• 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.

Any cross shopping with the 2019 RAV4?

:
Ottawa, Ontario
:
17 Mazda 6 GT
Yep, Toyota's new Dynamic Force engines use even thinner 0W-16 oil!
If you're having trouble finding that weight of oil, just go to a Honda dealer and ask them to drain the oil out of a CR-V.
It will be diluted to at least 0W-16. Maybe even thinner...They'll give it to you for real cheap too.
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
If you're having trouble finding that weight of oil, just go to a Honda dealer and ask them to drain the oil out of a CR-V.
It will be diluted to at least 0W-16. Maybe even thinner...They'll give it to you for real cheap too.
"custom blended"
 

Avoidin Deer

Zoom Zoom, baby
Contributor
:
Central Virginia
:
2019 CX-5 Reserve
If you're having trouble finding that weight of oil, just go to a Honda dealer and ask them to drain the oil out of a CR-V.
It will be diluted to at least 0W-16. Maybe even thinner...They'll give it to you for real cheap too.
Friend: "What type of oil do you use in your Honda?"
CR-V owner: "87"

Friend: "You use 87 weight oil?!?!?!?!?"
CR-V owner: "No, man. Not 87 weight. 87 <i>octane</i>."
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
Friend: "What type of oil do you use in your Honda?"
CR-V owner: "87"

Friend: "You use 87 weight oil?!?!?!?!?"
CR-V owner: "No, man. Not 87 weight. 87 <i>octane</i>."
In the case of a CR-V, this wouldn't be too far from the truth on what's in their oil after a while. (rofl)
 
I probably hope that Mazda won't fall in another pitfall after introducing a Turbo in their Skyactive engine. One of the selling point for the Skyactive is fuel efficiency. Previous model replaced by the CX-5 was the CX-7 with 2.2 turbo engine was notorious for having poor gas mileage.
 
I probably hope that Mazda won't fall in another pitfall after introducing a Turbo in their Skyactive engine. One of the selling point for the Skyactive is fuel efficiency. Previous model replaced by the CX-5 was the CX-7 with 2.2 turbo engine was notorious for having poor gas mileage.
honestly, maybe i'm in the minority, but getting 24mpg compared to 27 is meaningless to me.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
I probably hope that Mazda won't fall in another pitfall after introducing a Turbo in their Skyactive engine. One of the selling point for the Skyactive is fuel efficiency. Previous model replaced by the CX-5 was the CX-7 with 2.2 turbo engine was notorious for having poor gas mileage.
My 2019 2.5 Turbo gets better mileage than my 2015 CX5 did.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
I probably hope that Mazda won't fall in another pitfall after introducing a Turbo in their Skyactive engine. One of the selling point for the Skyactive is fuel efficiency. Previous model replaced by the CX-5 was the CX-7 with 2.2 turbo engine was notorious for having poor gas mileage.
CX-7 was doomed to fall is because of its reliability on 2.2L turbo, not because of its poor gas mileage.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
CX-7 was doomed to fall is because of its reliability on 2.2L turbo, not because of its poor gas mileage.
It also had other issues, such as overall reliability, nothing that really "stood out", and being from a small company with low market footprint. Every car Mazda makes needs to be an insta-hit. Every car it doesn't make one with, it chops, for sensible reasons. Look at the Mazdas we see. They are all very highly rated in their segment. It's not because Mazda makes only good cars, it's because they have to have the marketing sense to kill the ones that aren't very quickly to stay afloat, because they cannot afford a "loss leader" type product like some other companies can.
 
I sat in a couple of the RAV4s thats Toyota had on display at the NY Auto Show. I was rather impressed with the interior quality. The past two generations of RAV4 were horrible with cheap plastic everywhere, but not this version.

The interior in photos looks cheap, but its not.

The exterior look is growing on me. One was following me on the highway the other day, in a dark blue color, and it was rather attractive, in its own way.

I have yet to drive one, but from the looks and interior quality, Toyota seems to have a hit on their hands.

FWIW, i drove a CR-V EX-L and was not impressed. I dont think the 1.5L is as special as reviews say it is. I had to floor it to get it to move, and it was noisy.
 
I am currently in the market for a new vehicle, and I am currently comparing the CX-5, RAV4 and Forester. I have only driven a used '17 FWD GT CX-5 at a Hyundai dealership and a New RAV4 XLE that was across the street. Tomorrow I plan to test drive a new AWD CX-5 and I was going to look at a Forster Sport but the dealer I wanted to visit will be closed tomorrow.

I like the new look of the RAV4, and I especially like the Lunar Rock color that they have. The interior I thought was nice, and I loved the center console and shifter. It had cargo mats in the back and roof racks/crossbars which is something I am looking for, so that may have swayed my decision in the RAV4 direction a more than expected, but at the price point ($33K) I feel like it should not have cloth seats and is lacking Android Auto. The drive was alright, felt smooth but I wasn't wowed by the feel of the drive. I did enjoy all of the safety features, but I am coming from a 2010 Insight with nothing, and I'm sure the Mazda will have almost all the same features. I was only behind the wheel for 3-5 minutes.

The '17 FWD GT CX-5 didn't blow me away either, but overall I felt like the interior was further ahead of the RAV4. I like the sportier look, and the "off road" driving I will do will be mostly at campsites and such so I'm not too worried about clearance and such, but would like the "outdoor" features. Most of this will be a daily driver in a rural area with trips to a city, work is a 10 minute drive and it's pretty much stop and go that takes up a majority of the time. I am debating if I want the turbo, or if it's just something that is going to be a nice to have - I plan to drive both tomorrow.
 
:
2016 CX-5 (white), 2019 CX-5(red), 2019 Miata (white)
I am currently in the market for a new vehicle, and I am currently comparing the CX-5, RAV4 and Forester. I have only driven a used '17 FWD GT CX-5 at a Hyundai dealership and a New RAV4 XLE that was across the street. Tomorrow I plan to test drive a new AWD CX-5 and I was going to look at a Forster Sport but the dealer I wanted to visit will be closed tomorrow.

I like the new look of the RAV4, and I especially like the Lunar Rock color that they have. The interior I thought was nice, and I loved the center console and shifter. It had cargo mats in the back and roof racks/crossbars which is something I am looking for, so that may have swayed my decision in the RAV4 direction a more than expected, but at the price point ($33K) I feel like it should not have cloth seats and is lacking Android Auto. The drive was alright, felt smooth but I wasn't wowed by the feel of the drive. I did enjoy all of the safety features, but I am coming from a 2010 Insight with nothing, and I'm sure the Mazda will have almost all the same features. I was only behind the wheel for 3-5 minutes.

The '17 FWD GT CX-5 didn't blow me away either, but overall I felt like the interior was further ahead of the RAV4. I like the sportier look, and the "off road" driving I will do will be mostly at campsites and such so I'm not too worried about clearance and such, but would like the "outdoor" features. Most of this will be a daily driver in a rural area with trips to a city, work is a 10 minute drive and it's pretty much stop and go that takes up a majority of the time. I am debating if I want the turbo, or if it's just something that is going to be a nice to have - I plan to drive both tomorrow.
Buy a CX-5 GT, which has great handling and plenty of power for a vehicle of its size/weight. Really a well balanced , great driving compact SUV.
I've been driving a CX-5's for going on 5 years in a city with steep hills as well as very congested freeway's, not once have I desired "more power" and, or, a turbo.
Regarding the Rav 4, my opinion is that its drive characteristics are heavy and sluggish, not at all nimble and fun to drive like a CX-5.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
Buy a CX-5 GT, which has great handling and plenty of power for a vehicle of its size/weight. Really a well balanced , great driving compact SUV.
I've been driving a CX-5's for going on 5 years in a city with steep hills as well as very congested freeway's, not once have I desired "more power" and, or, a turbo.
Regarding the Rav 4, my opinion is that its drive characteristics are heavy and sluggish, not at all nimble and fun to drive like a CX-5.
Ironic that you view a vehicle with near identical acceleration to one that has "plenty of power" as "sluggish".
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
Ironic that you view a vehicle with near identical acceleration to one that has "plenty of power" as "sluggish".
To be fair he was speaking to the feel of the car and I would agree RAV4s traditionally feel like ass even if similar numbers. Granted those were older models, but I don't hear anyone saying the new RAV4 " feels great".
 
Last edited:
:
2017 BMW X1
To be fair he was speaking to the feel of the car and I would agree RAV4s traditionally feel like ass even if similar numbers. Granted those were older models, but I don't hear anyone saying the new RAV4 " feels great".
Exactly. Not uncommon at all for two cars with near-equal acceleration times to feel very different.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
Exactly. Not uncommon at all for two cars with near-equal acceleration times to feel very different.
Normally I'd agree, but merging onto a freeway is about raw math, not "how it feels". A perfect example was when I got my first sporty car---a 1995 LT1 Trans Am. The accelerator was a LOT stiffer than I thought, and it had a TON of torque down low. I felt like I was accelerating decently down the on-ramp, but traffic whipping by and the speedometer spoiled that emotion as a lie. So yes, it felt fine...but it wasn't. Since he mentioned merging/interstate/passing/etc. type stuff, I took it as also a "raw data" type deal.
 
Buy a CX-5 GT, which has great handling and plenty of power for a vehicle of its size/weight. Really a well balanced , great driving compact SUV.
I've been driving a CX-5's for going on 5 years in a city with steep hills as well as very congested freeway's, not once have I desired "more power" and, or, a turbo.
Regarding the Rav 4, my opinion is that its drive characteristics are heavy and sluggish, not at all nimble and fun to drive like a CX-5.
Thank you for the advice. A discussion point I had is how often do we need passing power and how much is enough. There are times we require to pass someone on back roads, but if I could do it in a Insight or Elantra then I should be good with a NA CX 5.
 
Top