Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out

Ford Escape is kuga internationally.


I didn't have to. I can look at the specs and tell you how they perform. I'm not talking about "feel", I'm talking about performance.

The Escape is a POS. It's very unreliable based on the numbers, it's slow, it has low capacity, it has poor economy, its...why would I ever buy that!?

I think the Forester 2.0XT would have been better suited to my wants, but I didn't feel like spending the money, and my CX-5 has done everything I wanted it to do, I just feel no connection to it. I have no emotions at all regarding it unless it were to break (kindof like a refrigerator or hot water heater).

Uno, you are a very strange fellow.
 
Uno, you are a very strange fellow.

I bought a toaster on wheels. It didn't require a ton of research. You know what? I've kept it longer than any other vehicle I've owned in the last nearly decade, as well, and it still works great and I'm happy with it. Good buy was good.


Situation:

I live in an area where I plan on buying a house 20-30mi from work. Snow happens yearly. I may or may not buy a house on a gravel or dirt road.

Complication:

Gasoline will be expensive, due to quantity, and wear-tear on a vehicle will be amplified due to miles driven.

Solution:

I needed a cheap, economical vehicle with AWD and good ground clearance that got good mileage and was reliable.

It took all of 5 minutes to compile a short list/verify that the vehicle I was looking at fit on that list.

Anything it does above and beyond that, is extra. It doesn't really do much other than that, though, so I consider it a win, mostly. The mileage isn't as good as it should be, but it takes 87 octane and gas is cheap right now, so I guess I whine too much about it failing to deliver as advertised.
 
Last edited:
I bought a toaster on wheels. It didn't require a ton of research. You know what? I've kept it longer than any other vehicle I've owned in the last nearly decade, as well, and it still works great and I'm happy with it. Good buy was good.


Situation:

I live in an area where I plan on buying a house 20-30mi from work. Snow happens yearly. I may or may not buy a house on a gravel or dirt road.

Complication:

Gasoline will be expensive, due to quantity, and wear-tear on a vehicle will be amplified due to miles driven.

Solution:

I needed a cheap, economical vehicle with AWD and good ground clearance that got good mileage and was reliable.

It took all of 5 minutes to compile a short list/verify that the vehicle I was looking at fit on that list.

Anything it does above and beyond that, is extra. It doesn't really do much other than that, though, so I consider it a win, mostly. The mileage isn't as good as it should be, but it takes 87 octane and gas is cheap right now, so I guess I whine too much about it failing to deliver as advertised.

Where in NWA are you? Not really known as a snowy part of the state, LOL.
 
Oh sweet Jesus.

This is worse than the Civic owners when I was in highschool (VTEC, YO! has been replaced with "SPORT MODE, YO!" Except VTEC actually did something to make the vehicle faster.).

This thing barely breaks into the 15's and won't even trap 90mph in the quarter.

You might as well tell us how sold you are on boxing after knocking a 2 year old down at the supermarket with "a single massive punch!" ROFL!
Why is it so hard for to believe I drive aggressively? Damn near hit 90 on the way to work this morning.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
It's great that the CRV has improved by the numbers - that's good for the brand and for consumers. But as the car is something I have to look at everyday, the performance difference would need to be more substantial for me to consider the CRV over a new CX-5. The CRV looks like a minivan.
 
I didn't have to. I can look at the specs and tell you how they perform. I'm not talking about "feel", I'm talking about performance.

The Escape is a POS. It's very unreliable based on the numbers, it's slow, it has low capacity, it has poor economy, its...why would I ever buy that!?

I think the Forester 2.0XT would have been better suited to my wants, but I didn't feel like spending the money, and my CX-5 has done everything I wanted it to do, I just feel no connection to it. I have no emotions at all regarding it unless it were to break (kindof like a refrigerator or hot water heater).[/QUOTE]

Silly unob, you complain about mileage now? Assuming there's nothing wrong with your cx5 you'd be lucky, very lucky to see a number starting with 2 had you sprung for that half baked (thats as nice as i can be) 'performance' cuv. Having owned (wifey) an 06 xt stick I simply can't express my disappointment with the current xt enough. Other than being quicker in a straight line the cx5 has it all over that rolling joke, ok that maybe a tad harsh.
 
To the haters mocking my 'driving aggressively' in a cx5, obviously this is relative #1, #2 since when is blistering acceleration a requirement for taking corners at twice the posted speed?
 
Wow, a quick google on 2017 CRV real world mpg
Many reviewers - it gets 32 on hwy, but they get figures like 20.1 and 21.1 in city. 20.1??? I will have to literally brake for no reason 50 times to get that low in my CX5.

On motor trend one honda fanboi wrote:
Did you test it in ECON mode? If not, your results are likely skewed by your test driver's lead foot. The ECON mode will mitigate that.

So - can mango con chile, turbo eclipse and yrwei - re compare the performance of CX5 with econ mode CRV? since that is an absolute necessity to get the combined EPA?

In Econ mode the Honda does a 0 - 60 in an impressive 9.5 seconds. It is the same amount of time Grandma needs to finish sewing the mittens - the power of dreams huh?

Another thing i never knew - CRV 2016 or prior was one of the lowest average mpgs - it never achieved its EPA with is base drive train missing it by 2-3 mpg. Wow every minute a sucker is born to read the figures and buy it.

Still shocked there are no lawsuits on Honda, if a domestic had done this I am sure they would have been forced to re-state the EPA like Ford Fusion Hybrid.

There is an important lesson for Unobtanium as well : What you read on paper is good as long as you are going to buy a Matchbox CRV and drive it on paper, in certain cases the paper number does not translate to real world as evidenced by your CX5 hwy mileage.
 
Last edited:
This is true and small displacement turbos are known for thirst about as much as they are for efficiency potential- I can attest to..more potential particularly at a steady cruise but also more thirst potential on boost.
 
To the haters mocking my 'driving aggressively' in a cx5, obviously this is relative #1, #2 since when is blistering acceleration a requirement for taking corners at twice the posted speed?

No shame on driving a CX-5 aggressively imho. Ask any racer any real racer. It don't matter if you win by an inch or a.....wait wrong speech.

Ask any real racer/driver. If the vehicle wants to be driven aggressive....no matter if its slow....it gets the thumbs up from them. The miata is not fast like an M3 or a V8 Mustang 5.0, Evo, or GTR but it gets props worldwide for its driving dynamics. Like I said before the CX-5 is the Miata for its class. A class of grocery getters.
 
This is true and small displacement turbos are known for thirst about as much as they are for efficiency potential- I can attest to..more potential particularly at a steady cruise but also more thirst potential on boost.

I think for my commute - my 16.5 CX5 comes in at 27 mpg - 7 miles of inner city driving, gridlock on TX 121 for 3 miles and a total of 20 miles one way - the new CRV 2017 would do 23-24 at best. Thats almost $ 1700 over 120K miles and 10 years in fuel costs. Ewwwwwww. Add to that its 3500 more expensive top trim and about 2000 more for middle trim - after 10 years of driving a boring POS it will need to better the CX5 resale by $ 3,700 - I dont see that happening.
 
I'm being to think you are a little stupid, or just having a laugh?

I didn't have to. I can look at the specs and tell you how they perform. I'm not talking about "feel", I'm talking about performance.
 
Last edited:
Btw, I find it hilarious that you define horsepower as a deciding factor as to whether a vehicle can be driven aggressively or not. The 155hp MX-5 has a word for you. Once again, proving that you clearly lack the driving spirit and understanding that many of us have here. Yes, it's an SUV but I know you're driving home the whole hp point.

Here, I'll help you out. Click here--->http://www.crvownersclub.com/forums/

Umm no, I don't just 'look at HP'. But having only 184HP in a 3,500LB vehicle(which is why I added SUV). Who said anything about a MX-5? It's totally fine to have a motor with 150HP when its in a super-light roadster like the MX-5. Poor comparison IMO...
 
Oh sweet Jesus.

This is worse than the Civic owners when I was in highschool (VTEC, YO! has been replaced with "SPORT MODE, YO!" Except VTEC actually did something to make the vehicle faster.).

This thing barely breaks into the 15's and won't even trap 90mph in the quarter.

You might as well tell us how sold you are on boxing after knocking a 2 year old down at the supermarket with "a single massive punch!" ROFL!

Funny right? Just don't catch him at a stop light, otherwise he might 'pop' into Sport mode on you(having flashbacks of Paul Walker activating NOS in his Eclipse in FF1) and leave you in the dust.

BTW a Civic and CRV are both faster than a CX-5 going @ 0-60.
 
Umm no, I don't just 'look at HP'. But having only 184HP in a 3,500LB vehicle(which is why I added SUV). Who said anything about a MX-5? It's totally fine to have a motor with 150HP when its in a super-light roadster like the MX-5. Poor comparison IMO...

No, not a poor comparison. The point I was making that HP doesn't define being able to drive a vehicle aggressively. SUV or not. You were the one implying that. The whole point is just that the CX5 is fun to drive. Whereas just about every other CUV in this class is not.
 
Last edited:
Funny right? Just don't catch him at a stop light, otherwise he might 'pop' into Sport mode on you(having flashbacks of Paul Walker activating NOS in his Eclipse in FF1) and leave you in the dust.

BTW a Civic and CRV are both faster than a CX-5 going @ 0-60.

Funny thing is, here in Denmark, the new Civic with the 1.5 Turbo 182hp is actually slower than the CX-5 and the Civic with CVT is slower and has worse MPG than the manual Civic.
The CR-V hasn't arrived with the 1.5 Turbo yet, so I don't have the numbers for that.
 
Umm no, I don't just 'look at HP'. But having only 184HP in a 3,500LB vehicle(which is why I added SUV). Who said anything about a MX-5? It's totally fine to have a motor with 150HP when its in a super-light roadster like the MX-5. Poor comparison IMO...

My current ride has 155hp, a CVT *and* weighs 3,500lb. I drive like a grandma. Neener.
 
Back