From the reviews I have read for USA and here, the power fine like you said for the segment
Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
- Thread starter bluegrass
- Start date
- Status
From the reviews I have read for USA and here, the power fine like you said for the segment
It's likely one of the main reasons the CRV out accelerates the CX-5, given their similar weight and engine stats, is the CVT on the Honda. It's pretty well explained here.
redturboeclipse
Member
- :
- mazda rx7
- :
- Denver, CO
Good lord. You always randomly pop-up to post Honda stuff. Between you and tropical fruit guy, I am guessing you are the actual Honda salesman.
Anyway, still fugly as sin. And good lord that shifter is way up on that dash. And that wood. Hideous.
Definitely seems to have some nice features if you lean that way, but wouldn't be dealbreaker features to me.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Another head to head comparison between these 2 vehicles, guess which one won again?
http://www.autoguide.com/car-comparisons/2017-mazda-cx-5-vs-2017-honda-cr-v-comparison-test
http://www.autoguide.com/car-comparisons/2017-mazda-cx-5-vs-2017-honda-cr-v-comparison-test
- :
- Denver, CO
It's like you are trying to have a contest or something fruit man.
Anyway let's break this down a bit. To quote the article:
Reinforces that the CX-5 is still the king of driving dynamics in this class.
And that last line...really tells me who is buying the CR-V and who is buying the CX-5. I guarantee I would feel the difference between the 2.
Well, there you go. No HUD for the CR-V.
I read that as, get the CR-V if you are the soccer mom hauling kids around. Get the CX-5 if you want to have some fun.
And once again...they say "slimmest of margins" which reinforces my earlier point that depending on what you value, you can easily go from one side to the other.
So your premise of "guess who won again" is flawed.
And just to be clear, I think it's good that Honda has improved their dreadful and soulless previous gen CR-V. That's great. Gives people more options for what to go with, and depending on what you value you can be well served by either.
But seeing as this is a Mazda forum....CVT and it's red headed step-child who fell down and hit every branch in the tree looks is an automatic "No" for me. YMMV
Edit: And from the article, seems they agree.
Last edited:
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
LMAO
Did you actually read that article, Mango? I did. That is the least convincing "win" I've ever seen.
Although Mazda has begun to dabble in turbocharging, the CX-5’s four-cylinder is naturally aspirated and paired with a conventional six-speed automatic, delivering a quick jump thanks to an eager throttle. Power builds smoothly, but it’s a bit loud if you really push it, though it’s nowhere near as unpleasant as the CR-V.
This car just begs to be kept in Econ mode, lazily accelerating at the pace of traffic, letting the CVT maximize efficiency, which has been stellar throughout this long term test. The CX-5 is always tempting you to flick the sport switch and push it, though it gets a little too aggressive and wears thin after a while, holding gears just a bit too long.
(That's clearly a win for the CX5 in my book...enjoy your Econ mode....)
Although its fuel efficiency is no longer a class leader. The CX-5 lives up to Mazda’s reputation as a driver’s car, delivering the best overall driving experience in the segment, carefully balancing fun character and a comfortable ride.
The Honda’s front row is just as spacious as anything in the segment and the seats are comfortable, even for long hauls. It’s only next to the CX-5 that the quality lags behind.
Where the CX-5 will struggle to win over compact crossover shoppers is in the practicality department.
(I didn't buy my car for practicality. Differnet strokes. I'm happy that it's the practical car for you)
Like the CR-V, it has release handles in the side of the trunk that allow you to drop the rear seat from the back of the vehicle. However, the CX-5’s rear seats are split 40/20/40, meaning you can drop all of it, either side, or even just the middle section so you can haul long objects like skis or two-by-fours while still able to accommodate two rear passengers or without having to remove child seats (CX5 win)
The seats themselves are comfortable, and headroom is actually better than the CR-V, but legroom isn’t great, (CRV win legroom, CX5 win headroom))
The CX-5 sets a new standard for interior quality
These updates came just in time, because the CR-V has all these helpful driving aids too, but the CX-5 has one feature that is nowhere to be seen on the CR-V – head-up display.
Still, a fully loaded CR-V has all the gizmos you’re likely to be looking for, and the touchscreen setup is easy to use, with great route guidance that and can even take traffic into account and help you avoid major delays. (CRV win, no one denies this not to mention AA, ACP)
The CX-5 and CR-V start at an identical $24,895 (including equal $940 destination charges, too), and these fully loaded models both come in under $35,000 with the CX-5 about a grand cheaper. (Also never disputed , the Mazda can be had cheaper)
In summation:
They both have all the latest features and impressive quality throughout, and the CX-5 takes it to another level with its gorgeous looks, luxury materials and nifty head-up display. However, the CR-V is the more spacious, efficient and practical, and just as easy to drive and park, without feeling cumbersome or sloppy.
(again, NONE of the reason I bought my CX-5. This is what you cannot seem to grasp, Mango... there is more then one type of buyer out there. Mangos, 7eregrine's, Young Colordians, Banjos, and MazdaGYalls'.
)
In this pairing, the CX-5 might be the better car, but the CR-V is a better utility vehicle, so it wins this comparison by the slimmest of margins and remains our compact crossover champ.
EXACTLY why I bought. I wanted a better, roomier, just as fun to drive car, with a slightly bigger hatch then my last car. That's what I got...
Did you actually read that article, Mango? I did. That is the least convincing "win" I've ever seen.
Although Mazda has begun to dabble in turbocharging, the CX-5’s four-cylinder is naturally aspirated and paired with a conventional six-speed automatic, delivering a quick jump thanks to an eager throttle. Power builds smoothly, but it’s a bit loud if you really push it, though it’s nowhere near as unpleasant as the CR-V.
This car just begs to be kept in Econ mode, lazily accelerating at the pace of traffic, letting the CVT maximize efficiency, which has been stellar throughout this long term test. The CX-5 is always tempting you to flick the sport switch and push it, though it gets a little too aggressive and wears thin after a while, holding gears just a bit too long.
(That's clearly a win for the CX5 in my book...enjoy your Econ mode....)
Although its fuel efficiency is no longer a class leader. The CX-5 lives up to Mazda’s reputation as a driver’s car, delivering the best overall driving experience in the segment, carefully balancing fun character and a comfortable ride.
The Honda’s front row is just as spacious as anything in the segment and the seats are comfortable, even for long hauls. It’s only next to the CX-5 that the quality lags behind.
Where the CX-5 will struggle to win over compact crossover shoppers is in the practicality department.
(I didn't buy my car for practicality. Differnet strokes. I'm happy that it's the practical car for you)
Like the CR-V, it has release handles in the side of the trunk that allow you to drop the rear seat from the back of the vehicle. However, the CX-5’s rear seats are split 40/20/40, meaning you can drop all of it, either side, or even just the middle section so you can haul long objects like skis or two-by-fours while still able to accommodate two rear passengers or without having to remove child seats (CX5 win)
The seats themselves are comfortable, and headroom is actually better than the CR-V, but legroom isn’t great, (CRV win legroom, CX5 win headroom))
The CX-5 sets a new standard for interior quality
These updates came just in time, because the CR-V has all these helpful driving aids too, but the CX-5 has one feature that is nowhere to be seen on the CR-V – head-up display.
Still, a fully loaded CR-V has all the gizmos you’re likely to be looking for, and the touchscreen setup is easy to use, with great route guidance that and can even take traffic into account and help you avoid major delays. (CRV win, no one denies this not to mention AA, ACP)
The CX-5 and CR-V start at an identical $24,895 (including equal $940 destination charges, too), and these fully loaded models both come in under $35,000 with the CX-5 about a grand cheaper. (Also never disputed , the Mazda can be had cheaper)
In summation:
They both have all the latest features and impressive quality throughout, and the CX-5 takes it to another level with its gorgeous looks, luxury materials and nifty head-up display. However, the CR-V is the more spacious, efficient and practical, and just as easy to drive and park, without feeling cumbersome or sloppy.
(again, NONE of the reason I bought my CX-5. This is what you cannot seem to grasp, Mango... there is more then one type of buyer out there. Mangos, 7eregrine's, Young Colordians, Banjos, and MazdaGYalls'.
)In this pairing, the CX-5 might be the better car, but the CR-V is a better utility vehicle, so it wins this comparison by the slimmest of margins and remains our compact crossover champ.
EXACTLY why I bought. I wanted a better, roomier, just as fun to drive car, with a slightly bigger hatch then my last car. That's what I got...
Last edited:
- :
- Denver, CO
Well said, 7.
If I want a utility vehicle I'll go buy another Jeep FFS.
Those are all the reasons I bought my CX-5 too. And none of those supposed "Pros" of the CR-V sway me whatsoever. Moreover, the fact it has CVT and a little turbo engine are considerable disadvantages to me.
RedTurbo and Mango think everyone is a boring soccer mom apparently?
If I want a utility vehicle I'll go buy another Jeep FFS.
Those are all the reasons I bought my CX-5 too. And none of those supposed "Pros" of the CR-V sway me whatsoever. Moreover, the fact it has CVT and a little turbo engine are considerable disadvantages to me.
RedTurbo and Mango think everyone is a boring soccer mom apparently?
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Doesn't matter how close it was, a win is a win. Not only that but if they had included the CRV's superior safety rating, I don't think it would have been as close seeing as how safety is a big deal especially when you're carrying around kids. Same thing for the Motor Trend comparison. They didn't talk about it because they didn't have the data at the time. Now that it's out it's just something else the CRV excels that.
HUD? Iv'e yet to see anyone at the Honda forums, or reviewers of the CRV complain about the lack of a HUD. How many threads have you seen here alone asking when CarPlay is coming? How many CX-5 reviews have you seen/read where they complain of the lack of CarPlay? Every single one. Let's be serious, we BOTH know which one is the important feature, BY FAR. Besides, like I asked in this thread earlier, what information will a HUD provide me that my digital tach cannot? None, and it's not something I would want to pay extra for. Furthermore, HUD is offered in other markets for the CRV, just not in the states. Panoramic sunroof, paddle shifters, 3rd row seating, multiple engine/transmission choices, and several other features as well.
Buy a CX-5 if you want to have 'fun'? You really think any of these appliances are 'fun' to drive? Your bar for something being 'fun' must be pretty low then. If you want to know what 'fun' is in driving, go rent a Porsche or drive a WRX. I've driven a CX-5 before, I didn't find it 'fun' at all. Just another appliance in this sector. BTW if you somehow equate fun to performance, the CRV weighs less, has more power and would likely get around a track faster than a CX-5.
HUD? Iv'e yet to see anyone at the Honda forums, or reviewers of the CRV complain about the lack of a HUD. How many threads have you seen here alone asking when CarPlay is coming? How many CX-5 reviews have you seen/read where they complain of the lack of CarPlay? Every single one. Let's be serious, we BOTH know which one is the important feature, BY FAR. Besides, like I asked in this thread earlier, what information will a HUD provide me that my digital tach cannot? None, and it's not something I would want to pay extra for. Furthermore, HUD is offered in other markets for the CRV, just not in the states. Panoramic sunroof, paddle shifters, 3rd row seating, multiple engine/transmission choices, and several other features as well.
Buy a CX-5 if you want to have 'fun'? You really think any of these appliances are 'fun' to drive? Your bar for something being 'fun' must be pretty low then. If you want to know what 'fun' is in driving, go rent a Porsche or drive a WRX. I've driven a CX-5 before, I didn't find it 'fun' at all. Just another appliance in this sector. BTW if you somehow equate fun to performance, the CRV weighs less, has more power and would likely get around a track faster than a CX-5.
Last edited:
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Yea, OK. Spoken like a true fan boy. Enjoy your practical CRV.
And this is why you bought your practical CRV. Driving is just something you do. To me? It's something I enjoy.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Actually I own a 335is coupe, and am in the process of replacing it with an 2018 WRX. Those are cars I consider 'fun' and within my price range. I bought the CRV because I needed a vehicle with more space and CarPlay. I didn't buy it because I was looking for a 'fun' CUV.
- :
- Denver, CO
Spoken like a Honda fanboy/salesman. If it's marginal then what an individual values (which can and will be different from you) can easily push them to one side or the other. Your statement here is moot.
LOL - So your entire argument is to say we are wrong because a car is an appliance only unless it's a sportscar. I can't enjoy or even have fun driving unless I get a WRX or Porsche. This is some troll level idiotic statements right here. I'm a one car house. I get the best of both worlds with my CX-5. I enjoy the hell out of driving it, it puts a smile on my face. And I don't want a WRX as my only car when the winter comes and the snowstorms come. We don't all live in LA.
And then you proceed to counter my statements about features not swaying me by stating the CR-V has these features that I already said don't sway me.
If you weren't trolling before, you damn sure are now.
Last edited:
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
All my vehicles are fun. My Volvo. My scooter. My CUV. Have you ever really gotten on that CR-V? Ever tried to redli....eerrr or whatever it is you CVT people do when you max it out. LOL.
You can't take a joke. Can't concede a point. You know car buyers better then anyone. I'm guessing you weren't in the debate team? This is why all your conversations become arguments.
Not arguing with you anymore....
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
You can't take a joke. Can't concede a point. You know car buyers better then anyone. I'm guessing you weren't in the debate team? This is why all your conversations become arguments.
Not arguing with you anymore....
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
LMAO
Did you actually read that article, Mango? I did. That is the least convincing "win" I've ever seen.
Although Mazda has begun to dabble in turbocharging, the CX-5’s four-cylinder is naturally aspirated and paired with a conventional six-speed automatic, delivering a quick jump thanks to an eager throttle. Power builds smoothly, but it’s a bit loud if you really push it, though it’s nowhere near as unpleasant as the CR-V.
This car just begs to be kept in Econ mode, lazily accelerating at the pace of traffic, letting the CVT maximize efficiency, which has been stellar throughout this long term test. The CX-5 is always tempting you to flick the sport switch and push it, though it gets a little too aggressive and wears thin after a while, holding gears just a bit too long.
(That's clearly a win for the CX5 in my book...enjoy your Econ mode....)
Although its fuel efficiency is no longer a class leader. The CX-5 lives up to Mazda’s reputation as a driver’s car, delivering the best overall driving experience in the segment, carefully balancing fun character and a comfortable ride.
The Honda’s front row is just as spacious as anything in the segment and the seats are comfortable, even for long hauls. It’s only next to the CX-5 that the quality lags behind.
Where the CX-5 will struggle to win over compact crossover shoppers is in the practicality department.
(I didn't buy my car for practicality. Differnet strokes. I'm happy that it's the practical car for you)
Like the CR-V, it has release handles in the side of the trunk that allow you to drop the rear seat from the back of the vehicle. However, the CX-5’s rear seats are split 40/20/40, meaning you can drop all of it, either side, or even just the middle section so you can haul long objects like skis or two-by-fours while still able to accommodate two rear passengers or without having to remove child seats (CX5 win)
The seats themselves are comfortable, and headroom is actually better than the CR-V, but legroom isn’t great, (CRV win legroom, CX5 win headroom))
The CX-5 sets a new standard for interior quality
These updates came just in time, because the CR-V has all these helpful driving aids too, but the CX-5 has one feature that is nowhere to be seen on the CR-V – head-up display.
Still, a fully loaded CR-V has all the gizmos you’re likely to be looking for, and the touchscreen setup is easy to use, with great route guidance that and can even take traffic into account and help you avoid major delays. (CRV win, no one denies this not to mention AA, ACP)
The CX-5 and CR-V start at an identical $24,895 (including equal $940 destination charges, too), and these fully loaded models both come in under $35,000 with the CX-5 about a grand cheaper. (Also never disputed , the Mazda can be had cheaper)
In summation:
They both have all the latest features and impressive quality throughout, and the CX-5 takes it to another level with its gorgeous looks, luxury materials and nifty head-up display. However, the CR-V is the more spacious, efficient and practical, and just as easy to drive and park, without feeling cumbersome or sloppy.
(again, NONE of the reason I bought my CX-5. This is what you cannot seem to grasp, Mango... there is more then one type of buyer out there. Mangos, 7eregrine's, Young Colordians, Banjos, and MazdaGYalls'.
In this pairing, the CX-5 might be the better car, but the CR-V is a better utility vehicle, so it wins this comparison by the slimmest of margins and remains our compact crossover champ.
EXACTLY why I bought. I wanted a better, roomier, just as fun to drive car, with a slightly bigger hatch then my last car. That's what I got...
And yet despite all the fake wood, bulging rear, noisy CVT and whatever negatives you want to mention about the CRV, it still a BETTER vehicle than the CX-5 according to Motor Trend, AutoGuide, and CarAndDriver. The question I ask is what does that say about the CX-5 that it gets beaten by a vehicle driven by soccer moms/senior citizens? Not only does it best the CX-5 in practicality but in performance as well. How is it possible that a box on wheels like the CRV can have more power/complete a figure 8 track faster than the 'Driving matters'/'Zoom Zoom Zoom' CX-5? All with better fuel economy to boot?
- :
- Denver, CO
You miss one very important distinction. Two actually.
CVT/little Turbo vs. NA/6-speed auto. And the CX-5's sharp looks versus the soccer mom granny mobile looks of the CR-V.
I'll take the CX-5 all day long. The CVT alone renders this "beats a CX-5" statement moot.
If the CR-V had an NA, or even still had a Turbo, with a regular auto transmission, then you might have a better leg to stand on in this argument. As it is, it doesn't and even your last article says as much.
It's ok Mango, I know that doesn't compute for you. How can we possibly have fun with our CX-5's? Oh well.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Like I said, safety ratings weren't taken into either comparison. If they were, I don't think it would be as close. And who said anything that's not a sports car is an appliance? Can you quote where I said this? I said most CUVs in this sector/category are appliances. I'm sorry if you feel offended that I call these CUVs appliances but thats' what I consider them. I personally don't buy sub-200HP SUVs to have fun, I buy them for practicality. If I want something fun I'll buy a car or bike not an underpowered SUV.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Good thing you're not a reviewer, otherwise you'd just say 'The CX-5 is better because it doesn't have a CVT' and call it a day. Fortunately these auto reviewers look at the entire package instead of cherrypicking certain features about cars to make an argument for them. And again I'll ask, what does it say about the CX-5 when a car with a CVT transmission beats a vehicle with a 6 speed auto? Like I said, good thing these reviewers look at more than just a few things when making these comparisons.
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
You need to take off the Honda colored glasses my friend. That review you posted, that Honda win review that you posted? That's going to sell just as many Mazda as it is going to sell Hondas. Maybe you should read it again?
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
With at least three major redesigns coming in this segment, how much does the CR-V's meager standing as king of the hill really matter? New versions of the Toyota Rav4, Subaru Forester & Ford Escape are coming. With how high both the CR-V and CX-5 have set the bar in their respective ways, the bulls-eye is going to be set on the CR-V and not the CX-5. The real fight for king of the mountain is at least a couple years away.
- :
- Denver, CO
Yep. Can't concede a point where differing views on what we want out of the vehicle can push someone to one side or the other. Apparently only Mango's views on what people should care about, matter?
Even I, who vehemently dislikes CR-V's, can admit that depending on what you value, you can be served well by either vehicle. Also this "minimal margin" allows for someone of differing needs/wants out of a CUV to go to one side of the fence or the other. But apparently...no, Mango's way is the only way.
- Status
