NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
I hear ya man, just messin witcha...I actually know the feeling all too well.
Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
- Thread starter bluegrass
- Start date
- Status
I hear ya man, just messin witcha...I actually know the feeling all too well.
- :
- Fmr CX5 Touring
The 2018 Camry will have a 10-inch HUD. HUD will be a standard feature in a few years.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
BTW, I've mentioned before the reason why 2017 CX-5, although it's improved on all frontal crash categories, got 4-star overall safety rating is because it got worse than 1st-gen CX-5 on front passenger and combined rear seat ratings during the side crash. So your statement "why do different cars get different overall ratings even though their constituent ratings (front, side, rollover) are exactly the same?" doesn't stand, at least for CX-5. We should question what the Mazda did to make the rating suddenly getting worse on 2016 CX-5, not the NHTSA because NHTSA doesn't change thier test procedures in these years. And NHTSA doesn't play favoritism against any car manufactures either. Besides, it's the NHTSA who caught safety problem on fuel filler pipe on CX-5 and forced Mazda to stop the sale immediately until an acceptable resolution given and a recall was initiated.
We shouldn't take NHTSA safety ratings too lightly. It's our government spending our tax money to give the consumers an easier way to compare the safety among many vehicles. We shouldn't question NHTSA star safety system on how they reached the score. NHTSA has its way to do the test, analyze the result, and give it a score. Just because our 2017 CX-5 has a 4-star overall rating and we should disregard the NHTSA safety rating? Then 2 years ago when 2015 CX-5 was having a perfect score and everybody was happy here and trashed others getting 4 stars? No matter how we're trying to ignore the inferior 4-star overall rating on 2016~2017 CX-5, the fact of matter is a 5-star overall rated 2015 CX-5 IS SAFER than a 2016~2017 CX-5 in NHTSA's crash test.
BTW, I've mentioned before the reason why 2017 CX-5, although it's improved on all frontal crash categories, got 4-star overall safety rating is because it got worse than 1st-gen CX-5 on front passenger and combined rear seat ratings during the side crash. So your statement "why do different cars get different overall ratings even though their constituent ratings (front, side, rollover) are exactly the same?" doesn't stand, at least for CX-5. We should question what the Mazda did to make the rating suddenly getting worse on 2016 CX-5, not the NHTSA because NHTSA doesn't change thier test procedures in these years. And NHTSA doesn't play favoritism against any car manufactures either. Besides, it's the NHTSA who caught safety problem on fuel filler pipe on CX-5 and forced Mazda to stop the sale immediately until an acceptable resolution given and a recall was initiated.
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Agreed. But IMO Mazda especially Mazda North American Operations are having problems to make right decisions to boost their sales in the US. Honest advice may be unpleasant to hear sometimes.
ImNotDedYet
Member
- :
- 08 Acura TL
I absolutely love the HUD and could care less about CarPlay/AA. I'm often playing music from my phone as it is, so google maps kindly turns down my music and tells me where to turn. Outside of that, I'm not a use my phone while driving kinda guy.
The biggest plus the HUD for me is seeing speed limit and what I'm driving, but even better was the blind spot detectors - right there on the windshield. I don't tend to use them when actually turning, but loving having the knowledge of if something's there that I've not noticed in case I do switch lanes, or worse yet need to switch lanes damn quick.
- :
- Denver, CO
Happy with my car, but definitely agree that some of their decisions have seemed a little boneheaded.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
ImNotDedYet
Member
- :
- 08 Acura TL
I'll throw my hat into the ring here after test driving a CR-V Touring and the CX-5 GT with Premium package. I also test drove an Acura RDX with Acura Watch since I've been an Acura fan and enjoyed my occasional RDX/MDX loaners from the dealership.
I'll start with my goals and priorities in a new ride. Although I'm prime mid-life crisis aged and divorced, I should be looking for yellow cars that rhyme with Shmerari and Borsche, but I actually want functional more than looks. As a home owner, I need to be able to haul the occasional large load that wouldn't fit in my TL. I also want something that can function in the mountains as well as the altitude of Denver. Obviously in Denver, it needs to handle in the snow, and the TL sucked in the snow. I spend a good amount of time in traffic going to and from work, so I want something that's comfortable and that I enjoy riding in. Decent gas mileage is a concern as well, and I appreciate the fact that neither the CR-V or CX-5 require premium gas. I'll be leasing, so longevity and resale value really aren't concerns at this point. And finally, it's just me in my car 90% of the time.
Surprisingly, the RDX's only positive against these was the 6 cylinder engine. The ride wasn't as nice - felt boxy and top heavy. I expected to be blown away by the interior in comparison to these other two and wasn't at all blown away - in fact, I didn't feel it was even much of a plus for the Acura. The leather just didn't feel up to snuff for what I'd expect. Granted this is a lower trim compared to the others, but it's still priced far above. As the highest level trims are out of my price range, I didn't consider testing those.
The CR-V Touring is a great vehicle - really nice. It's got features galore, handles very well, spacious, great cargo hold, Apple Play all that, and I could care less what it looks like to be honest. It's not butt-ugly to me, and that's good enough for me. It's got a solid sound system, decent comfort interior, great safety features, obviously good gas mileage, and I love the remote start feature. The only thing I really disliked on it...the tranny. To me, it wasn't annoying enough to rule it out, but it definitely isn't near as responsive as the CX-5 - I noticed it and thought I could live with it. Noise wasn't fantastic, but wasn't anything that would bother me either. At the end of the test drive I was for the most part happy with it and could see myself with one of these and not regretting the decision.
Then I drove the CX-5 GT w/ Premium package. First off, the interior's far nicer in this than the CR-V, but not a big deal to me. There's definitely less cargo space with the seats up, and it doesn't feel as roomy as the CR-V. Again, as it's me and just me, this isn't a big thing. Engine response was way better here - not even close. It took a mild annoyance in the CR-V and made it a pretty big negative. Handling also just felt better here, although the handling in the CR-V was more than pleasant. I also loved the 40/20/40 folding seats. And the HUD...man, I thought that was a gimmick until I had it. Having all that information at hand without having to look all over the car or take my eyes off the road. Sound system is solid, and safety features are very nice if not a bit "aggressive" in their warnings. I got a blind spot yelling at me as I changed lanes and there was nothing close. But the lane assist also is more subtle on this than the CR-V. The CR-V actually freaked me out when it corrected. Definitely a nice quiet ride as well. I never really noticed much in the way of noise - even on the freeway.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you want in your compact and your priorities. Personally, I think both would be a great solution in most cases. If I had a family, the safety tests and more room in the back of the CR-V would probably sway me. As I don't, I want something that's both functional for my needs and fun. I'd much rather enjoy my drives each day as opposed to being merely content. I got out of the CX-5 thinking "now that thing's fun to drive," which made me think how I felt getting out of the CR-V - "yeah, that thing will do."
As is the case with your vehicles, your mileage may vary.
I'll start with my goals and priorities in a new ride. Although I'm prime mid-life crisis aged and divorced, I should be looking for yellow cars that rhyme with Shmerari and Borsche, but I actually want functional more than looks. As a home owner, I need to be able to haul the occasional large load that wouldn't fit in my TL. I also want something that can function in the mountains as well as the altitude of Denver. Obviously in Denver, it needs to handle in the snow, and the TL sucked in the snow. I spend a good amount of time in traffic going to and from work, so I want something that's comfortable and that I enjoy riding in. Decent gas mileage is a concern as well, and I appreciate the fact that neither the CR-V or CX-5 require premium gas. I'll be leasing, so longevity and resale value really aren't concerns at this point. And finally, it's just me in my car 90% of the time.
Surprisingly, the RDX's only positive against these was the 6 cylinder engine. The ride wasn't as nice - felt boxy and top heavy. I expected to be blown away by the interior in comparison to these other two and wasn't at all blown away - in fact, I didn't feel it was even much of a plus for the Acura. The leather just didn't feel up to snuff for what I'd expect. Granted this is a lower trim compared to the others, but it's still priced far above. As the highest level trims are out of my price range, I didn't consider testing those.
The CR-V Touring is a great vehicle - really nice. It's got features galore, handles very well, spacious, great cargo hold, Apple Play all that, and I could care less what it looks like to be honest. It's not butt-ugly to me, and that's good enough for me. It's got a solid sound system, decent comfort interior, great safety features, obviously good gas mileage, and I love the remote start feature. The only thing I really disliked on it...the tranny. To me, it wasn't annoying enough to rule it out, but it definitely isn't near as responsive as the CX-5 - I noticed it and thought I could live with it. Noise wasn't fantastic, but wasn't anything that would bother me either. At the end of the test drive I was for the most part happy with it and could see myself with one of these and not regretting the decision.
Then I drove the CX-5 GT w/ Premium package. First off, the interior's far nicer in this than the CR-V, but not a big deal to me. There's definitely less cargo space with the seats up, and it doesn't feel as roomy as the CR-V. Again, as it's me and just me, this isn't a big thing. Engine response was way better here - not even close. It took a mild annoyance in the CR-V and made it a pretty big negative. Handling also just felt better here, although the handling in the CR-V was more than pleasant. I also loved the 40/20/40 folding seats. And the HUD...man, I thought that was a gimmick until I had it. Having all that information at hand without having to look all over the car or take my eyes off the road. Sound system is solid, and safety features are very nice if not a bit "aggressive" in their warnings. I got a blind spot yelling at me as I changed lanes and there was nothing close. But the lane assist also is more subtle on this than the CR-V. The CR-V actually freaked me out when it corrected. Definitely a nice quiet ride as well. I never really noticed much in the way of noise - even on the freeway.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you want in your compact and your priorities. Personally, I think both would be a great solution in most cases. If I had a family, the safety tests and more room in the back of the CR-V would probably sway me. As I don't, I want something that's both functional for my needs and fun. I'd much rather enjoy my drives each day as opposed to being merely content. I got out of the CX-5 thinking "now that thing's fun to drive," which made me think how I felt getting out of the CR-V - "yeah, that thing will do."
As is the case with your vehicles, your mileage may vary.
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Well written. I've said repeatedly I didn't hate the CVT when I drove it. But as soon as I drove the Mazda, the CR-V was dead to me. After reading your post maybe it was the 6 speed tranny that made it feel more fun?
Oh look, Mango. Someone who loves the HUD. A lot. Could be a big part of his buying decision...but no. That won't sell cars....
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Oh look, Mango. Someone who loves the HUD. A lot. Could be a big part of his buying decision...but no. That won't sell cars....
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Tried and true here. As previously mentioned, been used on the 3, 6 as well as CX-5 since 2012 and failure rate is fairly low here as I understand it
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
Will need to see how it rates elsewhere in the world before they decide to do any changes. My guess is if it rates better everywhere else, they won't do any major changes just because USA rating is not as high.
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
I was joking, too. Not a Goodfellas fan? Famous Joe Pesci quote.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
I have an RDX since 2013 and it pretty much lives on 87 octane. For this car Acura "RECOMENDS" premium but after a little digging by myself (same engine code as last gen Accord, basically same HP and same TQ (+/- 2hp or tq) I figured the map wasn't all that much different. Tested the car with premium and 87 and got about 1mpg better so not worth it. It's got 48,000 miles and about 47,000 of them are on 87.
Now I do think the front seats are a little more comfy and there is more space in front (which can translate to more rear space) but we are talking maybe 1 inch. Width wise the front seats are more comfy.
As for MPG I did a test 2 mile loop with both cars using the unscientific onboard MPG readout and with the Acura I did 22.7mpg and the CX-5 pushed in at 27.0.
The RDX has A LOT more getup and go vs CX-5
Now I do think the front seats are a little more comfy and there is more space in front (which can translate to more rear space) but we are talking maybe 1 inch. Width wise the front seats are more comfy.
As for MPG I did a test 2 mile loop with both cars using the unscientific onboard MPG readout and with the Acura I did 22.7mpg and the CX-5 pushed in at 27.0.
The RDX has A LOT more getup and go vs CX-5
Last edited:
- :
- Fmr CX5 Touring
I never drove the RDX but reading about it, it never got my interest. It also has one very large problem, there's no dealer nearby if I needed warranty work, and it didn't pencil in as rock-solid despite the price.
It's interesting about the cars, the CR-V checks all the boxes, except the one with heart.
It's interesting about the cars, the CR-V checks all the boxes, except the one with heart.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
But wait, shouldn't the CX-5 #1 in sales considering the CX-5 doesn't compete with the CRV/RAV4/Rogue of the world anymore but with the Lexus/Mercedes/Audi's of the world? At least that's what Dave Coleman @ Mazda told us.
Offer the 2.5T, add CarPlay/AA and call it a day. I really think those are the only 2 things Mazda needs to sell more CX-5s. They can't compete with the CRV/RAV4/Rogues of the world, but they can give Subaru a run for it's money against the Forester by giving it more power to compete with the XT Forester, and CarPlay/AA which the Forester does not have.
Last edited:
- :
- Denver, CO
Drove up Pikes Peak yesterday. Say what you want about NA engines, but it did just fine way up there even. Mt. Evans is next on the list. I'm good without the turbo.
As for the CP/AA thing. Yeah, doesn't interest me or sway me one way or the other, but clearly there's enough people that it does. So I can agree with you on that at least Mango.
As for sales. It's Mazda, it'll never be #1 in US and it has nothing to do with it being a bad product or not offering people what they want. I for one don't want Mazda to just turn into another Honda/Toyota/Nissan in what it offers. Say what you will, Mango, about it feature vs. feature, but there's too many intangibles that make it what it is and make it different, and thus appeal to the likes of me.
I bought my CX-5 at 22 years old and single. What single 22 year old male is going out and buying RAV4's and CR-V's? I'd venture a guess and say not many. Subaru is sort of the exception. Lot of those out here. Subaru is just a big deal out here, everyone has a f'king Outback or Forester.
As for the CP/AA thing. Yeah, doesn't interest me or sway me one way or the other, but clearly there's enough people that it does. So I can agree with you on that at least Mango.
As for sales. It's Mazda, it'll never be #1 in US and it has nothing to do with it being a bad product or not offering people what they want. I for one don't want Mazda to just turn into another Honda/Toyota/Nissan in what it offers. Say what you will, Mango, about it feature vs. feature, but there's too many intangibles that make it what it is and make it different, and thus appeal to the likes of me.
I bought my CX-5 at 22 years old and single. What single 22 year old male is going out and buying RAV4's and CR-V's? I'd venture a guess and say not many. Subaru is sort of the exception. Lot of those out here. Subaru is just a big deal out here, everyone has a f'king Outback or Forester.
No chance of that considering their production limitations, finances etc
Totally agree. Love the exclusivity.
- Status
