Any cross shopping with the 2019 RAV4?

:
CX5 Siggy
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.
I need to maximize my time when taking the kids to swimming lessons, every bit counts! ;)

Jokes aside, I will try it out so my butt dyno can evaluate.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
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.
Go race them. Its night and day.
 
:
'14 Mazda CX-5 GT
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/
Yep, that's a 23.5% improvement in acceleration, which is indeed night and day. It also does it with less effort and fewer revs. I have to beat the piss out of my 2.5NA just to execute a pass or merge in traffic. It's frustrating. I'll be upgrading to the turbo CX-5 or waiting for the new model they're revealing in Geneva if it carries the turbo.

Also, car dealers will tell folks whatever they think they want to hear. If they think the buyer doesn't want to pony up for the turbo, they'll downplay the performance difference between the two.
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
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 know they're just yes men who will say anything to "earn" your trust, right?

You mean to tell me you couldn't really feel the difference between the car you've been driving for a few years and a car with an extra 43 hp and 125 lb-ft of torque? You couldn't feel the difference in acceleration between a car that does low 8s in a 0-60 compared to the 6.2s published by C&D and the 6.4s published by Motortrend?
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 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.
I had the dealer filled tank of 87, then filled with Shell 91 for the first six months. Definitely felt a difference in the higher rev ranges, mostly when you have the transmission in Sport on the highway. Then I put Shell 87 in for 3-4 tanks to compare, and in my typical city driving, I don't get over 3,500 RPM. Thus the car felt like it drove the same as it did with 91. I switched back to 91 mainly because the only non-ethanol blended fuel here is Shell 91, and I like the detergents they use.
 
:
2017 BMW X1
Getting back OT...

I was intrigued by the idea of the redesigned RAV4, but am having a hard time getting behind the new style. It's certainly an improvement over the awful outgoing generation, but the rugged/toy look is a step in the opposite direction of the CX-5. I may go test drive one for due diligence, but have low expectations. I want something that looks and drives sharper.
 
:
2016 CX-5 (white), 2019 CX-5(red), 2019 Miata (white)
Getting back OT...

I was intrigued by the idea of the redesigned RAV4, but am having a hard time getting behind the new style. It's certainly an improvement over the awful outgoing generation, but the rugged/toy look is a step in the opposite direction of the CX-5. I may go test drive one for due diligence, but have low expectations. I want something that looks and drives sharper.
This morning I test drove a 2019 Rav 4. Less than one minute into the drive I said to the salesperson " I am heading back to the dealership because I don't want to waste your time or put miles on your car".
For me the exterior and interior appearance of the 2019 Rav 4 is fine, but I felt like it drove like a heavy-sluggish vehicle.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
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.
If I had been considering the non Turbo cx5, id have bought a rav4 instead. Probably the hybrid. Since I went turbo, no, the rav wasnt in the running because its in another league regarding performance characteristics.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
Getting back OT...

I was intrigued by the idea of the redesigned RAV4, but am having a hard time getting behind the new style. It's certainly an improvement over the awful outgoing generation, but the rugged/toy look is a step in the opposite direction of the CX-5. I may go test drive one for due diligence, but have low expectations. I want something that looks and drives sharper.
I actually like the hybrid rav better than my cx5 gtr, if only looks are being discussed.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
You know they're just yes men who will say anything to "earn" your trust, right?

You mean to tell me you couldn't really feel the difference between the car you've been driving for a few years and a car with an extra 43 hp and 125 lb-ft of torque? You couldn't feel the difference in acceleration between a car that does low 8s in a 0-60 compared to the 6.2s published by C&D and the 6.4s published by Motortrend?
I had a loaner 2018 GT for 4 days before I picked up my GTR. It is absolutely night and day, and was readily apparent. Also gets better gas mileage, ironically.
 

Kaps

Contributor
:
CX-5 Touring 2016.5
I see a 19 Rav4 in Flesh every day. Grey color. Looks are meh. Seriously - if there never was a car maker who's transition from paper / pictures to reality was so far in the wrong direction as Toyota.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
I see a 19 Rav4 in Flesh every day. Grey color. Looks are meh. Seriously - if there never was a car maker who's transition from paper / pictures to reality was so far in the wrong direction as Toyota.
That's why they never seem to sell any.
 
:
2019 CX-5 White Pearl Sig
My search started three years ago with the goal being fuel economy and the promise of a CX-5 diesel. Waited a long time for that, but when it turned into a unicorn I started looking at the pending Rav4 Hybrid. That was another year of waiting and got as far as sitting in one at the L.A. Auto show. I actually thought it was pretty nice, just not as nice as the CX-5 sitting nearby. Then the Rav4 reviews started coming in and the most common gripes were engine noise, which is a big deal for me, and the CVT transmission. At that point I had to have an honest talk with myself about what I REALLY wanted. Something fun to drive and (preferably) actual gears behind the engine. I like a car than can do better than just get out of it's own way. Looking at my yearly mileage for the last ten years I'm averaging 5-6k per year, not enough to give the weight to fuel economy that I had been. Finally said to heck with it and caved to the fun factor. I don't regret buying the turbo one bit.
 
I cross shopped for a couple of months. Im in the apparent small minority who preferred the styling of the 2018 RAV4 to the new Tonka styling. The high fuel economy and additional power of the hybrid had my attention, and I wanted a pano sunroof. Ultimately, the hybrid was just taking too long, its new interior is merely okay, and consistent reports of interior noise were a turn-off.

Meanwhile: The CR-V was off the list until they sort out their engine issues (oil dilution). The NX is pricey, lacks CarPlay and is short on cargo capacity. The Koreans just didnt compel me, and the Escapes Transformers dash was plain fugly.

I want to enjoy my driving, so a spin in the CX-5 sold me despite a few drawbacks (scarce dealers with not the best reputations, small sunroof, no kick-to-open tailgate, comparative thirstiness, small gas tank, weak native nav systembut still better than Toyotas!...)

So far Im happy.
 
Top