Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
- Thread starter bluegrass
- Start date
- Status
- :
- Denver, CO
I saw a Ceramic ND at the top of Pikes Peak yesterday. Couldn't find the owners to say hi. LOL
Also, agree. Love Mazda being a niche brand. Lots of folks just don't "get it". That's fine by me.
Also, agree. Love Mazda being a niche brand. Lots of folks just don't "get it". That's fine by me.
ImNotDedYet
Member
- :
- 08 Acura TL
The 6 speed definitely played a part - much more reactive. But the HUD also factored in, the comfort and feel and the handling. It's a car I wouldn't mind being stuck in traffic in.
Having said that, I'm not sure the HUD would sway me into the CX-5 over the CR-V. But if I wind up with a CX-5, it will definitely have HUD. The salesmen's pitch on it originally caused me to say, no I don't need that. Until I drove one with it in it and realized its usefulness.
I guess I'd never considered non-premium grade gas in my TL. I know the altitude here helps with not needing the premium stuff in other cars, but of course our octane grades are lower than those at sea level already.
The roominess in the RDX - at least the front and back, blew the others away. It also appeared wider in the cargo area. And yes, the 6 cylinder is a huge step up over the others. I guess I just thought there would or should be more of an impression of getting what you're paying for in the RDX compared to the others, and given my priorities, I just didn't feel that way. This particular version, as it's a mid-level trim didn't have all the safety features included in the top level CRV and CX5 as well - I know, not apples to apples, but it's also $10K more. And the ride IMO was my least favorite.
That would be a fun drive up Pikes, but it's (or at least was last time I drove up it) gravel near the top with no rails, so you're not really pushing the engine too much anyway. How does it handle say at the Eisenhower tunnel on I-70? Is it a right-lane only kinda vehicle at 60/70 MPH at 10,000 - 12,000 feet?
I refuse to get or even consider a Subaru out of principle. There's just too many wannabe hippies out here with them.
Which at the current exchange rate would put it at AUD $46993.97 which is $120 more expensive than base model FWD Mazda CX-9 here!
Not to mention already competing with GT/Akera CX-5 here
Somehow don't think the RDX is in the same league as the CX-5 (on price alone) & CX-9.......
- :
- Denver, CO
It's paved now. There were some people hauling ass. Engine was plenty responsive when I punched it and hauled ass when I wanted it to.
I-70 I drive periodically. I am not a right-lane only kinda guy...if you catch my drift...
Does just fine. Don't grandma your CX-5 and it'll perform just fine.
I agree on Subaru. All the pot smoking granola hippies drive them here.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
My 13 didn't have all the Acurawatch features available at the time. As for trunk space I think the CX-5 has on paper more room and I can tell you the space is a little deeper. Width is just about the same I think (from fitting the stroller on both cars). We are just a little more comfortable front to back on the RDX with the kid car seats than with the CX-5 but we are talking maybe 1" at most front to back. Width I think the front is better but the rear the CX-5 feels like it has a little more (RDX has flat floor tho, no center hump). We got tech package no AWD and we paid the same price than our new CX-5 GT with premium package and AWD.
Honestly can't go wrong with either but the Acura will cost a little more. It's whether the 280hp is worth it and you can live with that split screen mess. I'm so glad that the dial and buttons are where they are on the CX-5!
ImNotDedYet
Member
- :
- 08 Acura TL
Very true. I only looked at the Acura as I'm fan. I wouldn't typically throw it in the same category. I only included my findings because well, in my case, I am comparing all of them.
Exactly what I wanted to hear, thank you! I wouldn't want to be stuck in a car where I can't pass people going up into the hills.
- :
- Denver, CO
I'll be honest, some people say they don't feel like they have passing power above 75mph.
It's not to say that I wouldn't like more power if it was available (but like others have said, I don't want a turbo), but I've found my CX-5 to be perfectly capable of passing people, even in the mountains.
If you can, test drive one and try taking it on the highways. When I bought mine, I got it at Mazda of Lakewood and they let me test drive it by driving it up I-70 a bit.
Don't grandma your CX-5 and it'll perform when you need it to
ImNotDedYet
Member
- :
- 08 Acura TL
I'll be honest, some people say they don't feel like they have passing power above 75mph.
It's not to say that I wouldn't like more power if it was available (but like others have said, I don't want a turbo), but I've found my CX-5 to be perfectly capable of passing people, even in the mountains.
If you can, test drive one and try taking it on the highways. When I bought mine, I got it at Mazda of Lakewood and they let me test drive it by driving it up I-70 a bit.
Don't grandma your CX-5 and it'll perform when you need it to
I don't find myself doing much more than 70 on the way up. I just don't want to be stuck behind the 45 or 50 mph people.
The dealership I test drove offered to let me take it home overnight. I may do that and give it a try.
I have no intentions of babying it.
Thanks again.
- :
- Denver, CO
I don't find myself doing much more than 70 on the way up. I just don't want to be stuck behind the 45 or 50 mph people.
The dealership I test drove offered to let me take it home overnight. I may do that and give it a try.
I have no intentions of babying it.
Thanks again.
Perfect.
And if it helps, I still lived up in Bailey when I bought mine, and it did just fine on 285 on my daily trip to downtown and back for a few months until I moved to Littleton. I am definitely not the type to stay behind 45-50mph green 15 year old Subaru Outbacks camping in the left lane.
May I ask which dealer that is?
Went to PA this last week for work. Amazing twisty roads north of Harrisburg - tried to climb the Thousand Steps - saw 300 on one when I was almost dead, turned around and am alive. Next time will ask Avis before hand if they can keep a Mazda3 or 6 for me instead of Camry or similar car. It would work great - would be a fun drive. Heck on way back I may take the longer route - just hope no slow poke is before me.
Why shouldn't we question how NHTSA rates cars? Anybody can give a car a score. What makes their ratings meaningful?
Sorry, you spurred a rant. NHTSA is not transparent about their rating system, has caught a lot of flak for protecting manufacturers from FOIA requests through confidentiality agreements, and ignores the vast majority of consumer complaints. I've tried looking for information about how they determine ratings based on crash test data but have come up short. Trying to do a deep dive on their web site leads a lot of broken links, empty query results, errors like "The NHTSA Crash Test database is currently unavailable due to daily maintenance." that persist 24/7, and bits of information that may be interesting but don't answer any of my questions. In their press releases and information they put out for the public, this is the kind of explanation they give:
5 stars = Injury risk for this vehicle is much less than average
4 stars = Injury risk for this vehicle is less than average to average
3 stars = Injury risk for this vehicle is average to greater than average
2 stars = Injury risk for this vehicle is greater than average
1 star = Injury risk for this vehicle is much greater than average
Well, that means nothing to me. How do they define average? What does it mean to be less than or greater than the average, what does it mean to be 'much' less than or 'much' greater than the average? These differences should be objective and quantifiable. Are they? I've Googled for answers and haven't found any.
The vast majority of ratings these days are 4-5 stars. How can that be the case if 4- and 5-star ratings are supposed to be better than average? Does the average change from year to year? If so, how can you compare used vehicles to new vehicles? They also say you can't compare front crash ratings from vehicles in different classes. Why?
Also, how do they assess injury risk based on the hundreds of variables they collect in a crash test? Is there some kind of formula and is it based on research and studies that I can go look at? Again, I've Googled and come up short.
More importantly, is there a correlation between NHTSA ratings and accident/crash statistics? I found just one research paper online that attempted to correlate real world data with the 2011- NHTSA NCAP ratings and it wasn't conclusive.
One nice thing that NHTSA does do is publish crash test reports, so if you're inclined you can see what the real differences are, IF you know how to interpret the data. But when you read these reports, it can be pretty hard to correlate the results to the ratings.
That requires a leap of faith. First, the 2017 is a new model and NHTSA hasn't published any crash test reports for it. Second, the 2016.5 is structurally the same car as the 2013-2015, so why should it be rated differently? The previous generation CX-5 was crash tested three times, all at MGA facilities, first in 2012, then in 2013, and then again in 2016. Go to NHTSA's site, download the test reports for all three tests, and compare the detailed data, particularly the accelerometer data in Appendix B. Compared to the typical differences you see from one car to another, these three crash test results are essentially equivalent. Even the pictures look pretty much the same. Which shouldn't be a surprise since it's the same frigging car.
So how do they get different ratings? The 2013 is rated 4/5 front and 4/5 overall, but the 2014 & 2015 are rated 5/5 even though they're the same car and the test results are equivalent. Then in 2016, the ratings drop again even though it's the same car being tested again and the results look equivalent. How does that happen?
The same thing happened with the CR-V. The last generation CR-V has been tested three times, in 2012, 2014, and 2015 at Calspan and MGA facilities. Go to NHTSA's site, download the test reports. It's the same car, and the test results were basically equivalent in each test, as you would expect. But the NHTSA ratings changed from 5/5 overall in 2012-2014 with the only 4-star rating being the driver's side frontal impact, to 4/5 overall in 2015 with the only 4-star rating being the passenger's side frontal impact (driver's side 5/5), and then back to 5/5 overall in 2016. Yet it's the same car.
No, I'm not talking about different vehicles. I'm talking about when the scores change for the SAME vehicle based on the SAME test, when there's been no design changes between model years and not even a retest.
Like I said, Mazda didn't change anything, and the detailed test reports indicate they didn't change anything, but the ratings are different. This happens for other manufacuters too. I don't think they play favorites, but their ratings don't seem to be consistent and I wonder whether they are based on objective criteria that are written down and accessible to the public. Checking on the NHTSA isn't my hobby and I haven't filed any FOIA requests, so I know I'm not all knowledgeable, but I try to be an informed consumer and I expect that if government agencies are going to influence buying decisions in a free market they had better be consistent, objective, and transparent.
For the purposes of making an argument, let's say the NHTSA rated vehicles on braking performance. But you had no idea whether the rating was based on 30-0, 60-0, and/or 70-0 results, or whether wet or dry, or ABS on or defeated. And they didn't say what 1,2,3,4,5-star ratings meant in terms of braking distance, and the standard may vary by class of vehicle, and it isn't a consistent standard from year to year anyway. How much attention would you pay to it then?
That's why I downloaded the actual data from IIHS and compared to several competitors and they are just about the same +/- a few in different areas.
BTW according to IIHS the CX-F fowrward collision warning get 0 points because "This system does not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's criteria for forward collision warning."
Also funny that NHTSA put a "X" on the CX-5's Lane Departure Warning?
BTW according to IIHS the CX-F fowrward collision warning get 0 points because "This system does not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's criteria for forward collision warning."
Also funny that NHTSA put a "X" on the CX-5's Lane Departure Warning?
Last edited:
It's easier for the NHSTA (or for the matter all other countries testing bodies) to change the goalposts which then leads to a downgrade of the ratings for vehicles that are virtually the same each year.
Much harder (it really shouldn't be) for them to actually sit down with manufacturers and discuss how to improve a vehicle's safety. IMO this is what they should be doing.
Much harder (it really shouldn't be) for them to actually sit down with manufacturers and discuss how to improve a vehicle's safety. IMO this is what they should be doing.
- Status
