2014 CX-5 GT vs 2013 CX-5 T vs 2013 RAV4

Bombadil

Member
:
1997 Acura Integra GS-R
I went out today and took three test drives, back to back to back. My Mazda dealer sits across the street from the local Toyota dealer. I wanted to get a good handle on how the new 2014 2.5L stacks up against the 2013 2.0L and the just released, redesigned Toyota RAV4, XLE level. All had six speed automatics. Drove all three on the same roads.

The RAV4 felt pretty tame. It is a nice vehicle, with more interior space than the CX-5. It has 3 driving modes, ECO, normal, and Sport. The differences are subtle but there. ECO held higher gears longer, Sport held higher RPMs in the same gear longer and had a more responsive feel to the steering wheel. Seats were comfortable. Dash layout was good. The new transmission shifted smoothly. It's a very nice general purpose SUV which would very good for around town or on trips. But it wasn't much fun to drive. It had decent acceleration but didn't have much punch. Around turns it was well behaved but was well short of feeling like you were sticking to the road and zipping out of them looking for the next turn. Honestly, I was bored within the first mile. I wasn't taken by the styling. If I had one I would appreciate it's comfort, utility, and reliability, but I wouldn't look forward to driving it.

I'd driven a 2013 2.0L CX-5 before. I find it comfortable too. I like the dash but maybe it isn't quite as stylish as the new RAV4. The transmission shifts were more noticeable (not quite as smooth) as in the Toyota. It wasn't quite as quick as the RAV4 up an interstate-like entrance ramp. But on turns it stuck better and felt quicker coming out of them. The engine sounded like it was working harder. When using the select shift in pseudo-manual mode, I felt like I had a little more feel of the road than when I did the same in the RAV4. It was more fun to drive even though it wasn't quite as quick. I think it looks better than the Toyota.

Then it was into the 2014 2.5L CX-5. I know others have reported feeling only subtle differences, that wasn't the case with me. There was definitely more power up hills and coming out of turns. You could feel that torque coming on at reasonable RPMs. When I accelerated up the entrance ramp, it threw me back more into my seat than the 2.0L or RAV4. Combined with the better handling and wider tires, it was much more fun to scoot through twisty curves at speed. Certainly still not like driving a Miata, but so much more fun than the RAV4. The leather seats were nice too and I'm usually not all that particular. I recently drove a VW Jetta Sportwagen with the TDI diesel. I would have to say that the Jetta was even a more sporty ride through curves and over hills, but the gap wasn't that great.

I could see going with the RAV4 if one wants a people mover with great utility. Reliable. Peppy enough. Safe.

But if you enjoy driving. If you sometimes like to slice through a curve and sometimes choose to take the back roads instead of the interstate, then the CX-5 is far more likely to put a smile on your face. And still be a well-mannered commuter.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much Bombadil: Just the kind of information I was hoping to find and it is especially useful because of the back to back to back. Ed Hayes
 
Did something similar and ended up buying the 2014 2.5 Touring. Agree with this review and I found a big difference in the 2.5 power and power delivery. It has more HP and Torque than the Rav4 and CR-V and you can tell.
 
The RAV4 having three modes seems crazy to me, but it does. Sport/Norm/Eco. Honda CR-V has Norm/Eco. Mazda definitely has it right with just being itself all the time (one mode only).

That being said, the Rav4 back-seat feels much more spacious and the steering doesn't feel as boosted at the CR-V and CX-5 (I drive a S2000 and know a good steering wheel).

When doing the comparo, how did you feel about the CX-5 in it's position regarding value? Sure the 2014 CX-5 redeems itself with having equal power that is standard in all of the competitors.

The top trim (Limited) RAV4 @ $27010 MSRP does have a power lift-gate.
The middle trim (XLE) @ $24290 MSRP does have moonroof and dual-zone climate standard

I do love the CX-5. It looks best of the bunch (CR-V/Rav4/CX-5), has the best transmission, only one with blind-spot monitor, best mpg, and has the most top-shelf equipment (bi-xenon, self-leveling, etc.).
 
The RAV4 having three modes seems crazy to me, but it does. Sport/Norm/Eco. Honda CR-V has Norm/Eco. Mazda definitely has it right with just being itself all the time (one mode only).
This, (presumably) from someone who doesn't own one. The one thing I do wish the CX-5 had is a sport mode to hold the trans in gear longer on the autobox. Yes, I can do it myself with the manual mode, but I'm not inclined to bother unless I'm traversing a steep grade.
 
Rav4 also has complimentary Toyota care (free maintenance for 2 years, basically ~4 free oil changes and road-side assistance if you unfortunately need it). :)

This doesn't add to much to the "value" proposition(s) that the new Rav4 makes, but...

The one thing I do wish the CX-5 had is a sport mode to hold the trans in gear longer on the autobox. Yes, I can do it myself with the manual mode, but I'm not inclined to bother unless I'm traversing a steep grade.

I'm relatively young, been only driving 10 years, but the entire time on a manual transmission. For people who don't want to bother with the hassle of controlling the transmission, Mazda does a fine job offering that sport-auto for most of their cars (which, again is not even an option on most other makes). But for the most part, autos don't give good control not because they upshift too quickly. It's that a computer (and especially one on a $25k car, go $40-50K and the autos get better) don't accurately anticipate when you need/want to downshift.

I have owned 2 Mazdas (mazda6 and mazda3).
 
Last edited:
Rav4 also has complimentary Toyota care (free maintenance for 2 years, basically ~4 free oil changes and road-side assistance if you unfortunately need it). :)

This doesn't add to much to the "value" proposition(s) that the new Rav4 makes, but...



I'm relatively young, been only driving 10 years, but the entire time on a manual transmission. For people who don't want to bother with the hassle of controlling the transmission, Mazda does a fine job offering that sport-auto for most of their cars (which, again is not even an option on most other makes). But for the most part, autos don't give good control not because they upshift too quickly. It's that a computer (and especially one on a $25k car, go $40-50K and the autos get better) don't accurately anticipate when you need/want to downshift.

I have owned 2 Mazdas (mazda6 and mazda3).

What they offer on their other models is irrelvant. If Toyota can afford to offer a three mode slushbox on a $27K crossover, wouldn't you think Mazda could have offered a 2 mode box on a $25K vehicle? BTW, this is my second automatic in close to 50 years of driving, so having made that choice, I would have preferred a transmission with more flexibility than what I got. Otherwise, I have no problem with the Skyactiv automatic.
 
What they offer on their other models is irrelvant. If Toyota can afford to offer a three mode slushbox on a $27K crossover, wouldn't you think Mazda could have offered a 2 mode box on a $25K vehicle? BTW, this is my second automatic in close to 50 years of driving, so having made that choice, I would have preferred a transmission with more flexibility than what I got. Otherwise, I have no problem with the Skyactiv automatic.

I think it would be nice to have a "sport" mode. Although on my test drive, I used the manual mode several times, which gives one even more control than a sport mode. Toyota offers that too. But one big difference is that the Mazda Skyactiv auto goes into lockup a lot more than a typical automatic transmission and you aren't running in "slushbox mode" very often.

I did like the difference in the weight of the steering when switching modes on the RAV4.

My concern with the Toyota Sport mode is that the RAV4 has never been all that good on gas mileage. I owned a 2009 RAV4 for 2 years and it was the only vehicle I've owned in 20 years when I wasn't able to achieve EPA estimated mileage. Given that the AWD version of the 2013 RAV4 is rated at 22/29, I would not be surprised that if you ran it in sport mode a lot, that you might get only 22 combined.
 
The RAV4 having three modes seems crazy to me, but it does. Sport/Norm/Eco. Honda CR-V has Norm/Eco. Mazda definitely has it right with just being itself all the time (one mode only).

That being said, the Rav4 back-seat feels much more spacious and the steering doesn't feel as boosted at the CR-V and CX-5 (I drive a S2000 and know a good steering wheel).

When doing the comparo, how did you feel about the CX-5 in it's position regarding value? Sure the 2014 CX-5 redeems itself with having equal power that is standard in all of the competitors.

The top trim (Limited) RAV4 @ $27010 MSRP does have a power lift-gate.
The middle trim (XLE) @ $24290 MSRP does have moonroof and dual-zone climate standard

I do love the CX-5. It looks best of the bunch (CR-V/Rav4/CX-5), has the best transmission, only one with blind-spot monitor, best mpg, and has the most top-shelf equipment (bi-xenon, self-leveling, etc.).

As to overall value, well, that depends upon what you value. I could easily make a case for the RAV4 XLE being a better value. If I weighted reliability highly, then with Toyota's history along with using more tried and proven engine and transmission technology would certainly give me more comfort than Mazda & Skyactiv. If I valued cargo capacity, the RAV4 has over 10% more. The passenger area is larger. I like the interior colors better. The mid-level XLE offers dual climate control, got to go to GT to get that.

There is no clear cut winner. Personally I like the styling, handling and overall driving experience much better on the CX-5. And on the top trim levels, the CX-5 offers more advanced tech options, real leather seats, and more luxury (in my opinion). But if I were buying one for my wife to haul around a couple of kids, I might go for the RAV4.
 
How about Infotainment? I haven't read any reviews of the Toyota system, but it does seem to be a bit more robust with their "Entune" system. I was really ready to pull the trigger on a GT w/tech this weekend, and I guess I am sort of wondering if I owe it to myself to at least check out the new Rav4 first. Yes, the CX-5 handles better, and is better looking by far, but I have driven a Corolla for 10 years with no more than standard maintenance on it. Not to say that Mazda isn't capable of this too. Sigh.
 
I can't say a lot about "Infotainment." I did not look at the nav systems on any of them. I have never once in my life connected my phone or MP3 player into my car's audio system. I did tune the Mazda's Bose system to a FM station and listened to a couple of songs which I know. I thought the overall audio quality was decent, but not great. I have a Focal system in my Integra and my perception was that the Bose system was a couple of notches below it. On a 0-10 scale, I'd give it around a 6.5 to 7. I tend to give most "standard" car audio systems around a 2. I forgot to even test out the RAV4 XLE audio.
 
RAV4 AWD in Sport mode also provides more torque to the outside rear wheel while turning, somewhat similar to Honda's SH-AWD.
It also has differential lock, which is useful to get out areas of low-traction. It has less ground-clearance than the CX-5 and previous gen RAV-4.
Weight is 3580lb compared to the CX-5 Touring AWD 3530lb and CR-V's 3490lb.
 
Last edited:
I test-drove the RAV4 XLE today. It felt very good, better than the outgoing RAV4 in turns, transmission shifting very smoothly and even in standard mode (not sport mode) felt very responsive and agile around town. The front seats were great back seat was also pretty good and it does recline. The floor is flat in the back seat area but the middle position is not comfortable. It seems you'd need to sit on the seatbelt buckle of at least one side. The back seat folds 60/40, but you can't release it from the back. You do need to fold the headrests firsts though. It does fold almost completely flat. Better than the CX-5.
The base LE trim comes with the 2.5L engine, like all other trims. It has steel wheels with covers but they look very much like real alloys, unless you look very closely. It also comes with USB/Bluetooth.
The XLE, middle trim, has standard moon roof (I prefer non), alloy wheels, fog lamps, cargo cover and roof rails all standard. It is priced very competitively, below the CX-5. However, the CX-5 does provide HD radio and blind spot monitoring standard on their Touring trim.
Like I said above, the RAV-4 has differential lock and can send more power to the rear outside wheel while turning. It is lower than the CX-5. Fuel economy is 1~1.5 MPG less. I did not like the leather-imitation shelf-like dash section, which extends below the radio in a weird angle. There is also no sunglass storage and the sun shades don't extend :-(

Overall, I think it is a very good vehicle at a very competitive price. My wife (which is not a driving enthusiast) said she would have gotten the Toyota.
I prefer the CX-5, even though it is more expensive. I am slightly concerned about the backseat of the CX-5, as it had rather flat bottom cushion, not in a slight angle like other cars. I am not sure it is comfortable for long drives as one would tend to 'slither' forward as the bottom is flat.
 
Last edited:
Nice comparison. I'm glad I didn't even bother looking at the RAV-4. I don't like the way it looks, esp the interior.
Plus Toyotas are SO boring to drive, built for the masses. Mazdas, I know for sure are driver's cars.
 
For the past 6 months I have focused on the crossovers. RAV4, CRV, Rouge, Tucon, CX-5, and Ford Escape. I have driven all of them. I waited for the 2013 RAV4 befpre making a decision and was very pleased when the 2014 CX-5 showed up somewhat unexpectedly.

I think all of the other manufacturers have an edge on the interiors and certain features but the CX-5 has them all beat in the ride quality, directional stability and low cabin noise. I can live with the small things. The new 2.5 engine did help with the performance issue where most of the others had an edge. Most all of the other vehicles were noisy the suspension was hard and bumpy. The ford escape which I didnt care for had the next best ride quality and low cabine noise.
I am now in the market for a 2014 CX-5 and have found a number of dealers who are willing to sell around MSRP less $1000. One dealer is throwing in 2 yrs of Maintenance.
2003 MDX still going strong at 105,000
2005 Corolla - great around town car
2010 Camry - I love buy my wife wants the CX-5
 
As much as I like the CX-5, if Mazda made this vehicle available in the USA, I would run to my local dealer to test it out.

http://www.japanesesportcars.com/photos/d/592605-2/2014-mazda6-wagon-euro-021.jpg

The main problem I see with the US and wagons is pricing.

In the UK the gas Mazda6 Sport 2.0L (top line model) is practically the same cost as a CX5 Sport 2.0L engine (MZ6 $23.5k vs CX5 $23.6k). The wagon 6 is about 3% more than the sedan 6 (about $24.3k).

In the US the CX5 GT ($27.6k) is almost 7% LESS than the Mazda6 GT ($29.5k)
So even is we estimate on the low side of an additional 3% (doubt it since Audi premium on their wagons is way more here in the US vs UK) we are looking at a minimum of $30.4k for the wagon (almost 3k more than the CX5).

For comparison, the A4 in UK also has about a 3%-4% price difference between Avant and Sedan.
In the US it was closer to 10% price difference between a 2012 A4 and A4 Avant. So using this as a benchmark we are now looking at about $32.4k for the wagon vs $27.6k CX5.

If it was only about $1-$2k difference I would get the wagon, but I am not forking over an extra $5k
 
FWIW, Subaru Impreza Wagon is only $500 more than the sedan and Mazda 3 4 door costs $1625 less than the 5 door.
 

Latest posts

Back