2017 CX5 better "overall machine" than previous generation

:
Fmr CX5 Touring
We're kind of debating 4-things:

* Frumpy Mom's car (pre 2017 CR-V)
* Much improved 2017 CR-V, because, well, 2016.
* Nimble but noisy as **** pre 2017 CX-5
* Much improved 2017 CX-5 in the ways that matter to me

Now, that's my perspective. I'm a single guy, with one car. The crossover interested me because I could, the handful of times I needed to, carry something large, I didn't need a bike rack, and the CX-5 still had an element of fun to drive. It was a no-brainer when I bought mine. Today, I have different resources, a longer commute, and the only real advantage is the lack of a bike rack.

Mazda addressed a lot of things that needed addressing in the 2017. It's not perfect, I think in fact Mazda has some issues as a company, but it's a good vehicle.

Also, yes MPG went down 1 MPG, but also keep in mind that it's measured differently now. Obviously Honda improved, and gets the better MPG, but ripping the Mazda for that, I dunno. Now, if you wanted the base model's MPG, good luck.
 
:
2013 VRM Mazdaspeed3, 2016 Soul Red CX-5 GT
I agree that the 2017 CX-5 is a better overall machine than the previous model. The features it has added are something that you cannot get in the previous models, even if you delve into the aftermarket. You can upgrade the audio system on 2016 and below models to get better sound. You can add sound insulation to quiet down the cabin. You can do those stuff, but you will not get full speed radar cruise control, rear ac vents and heated seats, driver seat memory settings, power lift-gate, hud and all the other goodies that Mazda has added for the 2017 model. Yes it is down on performance a little, but I think the new features more than makes up for it.

I almost feel like Mazda is okay with letting the performance slide a little, because they have a higher performance model coming... maybe?
 
:
16 CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech
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

This is true. And when those who chime in saying they prefer gen1 over gen2, gen2 owners are right there flabbergasted how anyone could still like their current gen cx5 over the new one. And then immediately follow up with a consensus that that person is a "hater".
 
:
2017 Cx-5 GT AWD
I just cross shopped the CR-V and CX-5 last week and it was a very close call.
CX-5 won out because it was cheaper and insurance was cheaper by quite a bit as well (+22/6mo vs +147/6mo)

CR-V had really nice things as well but ultimately for MY criteria the CX-5 check off more boxes than the CR-V.

IF the CR-V would have been exactly same price then I actually might have swerved to the CR-V. Nothing fundamentally wrong with either car.
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
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

Great point and fully agree.
 

NelsonLewis

Banned
:
16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
This is true. And when those who chime in saying they prefer gen1 over gen2, gen2 owners are right there flabbergasted how anyone could still like their current gen cx5 over the new one. And then immediately follow up with a consensus that that person is a "hater".

Sad, but true...
 
:
Mazda 6
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...

Yeah but don't discount the intangibles. Some people (more than you may imagine) have an emotional investment in an auto purchase.
That's why Mazda has the balls to encourage comparison of the CX-5 to BMW, Lexus & other entry level vehicles as per the slew of reviewer comparison test drives earlier this year. And, of course, the CX-5 was more than competitive.
Honda could/would never do that? What does that tell you? So, the CRV "may" be a better car on an objective basis, but does anyone really get excited about buying a CR-V?
IMO, Mazda > Honda 24/7 for this and other reasons. But, obviously, YMMV.
 

mangoconchile

Banned
Contributor
:
2005 Mazda3
This is true. And when those who chime in saying they prefer gen1 over gen2, gen2 owners are right there flabbergasted how anyone could still like their current gen cx5 over the new one. And then immediately follow up with a consensus that that person is a "hater".


Yeah dude, I find it funny when call someone a 'hater' or 'troll' just for stating their opinion. It's quite sad.
 
:
2013 VRM Mazdaspeed3, 2016 Soul Red CX-5 GT
Yeah but don't discount the intangibles. Some people (more than you may imagine) have an emotional investment in an auto purchase.
That's why Mazda has the balls to encourage comparison of the CX-5 to BMW, Lexus & other entry level vehicles as per the slew of reviewer comparison test drives earlier this year. And, of course, the CX-5 was more than competitive.
Honda could/would never do that? What does that tell you? So, the CRV "may" be a better car on an objective basis, but does anyone really get excited about buying a CR-V?
IMO, Mazda > Honda 24/7 for this and other reasons. But, obviously, YMMV.
It's a lost cause. You'll never going to convince him the CX-5 is a better car than the CR-V regardless of the circumstances/criteria.
 

mangoconchile

Banned
Contributor
:
2005 Mazda3
Yeah but don't discount the intangibles. Some people (more than you may imagine) have an emotional investment in an auto purchase.
That's why Mazda has the balls to encourage comparison of the CX-5 to BMW, Lexus & other entry level vehicles as per the slew of reviewer comparison test drives earlier this year. And, of course, the CX-5 was more than competitive.
Honda could/would never do that? What does that tell you? So, the CRV "may" be a better car on an objective basis, but does anyone really get excited about buying a CR-V?
IMO, Mazda > Honda 24/7 for this and other reasons. But, obviously, YMMV.



Honda is not going to compare their CRV to a BMW/Mercedes/Audi because they already own a premium brand in Acura. Secondly, they had the 'balls' to encourage comparison between Mercedes/Audi/Lexus? Are you also aware that Mazda PAID for flights/hotels/travel expenses for these 'reviewers' to do their comparisons? You really think these reviewers are going to say what they really think when Mazda is footing the bill? Give me an all expenses paid trip to San Diego and ill be singing praises for the CX-5 as well:)

And funny how they picked a bunch of sub-compact SUVs like the X1 and Q3 instead of the GLC300 and X3 which would have made for a better comparison since they are identical in size to the CX-5.

We all have our preferences bro. If you like your CX-5, enjoy it. It just isn't good enough for me. If I had to get a CX-5 I would get a 2016.5 anyway as I find it the better vehicle.
 
Last edited:

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
Yeah but don't discount the intangibles. Some people (more than you may imagine) have an emotional investment in an auto purchase.
That's why Mazda has the balls to encourage comparison of the CX-5 to BMW, Lexus & other entry level vehicles as per the slew of reviewer comparison test drives earlier this year. And, of course, the CX-5 was more than competitive.
Honda could/would never do that? What does that tell you? So, the CRV "may" be a better car on an objective basis, but does anyone really get excited about buying a CR-V?
IMO, Mazda > Honda 24/7 for this and other reasons. But, obviously, YMMV.

Spot on, friend.

Honda is not going to compare their CRV to a BMW/Mercedes/Audi because they already own a premium brand in Acura. Secondly, they had the 'balls' to encourage comparison between Mercedes/Audi/Lexus? Are you also aware that Mazda PAID for flights/hotels/travel expenses for these 'reviewers' to do their comparisons? You really think these reviewers are going to say what they really think when Mazda is footing the bill? Give me an all expenses paid trip to San Diego and ill be singing praises for the CX-5 as well:)

And funny how they picked a bunch of sub-compact SUVs like the X1 and Q3 instead of the GLC300 and X3 which would have made for a better comparison since they are identical in size to the CX-5.

We all have our preferences bro. If you like your CX-5, enjoy it. It just isn't good enough for me. If I had to get a CX-5 I would get a 2016.5 anyway as I find it the better vehicle.

Great, so why are you here?

I noticed you avoided his points on excitement and emotional bonds. Who the hell was ever "excited" to buy a CR-V, except maybe you. ;)
 
:
'18 Mazda CX-5 Akera KG i-Activ AWD 2.5L In Sonic Silver
Haha, loving the snark of the thread.

The 2nd gen CX-5 is arguably a better "overall machine" than the 1st gen. The problem is, the CR-V (and some competitors) has always been a better "overall machine" than the CX-5, and still is.

Over here with the exception of the NVH issue, the previous model was pretty much considered the better overall machine compared to CR-V and others.

Now that NVH has been improved...... (wink)

Each country has different drivers, different conditions and different reviews. So all depends on where you are

Each to their own :)
 
:
Mazda 6
It's a lost cause. You'll never going to convince him the CX-5 is a better car than the CR-V regardless of the circumstances/criteria.

Actually, I'm not trying to convince him of that, because not having (test) driven the CR-V I really don't know.
But, it really doesn't matter if emotional appeal (ie. pride of ownership) is a factor in the purchase decision.
I think this is a fairly easy concept for Mazda owners to understand; apparently not so easy for fans of Honda or other "off-the-shelve" brands.
In my experience, explaining this non-empirical concept to the "typical" Honda owner is like trying to teach Greek to a capuchin monkey - lol.
They obviously have other priorities in the purchase decision. Not surprising that Mango has such a hard time understanding why anyone would choose a CX-5 over a CR-V.
 
:
'18 Mazda CX-5 Akera KG i-Activ AWD 2.5L In Sonic Silver
I almost feel like Mazda is okay with letting the performance slide a little, because they have a higher performance model coming... maybe?

Yes it is a bit worse than before but not by that much and the question needs to be asked... would it be really that noticeable in the real world of daily driving to work, the shops or to a friends place (uhm) Probably not.
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
Actually, I'm not trying to convince him of that, because not having (test) driven the CR-V I really don't know.
But, it really doesn't matter if emotional appeal (ie. pride of ownership) is a factor in the purchase decision.
I think this is a fairly easy concept for Mazda owners to understand; apparently not so easy for fans of Honda or other "off-the-shelve" brands.
In my experience, explaining this non-empirical concept to the "typical" Honda owner is like trying to teach Greek to a capuchin monkey - lol.
They obviously have other priorities in the purchase decision. Not surprising that Mango has such a hard time understanding why anyone would choose a CX-5 over a CR-V.

Spot on again. I like you.
 
:
2014 QX70 AWD
In my experience, explaining this non-empirical concept to the "typical" Honda owner is like trying to teach Greek to a capuchin monkey - lol.

 
:
2013 VRM Mazdaspeed3, 2016 Soul Red CX-5 GT
Yes it is a bit worse than before but not by that much and the question needs to be asked... would it be really that noticeable in the real world of daily driving to work, the shops or to a friends place (uhm) Probably not.
For the majority of drivers, most likely not. For those that like to drive aggressively day to day, maybe. I've said it in my post in some thread, can't remember if it was this or the other one, I'm not sure I would notice the difference. However I skew towards the performance side so I will always have a bias for it.
 
:
Mazda 6
Honda is not going to compare their CRV to a BMW/Mercedes/Audi because they already own a premium brand in Acura. Secondly, they had the 'balls' to encourage comparison between Mercedes/Audi/Lexus? Are you also aware that Mazda PAID for flights/hotels/travel expenses for these 'reviewers' to do their comparisons? You really think these reviewers are going to say what they really think when Mazda is footing the bill? Give me an all expenses paid trip to San Diego and ill be singing praises for the CX-5 as well:)

And funny how they picked a bunch of sub-compact SUVs like the X1 and Q3 instead of the GLC300 and X3 which would have made for a better comparison since they are identical in size to the CX-5.

We all have our preferences bro. If you like your CX-5, enjoy it. It just isn't good enough for me. If I had to get a CX-5 I would get a 2016.5 anyway as I find it the better vehicle.

It's irrelevant that Mazda doesn't have a premium brand - the direct competition to the CX-5 is a CR-V. All of those luxury cars would have blown the doors off the CR-V. We both know it. Mazda is reaching for "aspirational" buyers - a segment that Honda has no hopes of reaching with the CR-V both on perception and merit.

And, obviously, you are not a reviewer. Universal rule about reviewers & objectivity - once it's compromised, just hang it up because you are generally finished in your respective field. Yeah, I can just see all of these reviewers throwing their hard-earned reputations out the window for $1,000 worth of freebies. Did they also compare notes to universally declare the CX-5 simply better than, for instance, the Lexus? Simply delusional.
 
:
'18 Mazda CX-5 Akera KG i-Activ AWD 2.5L In Sonic Silver
For the majority of drivers, most likely not. For those that like to drive aggressively day to day, maybe. I've said it in my post in some thread, can't remember if it was this or the other one, I'm not sure I would notice the difference. However I skew towards the performance side so I will always have a bias for it.

Fair enough :)

I also skew towards performance to but it's not as much as I used to. I have become more realistic as most of the driving situations that I am in now no longer require the performance of say my previous 255bhp V6
 
Top