New Motor Trend article comparing CX-5, RAV-4, CR-v, etc.

And it demonstrates why MT is the National Enquirer of auto rags.
 
All I know is the only car out of that bunch I saw stuck in snow this morning was a new CR-V.
 
The article was not negative against the CX-5. The CR-V just ticked more boxes that MT valued.
 
I wouldn*t care if the Honda was ranked miles over the Mazda. What about the oil dilution problem? This is a fatal flaw that should disqualify the Honda from anyone*s list - at least until this issue is rectified.

And, when the problem is rectified, what about the poor folks that own one of the flawed ones and have put 25,000 miles on an engine lubricated by a gas/oil mixture. I didn*t know gas was a lubricant.

The was Honda has managed this flaw is absolutely outrageous. I have owned 4 Honda but I*ll never own another.
 
Hard to believe that MT isn't aware of the oil dilution problem, and if they are, shame on them for not disclosing it and not talking about it in their reviews.
It's a serious problem for Honda, and that alone should disqualify the CR-V from these tests/reviews/ratings that are done by (any) reputable car magazine or automotive journalist.
It almost makes you want to think that Honda has some sort of deal going with MT. Shame on them.
 
mcrimm said:
I wouldn*t care if the Honda was ranked miles over the Mazda. What about the oil dilution problem? This is a fatal flaw that should disqualify the Honda from anyone*s list - at least until this issue is rectified.

And, when the problem is rectified, what about the poor folks that own one of the flawed ones and have put 25,000 miles on an engine lubricated by a gas/oil mixture. I didn*t know gas was a lubricant.

The was Honda has managed this flaw is absolutely outrageous. I have owned 4 Honda but I*ll never own another.
Click to expand...

This.
 
mcrimm said:
I wouldn*t care if the Honda was ranked miles over the Mazda. What about the oil dilution problem? This is a fatal flaw that should disqualify the Honda from anyone*s list - at least until this issue is rectified.

And, when the problem is rectified, what about the poor folks that own one of the flawed ones and have put 25,000 miles on an engine lubricated by a gas/oil mixture. I didn*t know gas was a lubricant.

The was Honda has managed this flaw is absolutely outrageous. I have owned 4 Honda but I*ll never own another.
Click to expand...


This is an important point. Honda is being a little flippant with the issue. My aunt's car was fixed - by basically changing the oil. She had four oil changes last year - and I can't seem to figure out if anything else has been done. They also did the first one for free and she paid for the rest, which I find rather bothersome. She does not drive a lot, I would say less than 7K per year. She is happy so I have not given her my opinion...
 
dougal said:
This is an important point. Honda is being a little flippant with the issue. My aunt's car was fixed - by basically changing the oil. She had four oil changes last year - and I can't seem to figure out if anything else has been done. They also did the first one for free and she paid for the rest, which I find rather bothersome. She does not drive a lot, I would say less than 7K per year. She is happy so I have not given her my opinion...
Click to expand...
4 oil changes in 7k miles? Yikes!
 
Unobtanium said:
The Gen 2 does, but the Gen 1 is worse than any other CUV year/mile for year/mile except maybe a Suzuki or something.
Click to expand...

Different Mazda perception I suppose. Really go back to 2012, 2013, 2014, did you expect it to be any different? That's the level where the masses ranked Mazda, myself included.
 
Buzzman12 said:
That's Honda's answer to the problem. Change your oil every 1,000 miles. Disgraceful.
And the sheep just keep on buying them.
Click to expand...


And she paid for three of them! I have been told to keep my mouth shut but I feel pretty bad. Honda - or at least the dealers - are not taking this seriously.
 
Unobtanium said:
The Gen 2 does, but the Gen 1 is worse than any other CUV year/mile for year/mile except maybe a Suzuki or something.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep spreading this sentiment when the data doesn't back it up.

I just ran a quick check on KBB comparing 2013 CX-5 Touring and 2013 RAV4 LE (similar starting MSRP) with 70k miles and "very good" condition. The CX-5 actually came out quite similar in private party resale value.

CX-5: $11,100 - 13,100
RAV4: $12,100 - 13,600

Having just searched for an SUV for my wife in that year and price range, I can attest that the bulk of compact SUVs of that ilk from just about every manufacturer fall into that price range. It's no secret that cars lose about 20% in their first year and 10% every year after that, which matches well with these numbers.
 
Last edited:
jmhumr said:
I don't understand where you keep spreading this sentiment when the data doesn't back it up.

I just ran a quick check on KBB comparing 2013 CX-5 Touring and 2013 RAV4 LE (similar starting MSRP) with 70k miles and "very good" condition. The CX-5 actually came out quite similar in private party resale value.

CX-5: $11,100 - 13,100
RAV4: $12,100 - 13,600

Having just searched for an SUV for my wife in that year and price range, I can attest that the bulk of compact SUVs of that ilk from just about every manufacturer fall into that price range. It's no secret that cars lose about 20% in their first year and 10% every year after that, which matches well with these numbers.
Click to expand...

Go to dealer trade value.

By 2018, my 2015 CX5 had dropped to around $11K in trade-in, now it's worth $7500-9500 with new brakes and tires, based on actual offers from dealers. 103K miles.
 
Unobtanium said:
Actually, yeah, supposedly it was going to be solid. It wasn't.
Click to expand...

Based on what and when?

Meh. Whatever. Mazda ranked pretty low on brand image for me at the time (early 2013) before I bought. Expecting Toyota level trade-in seems silly.

They've done a lot to improve their image since then and as a result, values are holding better than they used to for their newer stuff.

And trade-in versus private sale are of course going to be low ball on dealer trade-in. In other news the sky is blue.
 
I think you need to be careful when comparing Gen1 valves against other makes of the same year. When I bought my new '16 on 6/30/2015, if I had gone down the road and bought a new CR-V, RAV-4, Forester, Rogue or whatever it would have been a 2015 model. It seems to me to be more appropriate to compare against what was available at the time.
 
brillo54 said:
I think you need to be careful when comparing Gen1 valves against other makes of the same year. When I bought my new '16 on 6/30/2015, if I had gone down the road and bought a new CR-V, RAV-4, Forester, Rogue or whatever it would have been a 2015 model. It seems to me to be more appropriate to compare against what was available at the time.
Click to expand...
Good point. Forgot about the model year/actual year mismatch.

When I bought my 2014, every other car I test drove was a 2013.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sig cx-5
New Motor Trend Review Signature CX-5
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
17K
Joe Willie
J
Mazdiod2
    • Like
Mazda CX-5 passed the 20K units per month
Replies
3
Views
1K
yrwei52
yrwei52
S
2017~2024 2017 CX-5 GT AWD: 0-60 and Acceleration Examples
Replies
10
Views
2K
SouthernNights3
S

Latest posts

Back