Test drove 2019 CX-5. Disappointed

VersaTuner - Tuning Software for Mazdas
V
13' CX-5 and 16' Mazda6 both Touring w/Tech/Bose
If I knew a certain vehicle (Car A) is factually regarded as the fastest and quietest in its class, yet another car (Car B) drove faster and ran quieter in real life then I would probably test another of Car A just to make sure.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg. Plano, TX
Contributor
Test drove 2019 CX-5. Disappointed


CX5 is better than Rav4 Hybrid on all metrics - including top speed. I cant imagine what CX5 turbo would do to a hybrid Rav4 on a track specially when the hybrid battery is depleted and your power numbers drop. Rav4 hybrid is good as a commuter when you coast and drive hard in intervals, if you always have pedal to the metal, the Hybrid will often be depleted or near depleted and your max power will drop from 219 horses to around 150ish.
A Toyota hybrid will never let the battery be totally depleted and loose 219 combined system net hp from its DC motor. Even if thats the case, the Dynamic Force 2.5L HV version still has 175 hp available for use.

Toyota Dynamic Force 2.5L I4 Engine
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
V
2014 CX-5 Touring AWD
What do you expect when someone makes absurd claims like...
- The Cherokee "blows away" the CX-5 in acceleration
- The Rav4 was "similar in power" to the CX-5

Those statements simply defy physics, logic, and the immense amount of testing/data available.

I could "share my experience" that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean you should just go along with what I'm saying.
You post facts that show why this is not the case. Which is what is happening here. Isn't that the point of an internet forum?
To be fair, when the Gen 2 CX-5 came out in 2017, everybody was talking about how it "felt" faster, or at least equal to the Gen 1. I think the word "refined" kept getting used.

Meanwhile, I grab a 2019 GT loaner and it was significantly and noticeably worse than my 2014 in acceleration.

That said, the data I think lines up with that perception of the Gen 1 NA 2.5L vs. Gen 2 NA 2.5L. I can't speak for the RAV4 vs turbo CX-5. Too many variables not accounted for here when it comes to fuel type (dealer likely using 87), tire pressure, temperature, etc. That said, if the cold is breaking the turbo, I don't want it either, but now I am getting off topic.
 

Kaps

Contributor
V
CX-5 Touring 2016.5
To be fair, when the Gen 2 CX-5 came out in 2017, everybody was talking about how it "felt" faster, or at least equal to the Gen 1. I think the word "refined" kept getting used.

Meanwhile, I grab a 2019 GT loaner and it was significantly and noticeably worse than my 2014 in acceleration.

That said, the data I think lines up with that perception of the Gen 1 NA 2.5L vs. Gen 2 NA 2.5L. I can't speak for the RAV4 vs turbo CX-5. Too many variables not accounted for here when it comes to fuel type (dealer likely using 87), tire pressure, temperature, etc. That said, if the cold is breaking the turbo, I don't want it either, but now I am getting off topic.
Here we are talking about 1.2 second difference to 60, even with 87 octane that waters down to more than half a second. Gen 1 and 2 were never more than .2 seconds apart.
 
V
CX5 GT-R
To be fair, when the Gen 2 CX-5 came out in 2017, everybody was talking about how it "felt" faster, or at least equal to the Gen 1. I think the word "refined" kept getting used.

Meanwhile, I grab a 2019 GT loaner and it was significantly and noticeably worse than my 2014 in acceleration.

That said, the data I think lines up with that perception of the Gen 1 NA 2.5L vs. Gen 2 NA 2.5L. I can't speak for the RAV4 vs turbo CX-5. Too many variables not accounted for here when it comes to fuel type (dealer likely using 87), tire pressure, temperature, etc. That said, if the cold is breaking the turbo, I don't want it either, but now I am getting off topic.
I honestly don't recall anyone saying it was faster, and the drag race between the two showed it wasn't faster.
 
V
2018 CX-5 Sport
At first I thought the OP was a troll because of his perceived opposites of what the CX-5 is, and even more troll like, going to all the car forums saying how disappointed they were with that particular model. But finding out that he has been here for a long time and a contributor I know he isn't a troll, and he probably had his expectations of the CX-5 through the roof with reading through posts here. He probably didn't post in other model car forums about disappointment.
 
V
2018 CX-5 Sport
OP has to be OK with the Rav4's boring looks and cheap interior fittings.

It does look okay in dark colors which hides all the cheap black plastic Toyota uses.

The base Rav4 is a paragon of cost cutting. Toyota really likes to hold out until you pay for more expensive trim levels.



#steeliesstyle

Mid level hybrid:



Finally, once you pay 34,000 or more, you get a decent looking one:



I hope Mazda will continue to provide value at base to mid level trims and not go down the path of cheapening with the Toyota-Mazda partnership, or it will be my last Mazda.
Why they put a frown on that car's face is a mystery.
 
V
CX5 GT-R
Which means that most advice needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

And that's not judging anyone, that's pure fact on human nature.
Absolutely! however, some forums are just a dumpster fire of "My such and such broke..." and you know right away that isn't the vehicle for you.
 

Avoidin Deer

Central Virginia
Contributor
V
2019 CX-5 Reserve
V
Mazda3
C/D TEST RESULTS for CX-5
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.4 sec
Rolling start, 5*60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30*50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50*70 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing -mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70*0 mph: 173 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.79 g


C/D TEST RESULTS Rav4 Hybrid
Zero to 60 mph: 7.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 19.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 24.3 sec
Rolling start, 5*60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30*50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50*70 mph: 5.1 sec
Standing -mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 117 mph
Braking, 70*0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

CX5 is better than Rav4 Hybrid on all metrics - including top speed. I cant imagine what CX5 turbo would do to a hybrid Rav4 on a track specially when the hybrid battery is depleted and your power numbers drop. Rav4 hybrid is good as a commuter when you coast and drive hard in intervals, if you always have pedal to the metal, the Hybrid will often be depleted or near depleted and your max power will drop from 219 horses to around 150ish.

LOL how many people are seriously going to take these vehicles out to a track? I'm not even sure why people bring this stuff up in arguments. Iv'e driven a CX-5(2018) and a CRV. Technically the CRV is faster but due to its turbo lag and the CX-5 being naturally aspirated, the CX-5 felt faster to me on normal everyday streets. It's possible the OP might have said it felt just as fast as the CX-5 for the same reason. CX-5 has a turbo(I havent driven one) and the RAV-4 Hybrid generates instant torque from it's electric motors, no turbo to spool up.

And I'm not sure why people are surprised he is complaining about the interior space. The reality is when you get into an SUV, you expect the interior to be nice and roomy. The CX-5 interior feels like a slightly bigger interior of a Mazda3. Perfect for me since I have no kids, but if I had a family I would take a hard pass on the CX-5 and get a RAV4 Hybrid. Slightly slower but vastly better fuel economy and likely better long term reliability.

Cmon Mazda, do something big for the 2021 CX5. Keep the turbo, develop an 8 speed transmission(or buy the 8 speed from ZF) update that god awful infotainment, give it the LED turn signal treatment of the Mazda, and update those god awful 240p resolution cameras. I don't even care about the crappy lane assist or blind spot monitoring. Just do everything else and I will get a Sig in a heartbeat. Adding some useless paddle shifters, fake engine noise and new font logo in the rear hatch isn't going to cut it.
 
Last edited:
If I knew a certain vehicle (Car A) is factually regarded as the fastest and quietest in its class, yet another car (Car B) drove faster and ran quieter in real life then I would probably test another of Car A just to make sure.
Agreed, and will do, when the 2020's arrive.
 
LOL how many people are seriously going to take these vehicles out to a track? I'm not even sure why people bring this stuff up in arguments. Iv'e driven a CX-5(2018) and a CRV. Technically the CRV is faster but due to its turbo lag and the CX-5 being naturally aspirated, the CX-5 felt faster to me on normal everyday streets. It's possible the OP might have said it felt just as fast as the CX-5 for the same reason. CX-5 has a turbo(I havent driven one) and the RAV-4 Hybrid generates instant torque from it's electric motors, no turbo to spool up.

And I'm not sure why people are surprised he is complaining about the interior space. The reality is when you get into an SUV, you expect the interior to be nice and roomy. The CX-5 interior feels like a slightly bigger interior of a Mazda3. Perfect for me since I have no kids, but if I had a family I would take a hard pass on the CX-5 and get a RAV4 Hybrid. Slightly slower but vastly better fuel economy and likely better long term reliability.

Cmon Mazda, do something big for the 2021 CX5. Keep the turbo, develop an 8 speed transmission(or buy the 8 speed from ZF) update that god awful infotainment, give it the LED turn signal treatment of the Mazda, and update those god awful 240p resolution cameras. I don't even care about the crappy lane assist or blind spot monitoring. Just do everything else and I will get a Sig in a heartbeat. Adding some useless paddle shifters, fake engine noise and new font logo in the rear hatch isn't going to cut it.
I hope you have your armor on! :)

I would pass on a ZF transmission -- I've been suffering with their 9-speed in the Cherokee. And isn't the CX-5 infotainment supposed to be upgraded for 2020? Or is it just larger but with the same OS and low resolution?
 
LOL how many people are seriously going to take these vehicles out to a track? I'm not even sure why people bring this stuff up in arguments. Iv'e driven a CX-5(2018) and a CRV. Technically the CRV is faster but due to its turbo lag and the CX-5 being naturally aspirated, the CX-5 felt faster to me on normal everyday streets. It's possible the OP might have said it felt just as fast as the CX-5 for the same reason. CX-5 has a turbo(I havent driven one) and the RAV-4 Hybrid generates instant torque from it's electric motors, no turbo to spool up.

And I'm not sure why people are surprised he is complaining about the interior space. The reality is when you get into an SUV, you expect the interior to be nice and roomy. The CX-5 interior feels like a slightly bigger interior of a Mazda3. Perfect for me since I have no kids, but if I had a family I would take a hard pass on the CX-5 and get a RAV4 Hybrid. Slightly slower but vastly better fuel economy and likely better long term reliability.

Cmon Mazda, do something big for the 2021 CX5. Keep the turbo, develop an 8 speed transmission(or buy the 8 speed from ZF) update that god awful infotainment, give it the LED turn signal treatment of the Mazda, and update those god awful 240p resolution cameras. I don't even care about the crappy lane assist or blind spot monitoring. Just do everything else and I will get a Sig in a heartbeat. Adding some useless paddle shifters, fake engine noise and new font logo in the rear hatch isn't going to cut it.
Unless you have more than 2 kids, space is not a factor, IMO. Leg room in back seat is fine, especially for kids. Coming form a bigger SUV, I love the more compact feel of the CX-5...feels like a have more control and a much better driving experience.
 
LOL how many people are seriously going to take these vehicles out to a track? I'm not even sure why people bring this stuff up in arguments.
You apparently missed that the CX-5 outperforms the other vehicles in ALL performance metrics, including the tests meaningful for real-world driving...
Rolling start, 5*60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30*50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50*70 mph: 4.6 sec



You don't need to track your vehicle to see benefits when going from 30-50 MPH or 50-70 MPH.
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
L
Canada
V
'18 CX-9 Signature
Why they put a frown on that car's face is a mystery.
If I absolutely had to get a RAV4 it would have to be in white. At least it would look like a Stormtrooper from the front
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
L
Canada
V
'18 CX-9 Signature
You apparently missed that the CX-5 outperforms the other vehicles in ALL performance metrics, including the tests meaningful for real-world driving...
Rolling start, 5*60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30*50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50*70 mph: 4.6 sec



You don't need to track your vehicle to see benefits when going from 30-50 MPH or 50-70 MPH.
This. We all have access to the on-paper specs, and know that the 2019 CX-5 Signature has 227 hp and 310 ft-lb of torque while the 2019 RAV4 Hybrid has 219 hp (engine + hybrid motor). When mreg376 states that the CX-5 has "only barely acceptable power," while the RAV4 Hybrid has "ample power," it's easy to understand where all the confusion comes from.

It would be a different story if mreg376 said that the RAV4 Hybrid simply "felt faster," but when a declarative statement such as the one above is made, the poster should be prepared to be proven wrong.
 

Latest threads

Latest resources

Top