2017 CX5 better "overall machine" than previous generation

[ColoradoDriver]

100% agree. And it's nice to see some people finally coming to their senses and seeing the CX-5 for what it is, a mild update over the previous generation. I've seen quite a few people on this forum over the last week(Mazda owners) hint the CRV might be the better vehicle. The fact that there are multiple people(current CX-5 owners) in multiple threads debating which generation is better(1st vs 2nd generation) is proof of that. You won't find CRV owners at the Honda forums saying the CX-5 is better at all.

Of course with the CRV, there is NO DEBATE whatsoever which generation is better(previous vs current). The new CRV is a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade over the previous generation. Like I said a few weeks ago here, you feel like your getting your money's worth with everything that has been upgraded from cargo space, fuel economy, new platform, new transmission, new turbo engine, CarPlay/AA etc...it's a terrific vehicle that excels in things that people who buy these budget CUV's are about like cargo space, fuel economy, CarPlay/AA, residual value and reliability. Iv'e already put nearly 10k miles on mine since Febuary. Hoping it will last me 250-300k mileage like many other CRVs from the late 90s that are still on the roads today.

What? There were threads where that RedTurbo guy said the CR-V had better handling/suspension than the CX-5 and people on the Honda forums corrected him! Don't make bulls*** claims.

Yep, 2017 is an improvement over the pre-2017 CR-Vs. Still doesn't appeal to me, and many others on this forum.

 

[mangoconchile]

What? There were threads where that RedTurbo guy said the CR-V had better handling/suspension than the CX-5 and people on the Honda forums corrected him! Don't make bulls*** claims.

So better handling/suspension is supposed to mean better car? Try again. Besides, you really think the average buyer in this segment(young families) care about handling/suspension? These aren't race cars. It has better handling then the CRV, very good. But not much better at things that people in this segment care about, you know like fuel economy, cargo space, reliability, residual, CarPlay, stuff like that...

 

[ColoradoDriver]

So better handling/suspension is supposed to mean better car? Try again. Besides, you really think the average buyer in this segment(young families) care about handling/suspension? These aren't race cars. It has better handling then the CRV, very good. But not much better at things that people in this segment care about.

You're making my point. That doesn't matter to you. It matters to me. So yes, it does make the better car....for me. Just like all the crap I hate but you like on the CR-V make it the better car for...you.

 

[paging_drburgos]

Seems to me, is that someone here really loves Hondas and that's totally fine by me (dangit, i should have known Mango would appear at the smell of CRV's). It also seems to me that the only reason why there's a debate between Gen 1 CX-5 owners about which is better is due to biases. Offer most 1st Gen owners a free upgrade to the 2nd gen and they'll happily accept it and enjoy it, but offer 2nd gen owners the option to switch and we'll laugh at you. 1st Gen CX5 is really nice but it was nowhere on my radar. Neither was any RAV4, CRV, or Rogue. Sorry but that's the truth. My Mazda 5 lasted 240k miles and it still had quite a bit of life left in it, I just needed a change. I really thought it was going to be an A4, but then this guy stole my attention.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[mangoconchile]

You're making my point. That doesn't matter to you. It matters to me. So yes, it does make the better car....for me. Just like all the crap I hate but you like on the CR-V make it the better car for...you.

It matters to you, good. But it doesn't matter to 9 out of 10 buyers in this segment, which is why I said the 'average buyer' and not one off cases like yours.

 

[Kaps]

I finally give my conclusion. These are my MY rankings. Undisputed, unabridged. Complains can be directed to the Comcast call center. Ty.

1. 2014 - it adds up to 7, everyone knows 7 is a lucky number.
2. 2013 - Pioneer year. Start of an era. 14 fixed most of the problems of 13, hence 14 won.
3. 2015 - pointless MY. Plus it gives 9 mpg at 95mph. Too low bro.
4. 2016 - Too much wind noise. (By now Mazda claimed 35 times they have added wind insulation - this makes 2016 noisier than 2013 because 0 claims of wind proofing for 13 - expectations were low)
5. 2017 - If it was released earlier and I was able to buy it at Nissan discounts - this would be #1.
6. 2016.5 - the .5 was a gimmick. Folks thought it was longer and had more cargo. It did not. For some reason my seats are hotter than a 2016 even when I dont eat tacos. Not impressed.

The Den.

I meant The End.

 

[mangoconchile]

Seems to me, is that someone here really loves Hondas and that's totally fine by me (dangit, i should have known Mango would appear at the smell of CRV's). It also seems to me that the only reason why there's a debate between Gen 1 CX-5 owners about which is better is due to biases. Offer most 1st Gen owners a free upgrade to the 2nd gen and they'll happily accept it and enjoy it, but offer 2nd gen owners the option to switch and we'll laugh at you. 1st Gen CX5 is really nice but it was nowhere on my radar. Neither was any RAV4, CRV, or Rogue. Sorry but that's the truth. My Mazda 5 lasted 240k miles and it still had quite a bit of life left in it, I just needed a change. I really thought it was going to be an A4, but then this guy stole my attention.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

You make a good point regarding bias, but when you look at the arguments being made from the 2016.5 and below owners, they have some valid points. The 2017 CX-5 gets worse gas mileage, worse acceleration, worse braking performance, disappointing crash ratings, etc...these are all things that are supposed to be improved over the previous generation.

If you were to ask 2016 and below CRV owners if the 2017 model was a better vehicle, they would ALL agree it is. You might get the occasional owner who might say the 2016 model is better, but he wouldn't be able to provide any evidence to back his claim as the 2017 CRV is improved in every single category. I can't think of anything that it might do worse in vs the previous generation.

 

[timberstx]

Better is a relative term. I can see why everything you listed will make the 2017 CX-5 a better car for most people. But for me to be better it would have to be more fun to drive, and get better mileage. I have not driven the the new CX-5, but without having a manual transmission it just would not be as fun to drive for me. And now that I moved from Texas to Oregon, its even better. I can now take advantage of the mountain twisty roads, that are actually smooth.

For the 2017 CX-5 to be better for me.
1. Get the manual transmission back
2. Get at least the same milage in a gas engine. Mine is rated at 35mpg highway, which I exceed.

 

[bigtex]

Better is a relative term. I can see why everything you listed will make the 2017 CX-5 a better car for most people. But for me to be better it would have to be more fun to drive, and get better mileage. I have not driven the the new CX-5, but without having a manual transmission it just would not be as fun to drive for me. And now that I moved from Texas to Oregon, its even better. I can now take advantage of the mountain twisty roads, that are actually smooth. l

For the 2017 CX-5 to be better for me.
1. Get the manual transmission back
2. Get at least the same milage in a gas engine. Mine is rated at 35mpg highway, which I exceed.

I think the manual is gone forever, but maybe not. I got 28.6 on my first 5K in the '17. Mostly high speeds. Pull a lightweight trailer quite a bit. I'll gladly trade a MPG or 2 and smoking someone off the line to actually be able to use my phone. It's nice when every call doesn't begin, "Well I can tell you are driving."

 

[7eregrine]

Jesus with the CR-V Mango...give it a rest. .

Not commenting on that. Very few Gen2 owners think the Gen1 is better. Period. Better looking? Absolutely. If you gave all the Gen1 owners all the Gen1 features I promise you not one person would complain.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[ColoradoDriver]

It matters to you, good. But it doesn't matter to 9 out of 10 buyers in this segment, which is why I said the 'average buyer' and not one off cases like yours.

Ah I see. So that's why you have a need to constantly argue with us on a Mazda forum about how precious the golden child CR-V is and how crap the CX-5 is.

Representing that "average buyer" there Mango?

Edit: Hey if I had some Gen2 features in my Gen1 styled CX-5, sure I won't complain. But I like my Gen1 over the Gen2 for a very simple reason. The feel and styling. Maintain the styling and feel of a Gen 1 with Gen 2 features, and sure I'll trade up maybe. I don't give a s*** about feature lists, I care about feel. It doesn't have to be a sports car to enjoy driving it. I enjoy driving my CX-5. I did not enjoy sitting in a 2017.

So let's say you're right Mango, 9 out of 10 buyers don't care about what I care about? That makes what I drive a crap car then?

 

[jhu8]

Holy s***. I've been out of country for a couple of weeks and thought that surely this '16 vs '17 would have gone away by now.

Oh man, my post wasn't meant as a shot on the new cx5. Don't worry lol I was merely posting an article from a well know car site that had some what I thought was interesting data. It was talked about a lot in the article. Of course the 17 is an improved vehicle over the 16 in just about every way. I would surely hope so. I'll admit, I am not thattt old and have only owned 4 cars in my life. But from my experience, when is a new iteration of a car not an improvement over the previous? It damn well better be.

My whole thing was that one area that Mazda really differentiated themselves from the pack, is now slipping away. They need to get back on track!

We all sound like a bunch of Android guys arguing over which phone is better(google pixel vs galaxy S devices) lol We are still on the same team though.

 

[7eregrine]

iPhone sucks. I hate how you can't even.... oh uh.. wait. Wrong thread.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[ColoradoDriver]

My whole thing was that one area that Mazda really differentiated themselves from the pack, is now slipping away. They need to get back on track!

Exactly!

I don't want another CR-V knockoff. I don't want a luxury vehicle.

I just want my Mazda zoom zoom.

Mango will say "but, but, features!!!!!". I don't care Mango. I don't care. And it's a Mazda forum, so I don't have to.

 

[mangoconchile]

But from my experience, when is a new iteration of a car not an improvement over the previous? It damn well better be.

Agreed. The CX-5 is their most important vehicle, but when you have people here debating whether it's an upgrade over the previous generation, it's a troubling sign. I know when I buy a brand new vehicle, I want it to be better than the previous generation in every way possible. And it rather ironic that the CX-5 has regressed in acceleration/handling/braking where as the CRV is the one which has improved over the previous generation.

 

[jhu8]

Exactly!

I don't want another CR-V knockoff. I don't want a luxury vehicle.

I just want my Mazda zoom zoom.

Mango will say "but, but, features!!!!!". I don't care Mango. I don't care. And it's a Mazda forum, so I don't have to.

Yup, spot on. I mean, it is Mazda's whole mantra in the first place. DRIVING MATTERS. Well, then improve on those things that make DRIVING MATTER. Don't get worse.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Edit: Hey if I had some Gen2 features in my Gen1 styled CX-5, sure I won't complain. But I like my Gen1 over the Gen2 for a very simple reason. The feel and styling. Maintain the styling and feel of a Gen 1 with Gen 2 features, and sure I'll trade up maybe. I don't give a s*** about feature lists, I care about feel. It doesn't have to be a sports car to enjoy driving it. I enjoy driving my CX-5. I did not enjoy sitting in a 2017

Right there witcha my friend...

 

[paging_drburgos]

Better is a relative term. I can see why everything you listed will make the 2017 CX-5 a better car for most people. But for me to be better it would have to be more fun to drive, and get better mileage. I have not driven the the new CX-5, but without having a manual transmission it just would not be as fun to drive for me. And now that I moved from Texas to Oregon, its even better. I can now take advantage of the mountain twisty roads, that are actually smooth.

For the 2017 CX-5 to be better for me.
1. Get the manual transmission back
2. Get at least the same milage in a gas engine. Mine is rated at 35mpg highway, which I exceed.

Great point. I've said this before but I wasn't comparing the CX5 to other crossovers. I wanted my next car to be quiet and upscale, and call me crazy but Honda's, Toyota's and Mazda's normally wouldn't fit that role. I always thought there was something special about the Mazda 6 GT with parchment interior, but I took it off my list due to complaints about it being under powered (sigh, people are so subjective these days).

The CX5 was better for me, because it's just as quiet and luxurious on the inside as the luxury sedans that I test drove (TLX, Q50, A4, ATS), AND i'm still be able to fit my bike in the trunk. Sure it might not get the absolute best gas mileage, but I don't care. Gas mileage isn't on my list of priorities (i'm happy with 26MPG average). Neither is 0-60 time.

My list of priorities in no particular order:
Easy on the eyes
Luxurious interior
Tech
QUIET CABIN
ability to swallow potholes and road imperfections (Roads in LA suck)
sporty performance
fit's my bike and 10 inch dobsonian telescope.
Did I mention easy on the eyes.

All of this is subjective. I'm not an expert car reviewer. I'm just a dude who reads a lot and watches a lot of youtube reviews. And based on my year and a half of research, the CX5 won based on my specific wants and needs. I ended up going full circle and ended up with a taller Mazda 6 with proper HUD and quieter interior.

 

[bigtex]

Agreed. The CX-5 is their most important vehicle, but when you have people here debating whether it's an upgrade over the previous generation, it's a troubling sign. I know when I buy a brand new vehicle, I want it to be better than the previous generation in every way possible. And it rather ironic that the CX-5 has regressed in acceleration/handling/braking where as the CRV is the one which has improved over the previous generation.

To me, it was hard to improve on the CX5, except for the wind noise, and they did that and added other improvements as well. These added weight, maybe slowed it a little, but are worth it. There are a lot of CRV's out there however. But there are also a lot of Walmarts.

 

[7eregrine]

I think the fact that some people prefer gen1 over gen2 and no Honda owners prefer previous to current? I'd say that's a strong statement about the CX-5.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk