Any cross shopping with the 2019 RAV4?

wbw

:
'16 Chevy Equinox 3.6 AWD, 2017 VW GTI
Have any of you folks cross shopped the redesigned 2019 RAV4? I'm really liking the more rugged look of the new RAV. The front has a bit of the Tacoma in it. I'm partial to the Adventure model. I drove one around the block at the Motor Trend Auto show in Baltimore last week. All the reviews say that it's under powered and I agree. But now the CX-5 Turbo has my attention. I have not driven one but that thing should really move. 310 lb./ft. of torque should get the job done. I currently have a 2016 Equinox with the 3.6 with 300 hp. and a VW GTI that is really quick. I figure that the CX-5 Turbo would almost be like an SUV version of the GTI. The CX-5 is very attractive, but almost too good looking if you know what I mean. I wish I could have Mazda's 2.5 turbo in the RAV4.

Do any of you folks ever take your CX-5s off road? Dirt trails or fire trails? I know it's not a rock crawler, but neither is the RAV, and I don't need that level of off road. I'm retired now and hope to spend more time in the mountains of Virginia and Pennsylvania, so some light off-roading will hopefully be in my future.

I'm not ready to make a move yet but I'm always researching the next vehicle because it's fun. Anyway, I have plenty of time to decide. If you care to offer up your thoughts it will be appreciated. Would especially like to hear from CX-5 Turbo owners.

Thanks

Edited to add: I seem to be placing some emphasis on off-roading because I hope to be doing some of that in the future, but the reality is that 99.9% of the time the vehicle will be on paved roads. The 'drivers car' (CX5) would probably be the better choice.
 
Last edited:
:
CX5 GT-R
Look into the TRD Offroad RAV4 model, too...

The CX5T and RAV are probably going to be polar opposites, if I had to guess, although I've driven neither.
 

wbw

:
'16 Chevy Equinox 3.6 AWD, 2017 VW GTI
Look into the TRD Offroad RAV4 model, too...

The CX5T and RAV are probably going to be polar opposites, if I had to guess, although I've driven neither.
I saw that there will be a TRD Offroad version of the RAV. From what I've seen, with the exception of a different suspension set-up, it's mostly cosmetic. No skid plates and the same engine that's in the other 2019 RAV4s.

Unobtanium - have you ever taken your CX5 off road?
 
:
CX5 Siggy
I can't speak to the off-roading capability but the 2019 RAV4 was one of the vehicles I cross shopped before I bought my CX5 Turbo. I liked the powertrain, pretty stout and good shift logic but unexciting. Decent ergonomics but bad infotainment, nothing new for a Toyota. 2019's do have carplay now. Also I found myself to be sitting to high and the wheel was too low. It wasn't brutal but not ideal. CRV and CX5 are way better in that regard.

I have a Gold R so I can kind of speak to where you are coming from with your GTI. The power numbers on the CX5 look good, but there isn't the rush to redline I get from the R. Instead its mostly a steady push that gets you moving quickly. I just got mine so haven't really pushed it but to be honest even after I go through the break in process its not a vehicle you have to wind out to get the most performance.

If you consider yourself to be an enthusiast the CX5 doesn't really have a competitor in this class. If you are an enthusiast you don't want a CVT, and you want something that can get out of its own way. The NA CX5 does just fine for itself, the turbo is a game changer.
 

wbw

:
'16 Chevy Equinox 3.6 AWD, 2017 VW GTI
I can't speak to the off-roading capability but the 2019 RAV4 was one of the vehicles I cross shopped before I bought my CX5 Turbo. I liked the powertrain, pretty stout and good shift logic but unexciting. Decent ergonomics but bad infotainment, nothing new for a Toyota. 2019's do have carplay now. Also I found myself to be sitting to high and the wheel was too low. It wasn't brutal but not ideal. CRV and CX5 are way better in that regard.

I have a Gold R so I can kind of speak to where you are coming from with your GTI. The power numbers on the CX5 look good, but there isn't the rush to redline I get from the R. Instead its mostly a steady push that gets you moving quickly. I just got mine so haven't really pushed it but to be honest even after I go through the break in process its not a vehicle you have to wind out to get the most performance.

If you consider yourself to be an enthusiast the CX5 doesn't really have a competitor in this class. If you are an enthusiast you don't want a CVT, and you want something that can get out of its own way. The NA CX5 does just fine for itself, the turbo is a game changer.
Thanks. Glad to hear from a turbo owner.
Yes, I agree, a CVT would be a deal-breaker for me. Coming from the 3.6 Equinox and the GTI, the Toyota 2.5 would be a let down performance wise. But I really like the new Adventure. As I said, I haven't driven the Mazda turbo yet but I have a feeling that when I do, the CX5 will win me over. It sounds like it's the sportiest of the vehicles in that group.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
I'm also cross-shopping the CX-5 and RAV4 and test-drove both recently. RAV4 LE FWD I test-drove didn't feel the extra 19 hp too much than my 2016 CX-5 AWD. I like its smooth-shifting、lock-up-in-every-gear 8-speed transmission. But this Toyota's new naturally-aspirated、high-compression、high-thermal-efficiency 2.5L is noisy in idle almost sounded like a diesel.

The CX-5 Signature I test-drove again didn't feel the extra 47 hp too much than my 2016 CX-5 AWD either. In fact, the GM of my Mazda dealer having one for his personal use told me he doesn't feel too much difference on power between 2.5T CX-5 and 2.5L CX-5 but he does know the big difference on gas mileage between the two.

My conclusion is if you really want more power, go for the CX-5 2.5T but don't expect too much for fast acceleration but do expect much worse MPG than others especially if you keep the turbo spinning all the time.

If you want bettef gas mileage with decent power, RAV4 2.5L definitely has advantage even comparing to CX-5 2.5L with cylinder deactivation.

If you want great gas mileage and good power. RAV4 Hybrid with sport suspension is the one to consider as it's more powerful than non-hybrid RAV4.
 
:
CX5 Siggy
Thanks. Glad to hear from a turbo owner.
Yes, I agree, a CVT would be a deal-breaker for me. Coming from the 3.6 Equinox and the GTI, the Toyota 2.5 would be a let down performance wise. But I really like the new Adventure. As I said, I haven't driven the Mazda turbo yet but I have a feeling that when I do, the CX5 will win me over. It sounds like it's the sportiest of the vehicles in that group.
I think it's easily the sportiest iof the bunch, but that is not always everyone's cup of tea. Most buyers in the segment focus on comfort vs driving dynamics. They can buy the RAV, I'll take the CX5. :)
 
:
CX5 Siggy
My conclusion is if you really want more power, go for the CX-5 2.5T but don't expect too much for fast acceleration but do expect much worse MPG than others especially if you keep the turbo spinning all the time.
310lbs/ft of torque gets you moving off the line very quickly. 6.2s 0-60 is quite a difference. The question isn't "is it faster?", for most it's likely "do I really need the power?".
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
310lbs/ft of torque gets you moving off the line very quickly. 6.2s 0-60 is quite a difference. The question isn't "is it faster?", for most it's likely "do I really need the power?".
Official 0-60 on CX-5 2.5T from Mazda is 7.3 seconds.

With much added horsepower and torque on 2.5T, Mazda still uses the same transmission、the same suspension、the same sized tires、the same sized fuel tank, that's something I always wonder ⋯
 
:
2019 CX-5 Signature
310lbs/ft of torque gets you moving off the line very quickly. 6.2s 0-60 is quite a difference. The question isn't "is it faster?", for most it's likely "do I really need the power?".
Agree, not sure what was wrong with the vehicle he was "test driving". It's a night and day difference. If not for the turbo, my wife would probably be driving a Santa Fe.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
Agree, not sure what was wrong with the vehicle he was "test driving". It's a night and day difference. If not for the turbo, my wife would probably be driving a Santa Fe.
Not just me, the salesman and the GM both confirmed my experience. I test-drove a 2019 CX-5 GT FWD right after the Signature just to compare. The power performance between the two definitely is not night and day.
 
:
2019 CX-5 Signature
Official 0-60 on CX-5 2.5T from Mazda is 7.3 seconds.

With much added horsepower and torque on 2.5T, Mazda still uses the same transmission*the same suspension*the same sized tires*the same sized fuel tank, that's something I always wonder *
I've never seen Mazda quote the 0-60 times on their Cx-5, but there is actual data out there. I'll preface this by saying the CX-5 2.5l turbo is in no way a speed demon. But, it's no slouch either. The 125 lb-ft of torque increase is not negated by the transmission, suspension tires, etc...

2.5l T 0-60 6.2s and 1/4 mile 14.8s https://www.caranddriver.com/mazda/cx-5

2.5l 0-60 8.1s and 1/4 mile 16.3s https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15090418/2017-mazda-cx-5-awd-instrumented-test-review/
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
I'm also cross-shopping the CX-5 and RAV4 and test-drove both recently. RAV4 LE FWD I test-drove didn't feel the extra 19 hp too much than my 2016 CX-5 AWD. I like its smooth-shifting*lock-up-in-every-gear 8-speed transmission. But this Toyota's new naturally-aspirated*high-compression*high-thermal-efficiency 2.5L is noisy in idle almost sounded like a diesel.

The CX-5 Signature I test-drove again didn't feel the extra 47 hp too much than my 2016 CX-5 AWD either. In fact, the GM of my Mazda dealer having one for his personal use told me he doesn't feel too much difference on power between 2.5T CX-5 and 2.5L CX-5 but he does know the big difference on gas mileage between the two.

My conclusion is if you really want more power, go for the CX-5 2.5T but don't expect too much for fast acceleration but do expect much worse MPG than others especially if you keep the turbo spinning all the time.

If you want bettef gas mileage with decent power, RAV4 2.5L definitely has advantage even comparing to CX-5 2.5L with cylinder deactivation.

If you want great gas mileage and good power. RAV4 Hybrid with sport suspension is the one to consider as it's more powerful than non-hybrid RAV4.
Did it have 87 or 91 in it?
 

wbw

:
'16 Chevy Equinox 3.6 AWD, 2017 VW GTI
I saw a YouTube video the other day (not sure who's video because I've watched so many - may have been Alex on Autos) but anyway they tested 0-60 in the CX5 Turbo and did it in 6.4. That's about what I would expect. 310 lb.ft. is a lot of grunt.
 
:
2019 CX-5 GT-PP
This probably won't help you, but I'll toss it out anyway.

I did some thorough cross shopping by spec. But it stopped the instant I got my husband to sit in the passenger seat of the 2019 RAV4, because the headroom just isnt there (which I feared, having compared the headroom spec to the CX-5, other similar cars, and the 2018 RAV4). It turns out the legroom is also short.

I did look at the 2018 RAV4 Limited. But the interior just didnt compare, and the mileage, while better than the CX-5, didnt have the tremendous jump the 2019 hybrid RAV4 is supposed to have.
 
:
CX5 Siggy
Agree, not sure what was wrong with the vehicle he was "test driving". It's a night and day difference. If not for the turbo, my wife would probably be driving a Santa Fe.
Ha, that's funny. Same thing here. Likes the Santa Fe, but the experience was more numb and power was lacking. The CX5 test drive sealed the deal.
 
:
CX5 Siggy
Not just me, the salesman and the GM both confirmed my experience. I test-drove a 2019 CX-5 GT FWD right after the Signature just to compare. The power performance between the two definitely is not night and day.

The dealer also wouldn't have put 91 in it which helps. I've only had one tank of 87, looking forward to see how it feels after a few tanks of 91.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
The dealer also wouldn't have put 91 in it which helps. I've only had one tank of 87, looking forward to see how it feels after a few tanks of 91.
The power curves are exactly the same between using 87-octane and 93-octane gas under 4,000 rpm according to Mazda. Unless you rev the engine over 4,000 rpm all the time, or you won't tell the difference. Even Mazda said it's a waste of money to use 93-octane gas to most of CX-5 2.5T owners.
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
Not just me, the salesman and the GM both confirmed my experience. I test-drove a 2019 CX-5 GT FWD right after the Signature just to compare. The power performance between the two definitely is not night and day.
You granny driving it??? (rofl) [emoji14]
 
:
2019 CX-5 Signature
The dealer also wouldn't have put 91 in it which helps. I've only had one tank of 87, looking forward to see how it feels after a few tanks of 91.
When our dealer fill 87 ran out, we filled up with 93. In our semi spirited driving tests, there was no discernible difference that was obvious. As yrwei52 mentioned, it only helps above 4k rpm. We'll try it again in a few months, when the weather improves to where that kind of testing is more appropriate. Since the "feel" is more torque related, I doubt our opinions will change much.
 
Top