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

Heritage07 said:
Well I would gladly give up a few MPG if the CX 5 was able to merge in highway traffic without having to say "I think I can, I think I can". We never got more than 24.5 in 4 years of owning ours.
Click to expand...

I haven't had any trouble with the CX-5's acceleration, but you also live in NJ, which I would presume demands more aggressive acceleration than Houston/San Antonio/NWA. That said, yes, the CX-5 is about the bottom of the barrel when it comes to acceleration that I feel is "road-worthy".
 
Unobtanium said:
But that highway mileage more than makes up for it. I only get 22-23 combined in my CX5 when I do a lot of highway (60/40 ish), and this Honda would boost me above that. Great touring ride. You need to decide what kind of driving you do. NYC? Get the CX-5. Texas? Get the Honda.
Click to expand...


Dude, buy the Honda. Just get in the car, hit 90 MPH and get to the honda dealer fast and just get it.
 
dougal said:
Dude, buy the Honda. Just get in the car, hit 90 MPH and get to the honda dealer fast and just get it.
Click to expand...

Why? This is an appliance. I have no desire to lose money/increase my monthly note just for another appliance, albeit a better one. Do you rush out and replace your toaster when a new one comes out that is slightly nicer/more energy efficient?
 
Unobtanium said:
Why? This is an appliance. I have no desire to lose money/increase my monthly note just for another appliance, albeit a better one. Do you rush out and replace your toaster when a new one comes out that is slightly nicer/more energy efficient?
Click to expand...

This urging to just go get a Honda is part of a growing reaction from those who are not interested in a Honda, to the recent pro-CRV discussions that are becoming more and more prevalent. It's basically a "shut up about it and go talk CRV on a CRV forum." For those who are NOT interested in a CRV, it's tiresome to keep reading about them here. Playing coy doesn't help (it just irritates further).
 
yrwei52 said:
You difinitely don't know the difference between factory options and dealer-installed accessories. You can pick up any aftermarket 19" wheels with a lot cheaper price! How much difference between stock 18" wheel and 19" wheel? 1 inch in diameter! I bet you can't tell the difference even if they lay side by side!
Click to expand...

I know the difference, but hey if we're touting "this trim has this included by default" then we should put the equivalent on the other car's comparable trim to make them "like" when comparing price.

Can *I* tell the difference between 18" and 19"? Probably not. My Escape is on 16" wheels, so both just look big-ass to me. Not sure if it was you, but pointing out that for just a little bit more, the CRV comes with stuff like cargo cover and roof rails is the same "big whoop" as moving up from 18" to 19" wheels. I don't care if there are roof rails on my car... does it impact the drive? No. It's basically an accessory that the mfg included at the factory, for that particular trim.

At any rate, I'm still an undecided buyer, though I know my inclinations. I kind of appreciate voices of dissent among the fan boards of "opposing camps" (helps counteract the inherent echo chamber noise) but man... it's getting a little wearisome reading the chest puffing from CRV folks, over here, in the name of "CLEAR" superiority. It's only clear if you have Honda-colored glasses on.
 
Kaps said:
No i did not copy his comments, btw have you seen the stock Honda wheels? If not I urge you not to Google them. Its a necessity to replace them for a fair comparison.
Honda is so far behind in the looks department that the wheels needed parity. Hence i included them.
Otherwise along with CVT tax, we have to add the ugly duckling tax which still means its net negative 5400.
Click to expand...

"Her" :) I've seen this mentioned a couple times before, but what is a CVT tax?
 
shaendra said:
This urging to just go get a Honda is part of a growing reaction from those who are not interested in a Honda, to the recent pro-CRV discussions that are becoming more and more prevalent. It's basically a "shut up about it and go talk CRV on a CRV forum." For those who are NOT interested in a CRV, it's tiresome to keep reading about them here. Playing coy doesn't help (it just irritates further).
Click to expand...

Heil Mazda!
 
When I first saw a Brand new 2017 CRV Touring in Black, I thought it looked really nice (side profile and from the rear).

This morning I passed what was probably the Mid-level 2017 EX trim in white. I didn't think it looked as nice as the black one (side or rear), and for some reason the front end looked worse than I remembered.

YMMV

I'm going to reserve any more thoughts on the 2017 CX5 until I see it in person. I'd also like to see what the non-GT interior looks like. I don't like the tablet-on-dash look either, but it is more in your direct line of sight, and therefore safer to use.
 
KBB released CRVs video - there were multiple complaints in the comments section about build quality and electrical issues.
Also - Unob - you wont get anywhere near 32 on the hwy - just like you dont get 30 in CX5, most important reason is above 75 mph - the turbo would kick in for small climbs and eat into your mpg - it will be interesting to see how much it gets.
Another major reason for CRVs on paper better mpg with AWD - its an on demand reactive AWD. It comes on when it sees loss of traction, Subaru and Mazda > CRV in this respect. So folks who want sure footed feel will be happy to steer clear.

At the start of this thread i was sort of convinced CRV is good but here are important drawbacks:
1. No adaptive headlights - this is a huge feature missing, you cant get this at any price point.
2. Inferior AWD.
3. Small turbos will be used to get good mpg on paper, but most city / suburb driving will hurt FE since the turbo will kick in. If you have a lead foot - I think you can see 18 or 20 in city. So its a toss up between mpg and performance. The penalty may actually be bigger for City drivers imo.
4. CVT again is not offensive on hwy, but in city rush hour commute it is. There is a small delay between gunning the throttle and CRV waking up - this is an inherent nature of CVTs. Driving enthusiasts will find this distasteful and offending. At best Honda may have made it on par with the Rav4 AT - but keep in mind - Mazda's AT is regarded as one of the best if not the best in all CUVs upto 45K USD - this includes some flagship Lexus, Acura and Infinity models as well - and is a massive compliment for Mazda.
5. Mazda is regarded as the Audi of Japanese manufacturers in looks dept. But I have no idea what Honda is doing with its design. The new civic and CRV both have so much going on on the exterior that it does not tie up well. So looks are a massive downgrade from CX-5.
6. Lastly, Honda's build quality issues may continue from 2016 - remember vibration problem in CR-Vs? So far initial reports suggests that electrical systems may have some issues as well. So people who dont want to be guinea pigs be warned.


I do acknowledge build quality issues with Mazda, but at my price point - I got a Touring with Bose for same price as what folks paid for their CR-V LX in 2016. I can understand how someone who bought GTs maynot be happy - but for me the equation still favors Mazda heavily.
 
Last edited:
Kaps said:
KBB released CRVs video - there were multiple complaints in the comments section about build quality and electrical issues.
Also - Unob - you wont get anywhere near 32 on the hwy - just like you dont get 30 in CX5, most important reason is above 75 mph - the turbo would kick in for small climbs and eat into your mpg - it will be interesting to see how much it gets.
Another major reason for CRVs on paper better mpg with AWD - its an on demand reactive AWD. It comes on when it sees loss of traction, Subaru and Mazda > CRV in this respect. So folks who want sure footed feel will be happy to steer clear.

At the start of this thread i was sort of convinced CRV is good but here are important drawbacks:
1. No adaptive headlights - this is a huge feature missing, you cant get this at any price point.
2. Inferior AWD.
3. Small turbos will be used to get good mpg on paper, but most city / suburb driving will hurt FE since the turbo will kick in. If you have a lead foot - I think you can see 18 or 20 in city. So its a toss up between mpg and performance. The penalty may actually be bigger for City drivers imo.
4. CVT again is not offensive on hwy, but in city rush hour commute it is. There is a small delay between gunning the throttle and CRV waking up - this is an inherent nature of CVTs. Driving enthusiasts will find this distasteful and offending. At best Honda may have made it on par with the Rav4 AT - but keep in mind - Mazda's AT is regarded as one of the best if not the best in all CUVs upto 45K USD - this includes some flagship Lexus, Acura and Infinity models as well - and is a massive compliment for Mazda.
5. Mazda is regarded as the Audi of Japanese manufacturers in looks dept. But I have no idea what Honda is doing with its design. The new civic and CRV both have so much going on on the exterior that it does not tie up well. So looks are a massive downgrade from CX-5.
6. Lastly, Honda's build quality issues may continue from 2016 - remember vibration problem in CR-Vs? So far initial reports suggests that electrical systems may have some issues as well. So people who dont want to be guinea pigs be warned.


I do acknowledge build quality issues with Mazda, but at my price point - I got a Touring with Bose for same price as what folks paid for their CR-V LX in 2016. I can understand how someone who bought GTs maynot be happy - but for me the equation still favors Mazda heavily.
Click to expand...


1)How many people you know are going to change their minds on the CRV because it doesn't have adaptive headlights? OK then. On the other hand, a lack of Apple CarPlay/Android Auto like the CX-5 could change someone's mind. Nice thing about Android Auto/Apple Carplay is the interface gets updated with the phone, so you won't get stuck using the OEM Nav like you would on the Mazda once it becomes outdated.

2)Says who?

3)And yet despite this, it will still get better MPG then the new 2017 CX-5 and previous generation so who cares if it's not as good as listed in the EPA estimates?

4)Small delay? Funny it will still outrun a CX-5. And the CVT in the CRV is being regarded as one of the best in its class. The transmission in the CX-5 is nothing more than a standard 6-speed automatic which is nothing new or groundbreaking. You could find one of those in a 2008 Mazda3.

5)I'm sure Honda design knows what they're doing with styling of their vehicles, seeing as how they sell 5x more cars than Mazda.

6)No issues with my CRV at all, BTW the CX-5 has had several more recalls then the CRV has.
 
Last edited:
mangoconchile said:
1)How many people you know are going to change their minds on the CRV because it doesn't have adaptive headlights? OK then. On the other hand, a lack of Apple CarPlay/Android Auto like the CX-5 could change someone's mind. Nice thing about Android Auto/Apple Carplay is the interface gets updated with the phone, so you won't get stuck using the OEM Nav like you would on the Mazda once it becomes outdated.
I'm not a tech junkie, but many people are. Agreed.
2)Says who?
Agreed.
3)And yet despite this, it will still get better MPG then the new 2017 CX-5 and previous generation so who cares if it's not as good as listed in the EPA estimates?
I'd still like it to hit EPA estimate, but on the freeway it does, and that's what counts, because "Cruise Control" is a lot more repeatable than mirroring your take-offs to what is "standard". For example, a Vegas stoplight is a different animal than a San Antonio stoplight, etc.
4)Small delay? Funny it will still outrun a CX-5. And the CVT in the CRV is being regarded as one of the best in its class. The transmission in the CX-5 is nothing more than a standard 6-speed automatic which is nothing new or groundbreaking. You could find one of those in a 2008 Mazda3.
The CX-5 transmission is very different from a standard 6-speed auto, and it's not just BS wording. It really is a refinement. Check out the engineering on YouTube "Skyactive automatic". I was impressed.
5)I'm sure Honda design knows what they're doing with styling of their vehicles, seeing as how they sell 5x more cars than Mazda.
The new CRV looks fine to me. A little heavy on the chrome, to be honest, but the lines are fine. Styling is so personal though, why even bother arguing it too hard? I mean hell, some people here actually liked the Mazda 5!
6)No issues with my CRV at all, BTW the CX-5 has had several more recalls then the CRV has.
Click to expand...

Well I mean, the CX-5 has been out a few years longer than the CRV, too. Also, recalls aren't bad, IMO. Recalls are a company saying "lets fix stuff". Nissan? They don't do recalls. They just DENY DENY DENY and COUNTERACCUSE! Trust me, I've been on the receiving end of Nissan vehicle troubles...it's a b****! Nissan corporate tried EVERYTHING to blame ME for the brakes having issues in my 370Z, even getting a tech to ride with me all over town and datalog my brake use, etc. which he reported that even under aggressive driving, was minimal (you throttle-on with the 370z in corners, not near like a Porsche though, it's front-heavy). Anyway, after they couldn't accuse ME of the issue, it went on and on and on...finally the GT-R tech admitted that at a recent meeting in Houston with the regional GT-R tech gurus, they said that the lug nuts need to be hand-torqued to avoid warping the rotors. They began doing that...no more brake issues.

Honestly, I think that's what warped my CX-5 rotors, too. They are SLIGHTLY warped. Nothing crazy, but drive it hard and you can feel it for sure.
 
Unobtanium said:
Well I mean, the CX-5 has been out a few years longer than the CRV, too. Also, recalls aren't bad, IMO. Recalls are a company saying "lets fix stuff". Nissan? They don't do recalls. They just DENY DENY DENY and COUNTERACCUSE! Trust me, I've been on the receiving end of Nissan vehicle troubles...it's a b****! Nissan corporate tried EVERYTHING to blame ME for the brakes having issues in my 370Z, even getting a tech to ride with me all over town and datalog my brake use, etc. which he reported that even under aggressive driving, was minimal (you throttle-on with the 370z in corners, not near like a Porsche though, it's front-heavy). Anyway, after they couldn't accuse ME of the issue, it went on and on and on...finally the GT-R tech admitted that at a recent meeting in Houston with the regional GT-R tech gurus, they said that the lug nuts need to be hand-torqued to avoid warping the rotors. They began doing that...no more brake issues.

Honestly, I think that's what warped my CX-5 rotors, too. They are SLIGHTLY warped. Nothing crazy, but drive it hard and you can feel it for sure.
Click to expand...

What is funny is folks on this forum will say the Rogue is better than CX-5 because of sales.
Consider the size of Nissan - Renault, consider the size of Mazda - guess who gets better pricing from their vendors due to bulk buying - even after all this a Nissan brings in less profit per car than Mazda. They are just stinking up the place atm.
 
redturboeclipse said:
Wht are you CX5 owners thinking that they don't compare? same class, same price range. If the CX5 doesnt compete with the CRV, you best not think it competes with the RAV4 or Ford Escape. Are you guys that pretentious, you feel the almighty CX5 can only compare to the likes of the ACURA RDX or BMW 1 SERIES lol. come on now.



how are they "VERY DIFFERENT"? its the same class. I'm going to have to repeat Unobtanium . These go head to head. Mazda rushed this new cx5 and did not realize honda was bringing so much to the table. Read the reviews. The new CRV is actually more sportier and handles better, and brakes better than the cx5. and looks like it already beat the cx5 in mpg. on top of the loads of great features.

im sure Unobtanium did research. when you research cx5 or crv. the 2 will always cross paths ALONG with the ford escape, and the rav4.

mazda just dropped the ball and only focused on the exterior.
Click to expand...

Of course they compare as vehicle in the same segments.

But they target completely different demographics. Most of the CX-5 drivers I've encountered are not soccer moms hauling kids or grandmas. Most of the CR-V drivers I've encountered are.

Yeah, maybe the new CR-V is sportier and handles better than it used to be (god awful). I don't care. It still looks like ass. Not to mention the CVT. And that fake wood panel stripe in the interior? What the hell is this, the 1990's still?

Pass.
 
Kaps said:
The more you share your knowledge on transmissions the more I feel the only cars you have ever driven are a Civic and a Corolla.

Its not as fun as debating with yrwei!
Click to expand...

Right, I was thinking of this like Apple and Android users arguing over things that are not comparable, but now mangoconchile is just trolling. Mazda has showed at their Ice Academy how good their AWD is, especially against Subaru, the CR-V isn't even in the same league. The Mazda AT gearbox has been praised as among the best out there by several sources, if you don't even bother Googling for a minute, you're just trolling.

I feel like deja vu somehow. As I lurk on Vietnamese forums, the CX-5 is the best selling CUV in that market, yet Honda's fanboys/shills keep spamming with how Mazda can't compete with Honda, how the CX-5 is inferior to the CR-V but don't list out the details why, just mainly stating that Honda has long-time reputation. It's hard to argue when the other side doesn't know how to reason or looking up facts.

I'm glad that the CR-V is selling more, I don't want to be part of the herd. My relatives/family got 4 Accords in one afternoon, without knowing anything about it before hand, just one test drive and $1,000 discount. They don't know much about cars, they don't care much about cars, they can't even tell the difference between the handling of a van vs a sport car. I've done my homeworks, I know about both the CX-5 and CR-V, test drive both, and I know exactly why I chose the CX-5 (and will choose again).

I think Mazda is spot-on with this article:
http://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/drivers-life/car-culture/is-your-car-an-extension-of-your-image/
“Some individuals who have a more secure self-image make a conscious decision to choose a car that make a definite statement: That intelligence trumps a ‘herd’ mentality,” Baldwin said.
Click to expand...
 
CX5 AWD > CRV AWD.

Its not even close. There have been times when our CRV has struggled backing up in 4" of snow. That's ridiculous. Sad even. You can feel the car struggling, and its even worse when there is an incline involved. Eventually you basically have to floor it to get it moving.

The CX5 grins, laughs, and takes off with ease.

With the 2017 CX5 now being ~1" lower, I'll bet you'll see the skid-pad numbers go up, and once again be above the new 2107 CRV.

Lastly- to say the CX5 redesign ignored the interior is asinine. The new interior has been rated miles above the first gen CX5, which had already made the previous gen CRV look chintzy at best.
 
sillyxone said:
Right, I was thinking of this like Apple and Android users arguing over things that are not comparable, but now mangoconchile is just trolling.
Click to expand...
I think i disagree with you - I feel he believes what he writes.
 
banjos-n-beer said:
CX5 AWD > CRV AWD.

Its not even close. There have been times when our CRV has struggled backing up in 4" of snow. That's ridiculous. Sad even. You can feel the car struggling, and its even worse when there is an incline involved. Eventually you basically have to floor it to get it moving.

The CX5 grins, laughs, and takes off with ease.

With the 2017 CX5 now being ~1" lower, I'll bet you'll see the skid-pad numbers go up, and once again be above the new 2107 CRV.

Lastly- to say the CX5 redesign ignored the interior is asinine. The new interior has been rated miles above the first gen CX5, which had already made the previous gen CRV look chintzy at best.
Click to expand...

Wow that is sad.

My CX-5 loves the snow. I've observed I've tended to be one the only vehicles on the road in snowstorms that doesn't have issues and is typically going a little faster than the other traffic and passing them struggling with the snow/ice (including CR-V's).

Yep, the interior in the 2017 is so obviously different and redesigned from say my CX-5's, it is so disingenuous to say they ignored the interior.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
    • Like
CX-5 Fuel efficiency, comfort and handling
Replies
12
Views
3K
sonny1
S
shadonoz
Autoblog reports turbo fuel economy
Replies
14
Views
2K
Unobtanium
U
1
    • Like
MPG - Into the Weeds
Replies
3
Views
2K
shooter357
S

Latest posts

Back