2019 Mazda CX-5 vs. 2019 Toyota RAV4 (Car&Driver)

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
L
Plano, Texas, USA
V
16 CX-5 GT AWD Tec
... I've never owned a Mazda before (been driving for over 45 years). Now that I see what you get for the price point, and now that I have experienced "Kodo," I don't know why they don't have a larger market share. Do people really spend this kind of money based on entertainment system and cup holder design?
IMO the history of inconsistency on reliability is why Mazda can't build up a bigger market share. People usually blame it on Ford, but you simply can't blame the rotary engine, and the recent CX-7 on Ford. When I purchased our 2016 CX-5, one reason was the reliability rating on Mazda from Consumer Report at the time is no. 4. Then next year it dropped to no. 6, and no. 12 the following year. It does come back up to no. 3 this year, but the inconsistency of reliability is the problem.

For a while I always recommended CX-5 to friends and family. A couple of them bought 2016 CX-5's were mad at me due to expensive LED DRL failure. Others who refused to get a Mazda mainly are questioning its reliability, some of them have had Mazda before and they all had bad experience on reliability issues from their previous Mazda's.

I don't recommend Mazda to friends and family anymore mainly because newly added cylinder deactivation and turbo, which to me are not good features for long-term reliability based on history record.
 
Last edited:

Avoidin Deer

Central Virginia
Contributor
V
2019 CX-5 Reserve
IMO the history of inconsistency on reliability is why Mazda can't build up a bigger market share. People usually blame it on Ford, but you simply can't blame the rotary engine, and the recent CX-7 on Ford. When I purchased our 2016 CX-5, one reason was the reliability rating on Mazda from Consumer Report at the time is no. 3. Then next year it dropped to no. 6, and no. 12 the following year. It does come back up to no. 3 this year, but the inconsistency of reliability is the problem.
Interesting. That's quite the schizophrenic swing.
 
V
CX5 GT-R
Mazda wasnt all that amazing 20 years ago. That's why.
I dunno, they had some cool stuff back in 1999. The little B2200 was un-killable (It was a Ranger, whatever), and the RX7 FD was truly awesome, if a bit quirky. I tend to view Mazda's "bad years" as 2004-2012 or thereabouts. The RX8 was such a stain that it killed anyone sensible's love for the little company, as the RX7 FD was truly only the "cool" thing Mazda was doing. The rest was the B2200 (Ranger), and "junk".
 
V
CX5 GT-R
IMO the history of inconsistency on reliability is why Mazda can't build up a bigger market share. People usually blame it on Ford, but you simply can't blame the rotary engine, and the recent CX-7 on Ford. When I purchased our 2016 CX-5, one reason was the reliability rating on Mazda from Consumer Report at the time is no. 4. Then next year it dropped to no. 6, and no. 12 the following year. It does come back up to no. 3 this year, but the inconsistency of reliability is the problem.

For a while I always recommended CX-5 to friends and family. A couple of them bought 2016 CX-5's were mad at me due to expensive LED DRL failure. Others who refused to get a Mazda mainly are questioning its reliability, some of them have had Mazda before and they all had bad experience on reliability issues from their previous Mazda's.

I don't recommend Mazda to friends and family anymore mainly because newly added cylinder deactivation and turbo, which to me are not good features for long-term reliability based on history record.
Mazda's 2.5T engine has a great track record for reliability.
 
V
2018 cx5 GT
Its to bad about the new rav4. I had a loaded 2005. Best car I have ever owned never a problem over 200,000 km. Wish I kept it!
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
L
Plano, Texas, USA
V
16 CX-5 GT AWD Tec
Its to bad about the new rav4. I had a loaded 2005. Best car I have ever owned never a problem over 200,000 km. Wish I kept it!
Nothing too bad against new 2019 Toyota RAV4 from the Car and Driver article!

In fact, RAV4 out-performed CX-5 in every category on performance and handling other than acceleration. But CX-5 has to pay for the turbo power with poorer MPG and more frequent maintenance.

Car and Driver failed to mention the premium 93-octane gas, which is 60~80 per gallon more expensive in our area, is required for listed 250 hp on CX-5 in its article, whereas RAV4s listed 203 hp is from 87-octane regular gas.

Car and Driver said:
2019 Mazda CX-5 Signature AWD
Highs: The best chassis in the class, the best engine in the class, the best interior in the class.
Lows: One of the thirstiest engines in the class, narrow interior, small cargo hold.

2019 Toyota RAV4 Limited
Highs: Humongous interior space, cushy seats, thrifty on fuel.
Lows: Noisy, feels brittle and insubstantial, polarizing styling.

On the Road

It's surprising for a Toyota, and especially so for a RAV4, how connected and communicative the RAV4's steering is. And the vehicle as a whole is pretty well balanced and planted. Before you get any warning light or big interruptions, you can feel the stability control intervening in subtle ways to keep the thing neutral and controlled around corners. We were quite surprised to learn that we like the brake pedal more in the RAV4 than in the Mazda. The CX-5's is a little squishy at the top of its travel, while the Toyota's is part of the brand's unexpected commitment to verve in its pedestrian products. And it's not just in feel: The RAV4's handling and braking numbers0.84 g of grip on the skidpad and a 161-foot stop from 70 mphare the best in the segment, while the Mazda's 0.78 g and 175-foot stop tend toward the back in spite of the CX-5's subjective composure and comfort.

The Mazda's optional boosted four is the burliest engine in the class. It doesn't rev very high or sound particularly great, but it does make the CX-5 the quickest by a substantial margin despite weighing a relatively hefty 3812 pounds. Our test vehicle's 6.2-second zero-to-60-mph pull was almost two seconds quicker than both that of a mechanically identical RAV4 Adventure model we previously tested and of the last CX-5 we took to the track with the standard 186-hp 2.5-liter. Paired with one of the last six-speed automatic transmissions in a segment increasingly turning to eight- and nine-speeds and CVTs to tease out every last mpg, Mazda's 2.5 turbo does suffer somewhat compared to others in terms of fuel economy, which the EPA estimates at 22 mpg city, 27 highway, and 24 combined. But experientially, the six-speed is deeply satisfying, being smooth, quick-shifting, and with perfectly spaced ratios that keep it from feeling or sounding too busy. Engine behavior is where the Toyota drops behind the Mazda; the RAV4's 2.5 is gritty and loud, and the eight-speed automatic feels slow and abrupt in its actions. But with its more modest output, the Toyota crushes the Mazda in fuel economy, with 25 mpg city and 33 highway for a combined 28 mpg. On our 75-mph highway fuel-economy loop, the RAV4 averaged 32 mpg to the CX-5's 30 mpg.

The Bottom Line
The Toyota RAV4 is a spacious and comfortable cruiser and surprisingly engaging. On the one hand, the RAV4 joins the Camry sedan as unlikely indicators of a shift toward enthusiasm at Toyota. But on the other, both are the volume models, and their honing shows that Toyota is serious about modifying its reputation for building reliable yet staid vehicles. There's a competence to the latest RAV4 that has never been there before. All it needs now is a powertrain that doesn't sound and feel like it's two decades old.
 
V
CX5 GT-R
Nothing too bad against new 2019 Toyota RAV4 from the Car and Driver article!

In fact, RAV4 out-performed CX-5 in every category on performance and handling other than acceleration. But CX-5 has to pay for the turbo power with poorer MPG and more frequent maintenance.

Car and Driver failed to mention the premium 93-octane gas, which is 60~80 per gallon more expensive in our area, is required for listed 250 hp on CX-5 in its article, whereas RAV4*s listed 203 hp is from 87-octane regular gas.
A big thing you missed is the 3dB difference at 70mph cruise. That is HUGE and may truly be a sole deciding factor for someone who drove both. On long road trips it will matter a lot regarding fatigue. Sound levels on the dB scale are logarithmic. 3dB is a big deal.
 

Avoidin Deer

Central Virginia
Contributor
V
2019 CX-5 Reserve
I agree that it is disingenuous (or just plain sloppy) of Car & Driver to post those higher CX-5 *gotta use premium* HP numbers, especially since the CX-5 is 24 HP more than the RAV-4 when both are using regular.

Regarding the skidpad grip comparison: that surprises me. I would have expected this to be where the CX-5 blew the doors off of the RAV-4. (Stopping distance has always been an issue for the CX-5).
 
V
2018 CX 5 TOURING
Regarding the skidpad grip comparison: that surprises me. I would have expected this to be where the CX-5 blew the doors off of the RAV-4. (Stopping distance has always been an issue for the CX-5).[/QUOTE]

maybe tires make the difference?
 

Avoidin Deer

Central Virginia
Contributor
V
2019 CX-5 Reserve
Regarding the skidpad grip comparison: that surprises me. I would have expected this to be where the CX-5 blew the doors off of the RAV-4. (Stopping distance has always been an issue for the CX-5).
maybe tires make the difference?
That's what I was wondering, but was too lazy to look up the specs.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
L
Plano, Texas, USA
V
16 CX-5 GT AWD Tec
Regarding the skidpad grip comparison: that surprises me. I would have expected this to be where the CX-5 blew the doors off of the RAV-4. (Stopping distance has always been an issue for the CX-5).
maybe tires make the difference?
CX-5 has Toyo A36, 225/55R-19 99V tires whereas RAV4 has Toyo A39 Open Country, 235/55R-19 101V. Both have Toyo tires and how much difference the tire can make?

Even Car and Driver doesnt use tire as the excuse for performance and handling differences.
 
V
CX5 GT-R
CX-5 has Toyo A36, 225/55R-19 99V tires whereas RAV4 has Toyo A39 Open Country, 235/55R-19 101V. Both have Toyo tires and how much difference the tire can make?

Even Car and Driver doesn*t use tire as the excuse for performance and handling differences.
CX5 GTR/SG is pretty heavy, yo! The tires should be 245's. I was hitting some curves i the mountains with my gf in the car and actually trying to be kinda sedate and still got a ton of tire squeal. It was annoying, really, how low the limits were. Oh, it behaves itself, but jeez. I'm really really considering some 245's like Fitch? put on his, but am nervous that they won't clear fender-wells during extremes of suspension movement.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
L
Plano, Texas, USA
V
16 CX-5 GT AWD Tec
CX5 GTR/SG is pretty heavy, yo! The tires should be 245's. I was hitting some curves i the mountains with my gf in the car and actually trying to be kinda sedate and still got a ton of tire squeal. It was annoying, really, how low the limits were. Oh, it behaves itself, but jeez. I'm really really considering some 245's like Fitch? put on his, but am nervous that they won't clear fender-wells during extremes of suspension movement.
Well, who is to blame to make your CX-5 GTR so heavy? At 3,812 lb CX-5 Signature AWD is 147 lb heavier than RAV4 Adventure AWD. One of the major advantages of Mazda's original SkyActiv Technology is lighter weight. Now Mazda has walked away its original idea and made its new CX-5 "weighing a relatively hefty" according to Car and Driver.

Mazda GTR and Sig have 2.5T turbo which added 40~63 hp but has no changes on suspension to compensate. Even the tire size is the same. Again, who is to blame to make the tire so narrow?
 

shadonoz

SkyActiv Member
Contributor
L
State of Jefferson
V
2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
CX-5 has Toyo A36, 225/55R-19 99V tires whereas RAV4 has Toyo A39 Open Country, 235/55R-19 101V. Both have Toyo tires and how much difference the tire can make?

Even Car and Driver doesn*t use tire as the excuse for performance and handling differences.
The difference can be huge. Actually, C&D often cites tires differences to account for differing results.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
L
Plano, Texas, USA
V
16 CX-5 GT AWD Tec
The difference can be huge. Actually, C&D often cites tires differences to account for differing results.
Exactly! But C&D didn't blame the tire on CX-5 which makes it inferior on performance and handling in the article.
 

NelsonLewis

Banned
V
16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
CX5 GTR/SG is pretty heavy, yo! The tires should be 245's. I was hitting some curves i the mountains with my gf in the car and actually trying to be kinda sedate and still got a ton of tire squeal. It was annoying, really, how low the limits were. Oh, it behaves itself, but jeez. I'm really really considering some 245's like Fitch? put on his, but am nervous that they won't clear fender-wells during extremes of suspension movement.
It needs another .5-1 inch of wheel, too...
 

tex2670

Grand Poobah
V
2012 CX-9 GT AWD, Copper Red/Sand
Exactly! But C&D didn't blame the tire on CX-5 which makes it inferior on performance and handling in the article.
If you watch Alex on Autos' review of the CX-5, he specifically references the CX-5 tire width, and suggests that owners can improve handling by adding wider tires.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
L
Plano, Texas, USA
V
16 CX-5 GT AWD Tec
If you watch Alex on Autos' review of the CX-5, he specifically references the CX-5 tire width, and suggests that owners can improve handling by adding wider tires.
Then Mazda should do it from factory, not their owners.

And NelsonLewis said it correctly, with wider tires even if it's just 1 cm wider on tread, we need wider wheels too for optimal performance.
 

NelsonLewis

Banned
V
16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Then Mazda should do it from factory, not their owners.

And NelsonLewis said it correctly, with wider tires even if it's just 1 cm wider on tread, we need wider wheels too for optimal performance.
This is why I wish they offered an *M* or *S* type line, you know, like other premium automakers do. Maybe they eventually will...

Right now, it would include...
1) wider wheels and tires
2) lower and more aggressive ride stance and handling
3) 3-330hp
4) possible big brake kit

I*d gladly pay a $4-6k premium for this, and stretch it to the low $40k*s. I bet there*s more of us than one thinks, too...

Wanna really steal premium brand buyers, DO IT!!
 
Top