaking.

Recent overtaking tests done with Compact SUV's in Australia in the June issue of Australia's highest selling car magazine, Wheels, showed that there was a massive differential on overtaking speeds.

They were so surprised by the Diesel's 5.7 second 80-120. They said it was faster that the very high selling Holden Commodore, which is a V6 powered sedan which has twice the power.

zsawyer
05-19-2012, 11:04 PM
Thing is, that review is based on hard numbers it seems. Acceleration times, MPG, etc. While I don't discount those numbers, they are also for the diesel, which is not available to me. The numbers are also close enough that if one vehicle "feels" right to me, I place that at a higher importance than if its 0-60 time was 0.8 seconds slower (or whatever..) I still find the petrol CX-5 very attractive, but the "fit and feel" for me of the forester is pretty close to the CX-5 anyway. For example, I thought I would really like the rav4 but after driving one I found it to be completely boring, especially did not like the interior.

Anyway, I think the CX-5 is my favorite anyway, but numbers don't mean everything.

JordanLindsay
05-20-2012, 02:59 AM
http://youtu.be/McdTls45LYQ here is a review video check it out!

inodes
05-20-2012, 10:15 AM
But CX-5 diesel is not significantly better from a measured/instrumented testing performance standpoint, despite torquey feel in regular driving. It does get much better MPG, that's a big difference in measured data. That's why economy aspect is played up.

Got some figures to explain this to be incorrect.

Wheels magazine is Australia did drag strip testing with identical driver and came up with this little summary:

0-100km/h:
Diesel 8.0 seconds
Petrol: 9.6 seconds

Overtaking: 80-120km/h.
Diesel: 5.7 seconds
Petrol 8.7 seconds

No comparison when done by experts.

Maybe some English or Germans can comment on their experiences when comparing the petrol and diesel. A second opinion would seal the deal here.

1ba67
05-20-2012, 10:29 AM
I thought I'd let you know that I ordered my GT five weeks ago and don't even have a VIN# yet. My dealer told me it would be 2-4 months for delivery. I think some dealers are off on their estimates for delivery. He said that some other dealers were quoting 4-6 weeks and were going to have some unhappy customers.

CX-SV
05-21-2012, 12:51 PM
For those that want truly quick , here it is (since the topic is CX-5/CRV/Escape):

Per MT, the Escape 2.0Lturbo AWD tested out at 0-60mph in 6.8 seconds. Curb weight was a robust 3791 pounds, but the acceleration is sport sedan-like. Let's see if C&D and R&T has similar results.

CX-SV
05-21-2012, 01:03 PM
Got some figures to explain this to be incorrect.

Wheels magazine is Australia did drag strip testing with identical driver and came up with this little summary:

0-100km/h:
Diesel 8.0 seconds
Petrol: 9.6 seconds

Overtaking: 80-120km/h.
Diesel: 5.7 seconds
Petrol 8.7 seconds

No comparison when done by experts.

Maybe some English or Germans can comment on their experiences when comparing the petrol and diesel. A second opinion would seal the deal here.

Finally, thanks for some good info, even if this is a cherry-picked sample size of 1 diesel unit, from one source, subject to typos, production variations, selective variations due to tuning by the supplier/manufacturer (yes this does happen), etc. Surprise, surprise, this is the only source showing this much variation in measured acceleration 0-62mph, even Mazda UK only shows usual 1/2 second difference.

Again (as I said earlier), diesels in most cases show greater fuel efficiency gains (%) versus performance gains (%) in most common applications versus gasser alternatives. Regardless, plenty of truly high-performance engine SUVs are available (of which the CX-5 is not with any config) for those that want it.

Agreed, other sources will add good info too.

(I apologize to all others on this thread for allowing this to just be another thread derailed by the same old diesel discussion, now back to the CX-5/CRV/Escape topic.)

ManMachine
05-21-2012, 02:06 PM
Sport trim 6MT: 0-60 in 9.2 sec, tested by Car and Driver
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review

In comparison, C/D tested CR-V at 8.5 sec.

I think one thing is clear - you want high mileage, you have to give up straight line performance. There's no way around it. Turbos will not change that. Good thing the handling of the vehicle will make up for it.

In comparison, Mazda3 sedan with Skyactiv and 6mt takes 7.9 sec 0-60 by C/D, with 27/39 mpg rating. So, smaller/lighter will be better. the next Mazda3 should be a car to look forward to - in terms of design and perhaps improved performance/handling/efficiency.

doughboy52
05-22-2012, 11:28 AM
Since everyone's discussing 0-60 on the CX-5 vs. some of its competition, I figured I'd mention this nice little blog post on fun cars I just read, on "The Unimportance of Speed."

A snippet of the post specifically mentions the CX-5:
"'Driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast.' Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess. We wait to welcome the FR-S and BR-Z with open arms, surely, but we also hail the CX-5 and the Sonic Turbo, the Kia Rio and the Volkswagen GLI."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/the-unimportance-of-speed/

I just test drove the CX-5 last week and it was, admittedly, a little slow out of the gate. But the thing drove like a dream and I can't wait to pull the trigger on one in a few months!

Frisco CX-5
08-23-2012, 11:35 AM
Just saw a commercial to boast the new Ford line: Focus, Fusion and Escape. One feature I noticed exclusively to the Escape was a feature when a man put his foot under the rear bumper and the lift gate opened. It seems like a pretty useful feature when your hands are full.

IMO Ford is, and has always, been geared around the luxuries in technology including SYNC and self parking monitors seen in the new Fusion.

Mazda has roots of style and gas efficiency. Loving my CX5

I imagine it would be fairly easy to damage the rear liftgate sensors over time, especially if you live in northern climates.

bamirault
08-23-2012, 12:55 PM
About the Escape foot activated lift gate. I can't speak for all spouses, but mine is not much of an acrobat, to the point where if it required doing the hokey pokey to get the gate to open I would likely find her lying behing the vehicle covered in whatever her hands had been full of at the moment of the attempt.

Brian

inodes
08-23-2012, 08:37 PM
Finally, thanks for some good info, even if this is a cherry-picked sample size of 1 diesel unit, from one source, subject to typos, production variations, selective variations due to tuning by the supplier/manufacturer (yes this does happen), etc. Surprise, surprise, this is the only source showing this much variation in measured acceleration 0-62mph, even Mazda UK only shows usual 1/2 second difference.


The UK has two diesels. The poorer of the two outperforms the petrol, but only be a small distance.
We don't sell that diesel in Australia. We only sell the greater of the two.

Completely agree on your comment that the petrol outperforms the diesel in most cases. So do the car magazines.
In every comparison for performance reasons alone, they will choose the petrol over diesel.

But Wheels stated in their comparison, there is a major difference with the CX-5. The design of the diesel differs from all competitors due to it being a very light, high revving diesel.
The said that in the VW Tiguan for example, the diesel was the better for fuel economy by a large margin, but the petrol Tiguan was the better performer by a large margin. Not a surprise.

Ironically though, the CX-5 Diesel (top diesel, not the lower UK one), was significantly higher in performance (30% better acceleration off line, 50% on highway), but marginally better fuel economy.

In a like for like comparison with the Tiguan, the said that the Diesel CX-5 was similar to the petrol Tiguan and the petrol CX-5 was like the diesel Tiguan. It had them confused.

Performance wise it was:
Petrol Tiguan slightly ahead of Diesel CX-5 (except on highway overtake) - then massive gap back to petrol CX-5 which was a little ahead of diesel Tiguan.

Economy wise it was:
Diesel CX-5 a little ahead of diesel Tiguan, a little ahead of petrol CX-5 - then a massive gap back to petrol Tiguan.

CX-SV - you seem to make lots of comments on how close they are, and you haven't even driven them both?
I'd suggest to go to a country that has both and drive before comment.

I am quoting magazines, but I have driven both petrol/diesel CX-5 and petrol/diesel Tiguan. The comments are spot on correct. And it's the reason I bought the Diesel CX-5 in the first place. I was actually in the market for a diesel VW Passat when I was shopping, but fell in love with the performance of the CX-7 turbo.

When I first drove the petrol CX-5, it couldn't match the CX-7 at all. But the CX-7's biggest problem was fuel.
After driving the CX-5 Diesel, it had similar performance (turbos are addictive on both) - CX-7 still has edge.

CX-SV
08-23-2012, 08:53 PM
inodes - Yes, aware of the 2 diesels in UK market, and aware of the tt 2.2 175 ps being only CX-5 diesel sold in Australia, thanks. btw-Mazda UK publishes separate specs for the 2 different diesels, as expected.

Agreed, the 2.2 tt is the strongest engine, but only 1 source has the measured performance gap 0-100km being so large. Regardless cherry-picked reports or not the performance gap is significant per all sources reporting as you have said.

I expect to see the high output 2.2 tt diesel made available in North American market next year and think it will be an important addition to CX-5 product line, even if not the top-selling version.


For something truly quick (in line with this thread topic), the Escape 2.0L turbo sb considered.

inodes
08-23-2012, 09:18 PM
I expect to see the high output 2.2 tt diesel made available in North American market next year and think it will be an important addition to CX-5 product line, even if not the top-selling version.

This would be good to see. I expect there to be significant changes to the diesel as well.
The Wheels magazine that is the most trusted source in this country anyway, has lined up all the available diesels on the market today. I'll have to re-print the section so you get it verbatim, but they ranked the CX-5 Diesel as the second best on the market.

The design is very different from any diesel on the market. The low compression really does make it almost quiet. When driving around town, it actually makes less noise than my Mazda 3's engine. It also performs MUCH better than my SP23. Off the line, the CX-5 will thump the SP23 every time.

One catch though..... this new design may have some issues on the way:
Sydney Morning Herald: Backlash over Mazda CX-5 diesel oil issues (http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/backlash-over-mazda-cx5-diesel-oil-issues-20120821-24k6w.html)

I noted excess oil (from oil foaming) at 7000km prior to heading to the snow. I had the dealer do the first 10,000km service, which included oil replacement.
I suspect that it's back with the same issue - will check oil tomorrow.

In terms of sales, Mazda Australia expected two things:

1. Sales would be a little better than CX-7
2. Highest selling models would be base petrol, diesel would be about 10% of sales

Instead.....

1. CX-5 has been highest selling SUV in past 2 years, skyrocketing to 7th highest seller and pushing Mazda to 2nd brand in Australia for first time
2. Highest selling models by far are the mid-spec diesels. Diesels account for 80-90% of sales.

One of my mates was saying unfortunately the orders for the latest diesels outstrip production numbers for Australia.
He said he is only getting 10% of the order numbers for the diesels. Meanwhile, petrols are easy ordered.

Maybe the oil issues will change peoples minds.

CX-SV
08-23-2012, 11:44 PM
Yes, the DPF and oil level issues are still open items that are known issues with other diesels besides Mazda's.

Those issues plus maintenance related to DPF and twin turbos, higher purchase price of vehicle, higher fuel price of unsubsidized diesel, and diesel retail availability will constrain sales in US market.

CX-5 inventory levels are still very low here, especially the loaded models.

Rich02818
08-24-2012, 09:44 AM
...snip

I noted excess oil (from oil foaming) at 7000km prior to heading to the snow. I had the dealer do the first 10,000km service, which included oil replacement.
I suspect that it's back with the same issue - will check oil tomorrow.

...snip

Maybe the oil issues will change peoples minds.

It's not "excess oil", rather it's oil diluted with diesel fuel and causing unknown future engine problems. If enough diesel fuel is forced into the oil it will destroy the engine and void the warranty. That's a deal breaker for me...