• Welcome to Mazdas247, the 24/7 Mazda Community and Resource. Learn about the benefits of becoming a Member here.
  • We're an Amazon Associate and eBay Partner. We earn from qualifying purchases.

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

shadonoz

SkyActiv Member
Contributor
:
State of Jefferson
:
2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
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!!
+1... definitely with a big brake kit.
 

shadonoz

SkyActiv Member
Contributor
:
State of Jefferson
:
2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Exactly! But C&D didn't blame the tire on CX-5 which makes it inferior on performance and handling in the article.
Right, I misunderstood what you were saying.

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.
Double right.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
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?
Changes were made. It handles the same or better than a gen 1...I am quite happy with the tradeoffs.
 
:
2001 Mazda Protege
Mazda wasnt all that amazing 20 years ago. That's why.
My old man started with Mazda in the late 80s (the 626) and upgraded to the 929 in 1992. That thing ran for 6 hard years and I drove it on occasion its latter half. Felt damn near luxury quiet and smooth in driving, granted I was only 17-19 yo but still. Mazda can build premium vehicles if they want. I think the current CX-5 is today's 929 in its compact CUV segment.
 
:
2014 Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD
As a long time owner of a CX-5 I tend to agree with yrwei.
The CX-5 was definitely not the most reliable vehicle I owned, though not terrible. While, unlike yrwei I don't cringe at the introduction of cylinder deactivation as an engineering mistake, I do see multiple reasons why I would be considering other vehicles, if I would to buy now.
Keeping in mind that C&D tend to prefer more power when possible, but since many would not be buying the 2.5T, it would be more interesting to compare naturally aspirated engines from both. It also sounds like C&D liked the interior refinement of the CX-5, most of which is available only on higher trims only. For people like me, which do not care too much about the latter but would prefer better fuel economy and better handling, the RAV-4 (and CR-V) are a better choice. In fact, I was surprised how much better the RAV-4 has become (finally!).
At the time I purchased the CX-5, I also test drove the RAV-4. At the time, the CX-5 was clearly better in handling, weight, fuel-economy and the RAV-4 was just good enough.
Now, the CX-5 still has the same fuel-economy, more weight and the RAV-4 has surpassed it in almost everything, except engine noise and wind noise. Similarly, the CR-V.

You may claim the 1.5T has oil dilution issue, but it is likely resolved by now and it only affected small number of all CR-Vs anyway. It does have a CVT, so may be a deterrent for some, but Honda makes the best CVTs in the business and does provide MPG advantage. Get a RAV-4 with traditional 8 speed, if its critical for you.

Bottom line, the competition has improved significantly while the CX-5 improved only in interior refinement and availability of an engine which is N/A for many.
For many, it will not be a good enough reason to get a CX-5.
 

shadonoz

SkyActiv Member
Contributor
:
State of Jefferson
:
2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
GTR and Sig get 2 pot and larger rotors up front...not BBK, but it is improvement.
That's nice, but not the point.
The turbo's nice, too, but wholly inadequate as a performance engine.
We're talking about a whole other level. There are plenty out there. At a price, of course.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
That's nice, but not the point.
The turbo's nice, too, but wholly inadequate as a performance engine.
We're talking about a whole other level. There are plenty out there. At a price, of course.
Well, yeah, if you want that you'll pay, yes, but nothing under 40k is superior, which is what we're talking about. Sure you can buy an AMG43 GLC, but you wont get a new one for $35k
 
:
CX5 GT-R
As a long time owner of a CX-5 I tend to agree with yrwei.
The CX-5 was definitely not the most reliable vehicle I owned, though not terrible. While, unlike yrwei I don't cringe at the introduction of cylinder deactivation as an engineering mistake, I do see multiple reasons why I would be considering other vehicles, if I would to buy now.
Keeping in mind that C&D tend to prefer more power when possible, but since many would not be buying the 2.5T, it would be more interesting to compare naturally aspirated engines from both. It also sounds like C&D liked the interior refinement of the CX-5, most of which is available only on higher trims only. For people like me, which do not care too much about the latter but would prefer better fuel economy and better handling, the RAV-4 (and CR-V) are a better choice. In fact, I was surprised how much better the RAV-4 has become (finally!).
At the time I purchased the CX-5, I also test drove the RAV-4. At the time, the CX-5 was clearly better in handling, weight, fuel-economy and the RAV-4 was just good enough.
Now, the CX-5 still has the same fuel-economy, more weight and the RAV-4 has surpassed it in almost everything, except engine noise and wind noise. Similarly, the CR-V.

You may claim the 1.5T has oil dilution issue, but it is likely resolved by now and it only affected small number of all CR-Vs anyway. It does have a CVT, so may be a deterrent for some, but Honda makes the best CVTs in the business and does provide MPG advantage. Get a RAV-4 with traditional 8 speed, if its critical for you.

Bottom line, the competition has improved significantly while the CX-5 improved only in interior refinement and availability of an engine which is N/A for many.
For many, it will not be a good enough reason to get a CX-5.
You're right. Just a few. A million or therabouts. And yeah, its resolved. They extended the warranty on those few.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car...Yzb913jzwDfh1wlKymn6PcMGZZtvF2tJybLQ2twSEx4YE
 

shadonoz

SkyActiv Member
Contributor
:
State of Jefferson
:
2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Well, yeah, if you want that you'll pay, yes, but nothing under 40k is superior, which is what we're talking about. Sure you can buy an AMG43 GLC, but you wont get a new one for $35k
That's true, but not what Nelson was talking about: a truly performance oriented, more expensive Mazda which could easily be less expensive than AMG or any of the other hot shots.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
That's true, but not what Nelson was talking about: a truly performance oriented, more expensive Mazda which could easily be less expensive than AMG or any of the other hot shots.
The GTR/SIG slots like the GLC300. They never cited it as performance, out and out, but if they continue with their I6 development, maybe we will see one.
 
:
2014 CX 5 Touring AWD Bose and Tech
I'm looking to replace my 2014 CX5 Touring with about 125k on it now. The new Rav4 XSE has everything I want, pano sunroof, hybrid, more open and airy interior. Then I rented a Rav4 LE for a weekend and that all changed. While even the non-hybrid had great mileage I felt it was not up to the same standard as my girlfriends 2018 GT in refinement, not even close. Ride was odd, ate the small bumps quietly and completely, however tar strips and the repaired cracks so common in upstate NY were absolutely jolting. It also wallowed on the winding roads through the Adirondack mountains, so much so that my 22 yo daughter got car sick for the first time in her life. After about a 500 mile weekend we both felt that the Rav4 was a wonderful appliance, just not a vehicle I want to spend 40k 0n. I felt the ride, handling, and interior comfort were better on the 18 CX5 GT. Currently looking at a new Forester Touring and liked it on a short test ride, now I have to find one to rent for the weekend. Looking forward to whatever interior changes happen in the 2020 CX5. The Rav4 is off my list. Having owned four Mazda vehicles and finding them very reliable I have no qualms about buying another CX5. For me Mazda has been at least as reliable as the Honda's I have owned.
 
Last edited:
:
2016 CX-9 GT AWD
The only thing better about the rav 4 is the extra cargo space and more mpg (due to 8spd) I like that they offer a pano roof as its the only thing I wish my Mazda had. But the price difference is insane. Not worth it. Better off getting a base Lexus suv
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
2019 Mazda CX-5 vs. 2019 Toyota RAV4 (Car&Driver)丨

⋯ Then I rented a Rav4 LE for a weekend and that all changed.
2019 Toyota RAV4 just came out and my Toyota dealer only has very few of them, and you can find one at a car rental company?

Ride comfort can be a personal preference and C&D article centainly doesnt have such complaint to their test RAV4.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
2019 Toyota RAV4 just came out and my Toyota dealer only has very few of them, and you can find one at a car rental company?

Ride comfort can be a personal preference and C&D article centainly doesn*t have such complaint to their test RAV4.
That would be a really strange thing to lie about, IMO
 

Avoidin Deer

Zoom Zoom, baby
Contributor
:
Central Virginia
:
2019 CX-5 Reserve
Exactly! But C&D didn't blame the tire on CX-5 which makes it inferior on performance and handling in the article.
I know that. But C&D didn't cite any reason the RAV-4 outperformed the CX-5 in handling, hence my question. I would have thought this to be a big deal, and C&D glossed over it. From what I've seen in all the pre-2019 CX-5 reviews I read/viewed, superior handling has always been a main selling feature of the CX-5 over other CUVs.

So where are the details? What changed this year? Did Toyota improve, or did Mazda decline...or both? (Those questions are directed to the C&D article). This could be a significant transition point for both Mazda and Toyota (and maybe even Honda), unless this measurement on its own is meaningless.
 
:
17 CX-5 GT 14 CX-5 GT (sold)
I agree that this comparison between a 2019 RAV4 and a 2019 CX5 Signature is really not fair. The engine and interior puts the Reserve and Sig in a class above as the reviewers state.

A better comparison would be to see how far Toyota has come against the 2017 Mazda CX5 GT AWD released 2 years ago, which is the same as the 2019 CX5 GT AWD. Plus, the horsepower is a little closer to equal, 203 for the Toyota and 187 for the Mazda.

2019 Toyota RAV4 Adventure AWD VS 2017 Mazda CX5 Grand Touring AWD

PRICE AS TESTED
RAV4 $39,034 (base price: $33,995) Price for 2019 RAV4 AWD Limited with Tech Package $37,720
CX5 Price for 2019 CX5 GT AWD with Premium Package is $34,315

ENGINE TYPE
RAV4 DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
CX5 DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-capable inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection

Displacement
RAV4 152 cu in, 2487 cc
CX5 152 cu in, 2488 cc
Power
RAV4 203 hp @ 6600 rpm
CX5 187 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque
RAV4 184 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
CX5 185 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm

TRANSMISSION
RAV4 8-speed automatic with manual shifting mode
CX5 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

Passenger volume
RAV4 99 cu ft
CX5 102 cu ft
Cargo volume
RAV4 37 cu ft
CX5 31 cu ft
Curb weight
RAV4 3665 lb
CX5 3678

C/D
TEST RESULTS

Zero to 60 mph
RAV4 8.1 sec
CX5 8.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph
RAV4 22.5 sec
CX5 24.2 sec
Rolling start, 560 mph
RAV4 8.5 sec
CX5 8.5 sec
Top gear, 3050 mph
RAV4 4.2 sec
CX5 3.9 sec
Top gear, 5070 mph
RAV4 6.0 sec
CX5 5.5 sec
Standing -mile
RAV4 16.3 sec @ 88 mph
CX5 16.3 sec @ 85 mph
Braking, 700 mph
RAV4 161 ft
CX5 182 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad
RAV4 0.84 g
CX5 0.82 g

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway
RAV4 28/25/33 mpg
CX5 AWD 26/23/29 mpg

So very similar specs, almost like Toyota had a target. You do get a larger sunroof and a slight improvement in MPG with the RAV4, but initial MSRP is $3000 more, which would buy a lot of fuel.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15090418/2017-mazda-cx-5-awd-instrumented-test-review/
 
Last edited:

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
The only thing better about the rav 4 is the extra cargo space and more mpg (due to 8spd) I like that they offer a pano roof as its the only thing I wish my Mazda had. But the price difference is insane. Not worth it. Better off getting a base Lexus suv
No, the main reason why RAV4 is having better MPG is because its new 203hp naturally aspirated Dynamic Force 2.5L engine which has industry-leading 40% thermal efficiency. 8-speed transmission helps too. The 2.5L has both direct and port D-4S fuel injection system which prevents long-term problems from direct injection.

The engine is noisy when idle, and the insulation on RAV4 is lacking. The price is higher and harder to negotiate in my area. Lexus doesnt offer one in similar size and engine. NX is very small and the engine has turbo.
 

Avoidin Deer

Zoom Zoom, baby
Contributor
:
Central Virginia
:
2019 CX-5 Reserve
I agree that this comparison between a 2019 RAV4 and a 2019 CX5 Signature is really not fair. The engine and interior puts the Reserve and Sig in a class above as the reviewers state.

A better comparison would be to see how far Toyota has come against the 2017 Mazda CX5 GT released 2 years ago, which is the same as the 2019 CX5 GT. Plus, the horsepower is a little closer to equal, 203 for the Toyota and 187 for the Mazda.

[snip]

So very similar specs, although the CX5 is still better in most. You do get a larger sunroof and a slight improvement in MPG with the RAV4, but initial MSRP is $3000 more, which would buy a lot of fuel.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15094826/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review/
Interesting. Thanks for that.

I didn't realize that the oft-maligned "substandard" cargo space in the CX-5 is partially made up for in increased passenger volume.

I wonder what that slight difference in skidpad translates to in the real world. I would have never thought the RAV-4 to be anywhere near the CX-5, much less equal to/better than.

It's also interesting to see what that 8 speed must do for the RAV-4. At 0-60 MPH it's 0.3 seconds faster. At 88 MPH (the standing ) it's narrowed to 0.1 second faster (seems like the CX-5 is catching up). But from 88 MPH to 100 MPH the RAV-4 pulls way and it's a full 1.3 seconds faster.

Of course, it seems that the "U" in SUV/CUV is becoming less and less important, huh?
 
Last edited:
Top