I hope Mazda did some real good stuff for 2017...

I totally agree with You on that. Which is why I love my CX-3 2.0 compared to my previous Fiat Bravo 1.4 Turbo (which was a very good engine, but with poorer mpg).

Unless the Honda 1.5 Turbo is a huge improvement on most other smaller turbos, real life MPG will be much lower than stated in the official test.
You may be able to cruise at a steady 75 mph and get good mpg, but as soon as You touch that pedal and the turbo spins up, it'll drink fuel at a much higher rate.

the Honda 1.5 Turbo is a huge improvement. Looking at the BSFC map it does well (better than the 2.0L skyactiv) up to ~100HP
Above 100HP the Honda burns fuel like there is no tomorrow.. but honestly.. 99.5% of the time (even when climbing freeway grades at 80PMH) my 2.0L skyactiv is using less than 100HP.
 
I'd rather have a big underworked engine than a small pressurised flogged to death engine for longevity.

I agree. But it seems the 1.5T isn't being flogged too hard if it's getting 32mpg at 75mph...

Also, I used to think like you as well regarding engines. I always drove American V8's, the smallest of which was a 281. That said, a Honda 4 banger will last just as long or longer before the main bearings or the rings or valve guides wear out. Even though it's turning 2-300% the rpm to achieve the same daily commute. I will be honest with you, I still don't understand it, but that's just what I've observed, having now owned a 4 cylinder or two. They live just fine well past 150K miles, too...usually to 300K or so before the engine really has an issue, if you maintain it.
 
EVERYONE cars about longevity today. American car companies DIDN'T in the 80's. Look how that turned out. It took decades to recover from that and there are still to this day people that think Japanese is superior to American cars based very much so on those days..,,, No one today wants to be "that car that doesn't last beyond 100K".

I like Japanese cars, but I hate working on them. Those people think differently than I do. American cars? When I work on them, I think "Hell, that makes sense. I'd put that there/do it that way, too!" When I work on a Japanese car, I think "Who in the hell screws a brake-piston into the caliper to retract it to replace the pads?! WTF is this mickey mouse crap!?"

That said, my experience is that Japanese cars (I've now owned 3 100% JDM sourced and produced/assembled vehicles) are no better than American vehicles regarding their drivelines. However, the interior accessories are much less likely to take a dump.
 
the Honda 1.5 Turbo is a huge improvement. Looking at the BSFC map it does well (better than the 2.0L skyactiv) up to ~100HP
Above 100HP the Honda burns fuel like there is no tomorrow.. but honestly.. 99.5% of the time (even when climbing freeway grades at 80PMH) my 2.0L skyactiv is using less than 100HP.

I forget how much horsepower it takes to do 90mph, but it ain't 100. nice! Good maps, too!
 
unobtanium - you are comparing a full refreshed CRV with the CX5 - automakers full refreshes hardly overlap due to release cycles. So when the skyactiv 2 comes out and Honda still has 1.5T and no major changes we can compare.
Till then the early market victory is for CRV, we can argue the 2017 CX5 will win on looks a lot and a bit more functionality. Maybe its numbers will be similar to 2016.5 or better.

Again - I think Mazda can never have the Honda / Toyota numbers because the average owner of those cars is asking for a lot of value at low price point. For them refinement is not as important as resale. Having the same Honda running 10-12 years later is even more important.

i think as we are seeing with cellphones that people by default replace it in 1-2 years, with the advancement of Car tech / mpg / electric will mean you dont want to be the guy holding to a 8 or older model year car unless it is financially impossible for you to upgrade. You miss out on tons of features + better mpg.

I agree with what you're saying, but in 2 years if the HCCI motor comes out, then you're going to be hit with "yeah, but the Honda gets ALMOST as good a performance/mileage out of the 1.5T, and we know it's a brick outhouse. Mazda took years just to figure out diesel because they have to be so bloody special. You go buy their HCCI, and I'll buy the 1.5T, and we will compare maintenance/repair costs in 5 years, but I bet my proven Honda will be worth the 3mpg..."
 
I totally agree with You on that. Which is why I love my CX-3 2.0 compared to my previous Fiat Bravo 1.4 Turbo (which was a very good engine, but with poorer mpg).

Unless the Honda 1.5 Turbo is a huge improvement on most other smaller turbos, real life MPG will be much lower than stated in the official test.
You may be able to cruise at a steady 75 mph and get good mpg, but as soon as You touch that pedal and the turbo spins up, it'll drink fuel at a much higher rate.
So far, real life mileage is awesome based on the tests I've seen. This, from people who feel a 75mph highway drive is realistic, so they are right up my alley.

Another thing, Honda fixed their AWD:

Honda also updated its all-wheel-drive technology with a variable system capable of distributing torque fore or aft based on acceleration, wheelspin, throttle position, and steering-wheel angle. We found it seamless and virtually transparent in operation, detecting a shift in torque only during abrupt throttle inputs while cornering.

http://www.caranddriver.com/honda/cr-v

In short, after reading that article, unless you're just a kool-aid sipper, or the styling isn't good at all for you, I can't imagine buying a CX-5 instead of the CR-V, if you're going to buy new. The 2017 CX-5 better have something up its sleeve.
 
Good point. I guess we have to look for a common denominator/s found in competitors NOT found in the CX-5. CVT first comes to mind.

A 1 liter smaller engine with a turbo instead of a fancy high compression NA motor also comes to mind.
 
The new CR-V is an excellent vehicle. Honda did a great job. If I was buying now (which I am not), I would seriously consider it over the CX-5.
However, the CX-5 is still an excellent choice, in many respects.

Regarding fuel economy, this has been discussed to death.
All the AWD vehicles which get better fuel economy than the CX-5, at least according to the EPA, are equipped with a CVT, except for the new Tucson Eco, which has 7 speed DCT, and not any other Tucson trim. The list is very short. In fact, most other CUVs get less favorable EPA results. Even on this short list, some get these lofty results only on paper.
The reason the CR-V gets such an excellent result is due to much work from Honda on an excellent engine + the use of a CVT. However, it is too soon to say how real life drivers fair with this CUV. Currently fuelly shows only marginal improvement over 2016, but that could still change.

With the Diesel SkyActiv-D, Mazda will have a great entry, with very high MPG, with competition only from the Equinox Diesel (in the US), which is much less exciting engine.
With the HCCI engine SkyActiv-2, Mazda will hopefully have an even better entry in a few years.
 
From a comparison standpoint, it really isn't fair to compare a brand-new platform against a 4.5 year-old one. An accurate side-by-side comparison will be the 2017 CX-5 versus the 2017 CR-V.
 
In short, after reading that article, unless you're just a kool-aid sipper, or the styling isn't good at all for you.

Sounds like your drinking Honda koolaid! Really? Based on one article, you're done with Mazda?
What about those of us that just don't like Honda? Don't like Toyota either but the Rav4 is much prettier. And the Rogue with the 3d camera? Sweet! Or don't care about MPG? Or don't like the wood paneling inside? Blech.
I'm not a fan boy. This is my first Mazda. I simply prefer smaller car companies. My other car is a Volvo. I didn't want a BMW. I like not seeing my car every time I turn a corner. Ok...I see a lot of CX5s...damnit...didn't expect that. I would buy a Jeep with that gorgeous panoramic roof and heated steering wheel over the CRV. I did test drive a CRV just because it gets good reviews. I didn't love it. Like the Cherokee, it drives like a small SUV. The Mazda feels more like a big car with tight steering. It blew me away compared to the CRV and Cherokee. With the new lower center of gravity and this G Vectoring, I bet the new CX5 will continue to embarrass the competition where it matters to me: enjoying the drive.



Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
⋯ All the AWD vehicles which get better fuel economy than the CX-5, at least according to the EPA, are equipped with a CVT, except for the new Tucson Eco, which has 7 speed DCT, and not any other Tucson trim.
I guess you keep missing my point. I've been comparing our AWD CX-5 to our FWD CX-5, not to other AWD compact CUVs! Our FWD CX-5 gets 33 EPA mpg on the highway, but once you opted an i-Activ AWD the MPG dropped 4 mpg to only 29 mpg while others drop only 1! This indicates i-Activ AWD system is not efficient and that's why Mazda keeps modifying the system to make it more efficient including a new ball-bearing for rear differential for less friction, better efficiency and greater strength on upcoming 2nd-gen AWD CX-5.
 
⋯ I found a BSFC map for the Skyactiv 2.0 and the Honda EarthDreams 1.5T on the EPA site.

The 2.5L BSFC is not going to be as good as the 2.0L.. so the gap between a 2.5L CX-5 and the CRV will be bigger.
These BSFC maps are for two engines which are totally not compatible to the engine output. Wish we can find a BSFC map for Mazda SA-G 2.5L. Also these maps won't help to explain why our CX-5 is having so much gap on EPA fuel economy estimates between FWD and AWD.
 
The shifter alone in the Honda kills it for me. Might as well just use a column shifter at that point.

Ugly, right down to the fake wood on the dash:
2017-Honda-CR-V-steering-wheel.jpg
 
The shifter alone in the Honda kills it for me. Might as well just use a column shifter at that point.

Really? There's so much usable space though.

i like the new steering wheel and that huge LCD is a winner. if i could break even on my trade, i'd prob buy this.
 
So far, real life mileage is awesome based on the tests I've seen. This, from people who feel a 75mph highway drive is realistic, so they are right up my alley.

Another thing, Honda fixed their AWD:



http://www.caranddriver.com/honda/cr-v

In short, after reading that article, unless you're just a kool-aid sipper, or the styling isn't good at all for you, I can't imagine buying a CX-5 instead of the CR-V, if you're going to buy new. The 2017 CX-5 better have something up its sleeve.

They don't seem that different to me. Below is the data from the 2017 CRV and the other is from my car, the 2014 CX-5. Which one is which?

Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec @ 87 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 123 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g*

Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.5 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.82 g
 
I use manual mode all the time... that looks physically painful for me. If you are shift and go probably fine.

IIRC....Last rig I drove with something like that was around '90 just out of high school in an IH like this.

Internationl_CrewCab_b.jpg


EDIT: It sounds like AWD system is improved but still lacks sensor input compared to CX-5.

"Honda also updated its all-wheel-drive technology with a variable system capable of distributing torque fore or aft based on acceleration, wheelspin, throttle position, and steering-wheel angle. We found it seamless and virtually transparent in operation, detecting a shift in torque only during abrupt throttle inputs while cornering."

http://www.caranddriver.com/honda/cr-v





Really? There's so much usable space though.

i like the new steering wheel and that huge LCD is a winner. if i could break even on my trade, i'd prob buy this.
 
Last edited:
Being objective, actually like the shifter. Reminds me of the Pontiac Vibe which I thought was nice and forward thinking. Don't like the steering wheel. Dont like huge screens.

Sent from my LG V10
 
I use manual mode all the time... that looks physically painful for me. If you are shift and go probably fine.

IIRC....Last rig I drove with something like that was around '90 just out of high school in an IH like this.

Internationl_CrewCab_b.jpg


EDIT: It sounds like AWD system is improved but still lacks sensor input compared to CX-5.

"Honda also updated its all-wheel-drive technology with a variable system capable of distributing torque fore or aft based on acceleration, wheelspin, throttle position, and steering-wheel angle. We found it seamless and virtually transparent in operation, detecting a shift in torque only during abrupt throttle inputs while cornering."

http://www.caranddriver.com/honda/cr-v

Ha, fair enough if you use the shifter for manual mode.
 
It's clear that Honda has made no progress over Mazda in terms of performance. 🙄
They don't seem that different to me. Below is the data from the 2017 CRV and the other is from my car, the 2014 CX-5. Which one is which?

Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec @ 87 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 123 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g*

Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.5 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.82 g
 
The shifter alone in the Honda kills it for me. Might as well just use a column shifter at that point.

I agree. The CR-V just has an ugly interior but it does maximize space. I had a 2004 CRV and was all ready to buy another one. They are reliable, but that is about it.
 
Back