Mattyredsox
Member
- :
- 1990 Eunos (Mazda) V-Special Roadster (sold), 2014 Mazda CX-5 Pr
I've mentioned how much more I like the 17's handling in several places. It's a better car all around for drivers.
2017 Impressions, Noise Comparison and Our New 2016 GT
- Thread starter Werechull
- Start date
I've mentioned how much more I like the 17's handling in several places. It's a better car all around for drivers.
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Reading the Consumer Reports Car Edition that came out a few months ago. Good stuff. Not a big believer in CR but Mazda sure did better then Honda, Mr Eclipse. Only 3 car companies got a recommendation on every model: Porsche, Audi and Mazda. Pretty good company. Not to stir the CR-V debate up again but why is the Honda better for families? Because you can haul 5 more bags of groceries? Did you pick yours up yet?
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
zoomzoom1979
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX-5
[QUOTE best looking cuv in this price range thats for sure. still doesnt win for families, but bachelors and singles, for sure.[/QUOTE]
Agree 150%. Who says a CX-5 isn't for families?! It's a CUV for f**k sakes! Aren't CUV's usually geared towards families??
Agree 150%. Who says a CX-5 isn't for families?! It's a CUV for f**k sakes! Aren't CUV's usually geared towards families??
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
Don't want to drag the CR-V issue up again, but on Fuelly:
Based on data from 61 vehicles, 521 fuel-ups and 138,651 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 22.92 with a 0.69 MPG margin of error.
If only looking at the 1.5T engine:
Based on data from 22 vehicles, 113 fuel-ups and 29,008 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.63 with a 0.55 MPG margin of error.
Still a low number of vehicles but I wonder why the MPG is slow low in the non turbo CR-V? Mazda's ability to get good MPG out of the 2.5 with a normal transmission is a nice accomplishment.
Based on data from 61 vehicles, 521 fuel-ups and 138,651 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 22.92 with a 0.69 MPG margin of error.
If only looking at the 1.5T engine:
Based on data from 22 vehicles, 113 fuel-ups and 29,008 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.63 with a 0.55 MPG margin of error.
Still a low number of vehicles but I wonder why the MPG is slow low in the non turbo CR-V? Mazda's ability to get good MPG out of the 2.5 with a normal transmission is a nice accomplishment.
- :
- Denver, CO
The only reason to say a CX-5 wouldn't work for families is because you want a really smooth ride (and to drive a boat) which would rule the CX-5 out. If the 17 CR-V now has CX-5 like handling/ride then that rules it out too doesn't it?
Outside of that, I suppose the argument could be made about where things like USB ports are, some features that may matter to you (one car might have over the other), and of course the looks. It's a case of YMMV depending on what you are looking for and what matters to you most.
And they are both CUV's. CX-5 just happens to be fun to drive. I've yet to seriously hear that out of a CR-V owner. I think that's why the CX-5 attracts more singles (like me), but I would use it if I had a family of 3 or 4 too.
Outside of that, I suppose the argument could be made about where things like USB ports are, some features that may matter to you (one car might have over the other), and of course the looks. It's a case of YMMV depending on what you are looking for and what matters to you most.
And they are both CUV's. CX-5 just happens to be fun to drive. I've yet to seriously hear that out of a CR-V owner. I think that's why the CX-5 attracts more singles (like me), but I would use it if I had a family of 3 or 4 too.
Last edited:
To get a grasp of the 1st gen CX-5's handling perhaps we should take it from an actual professional race driver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km_NDhZ3uqE
Fast forward to 3:10 mark.
Also watch this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0BKbBoW7Q
Our family of 4 (twin 4 year old boys) have been making due with a Suzuki SX4 which is probably smaller than a 3.
A CX5 in comparison will seem cavernous.
I will however be driving it to and from work and on family vacations, weekend trips etc, so forgive me (
) if I want something well designed with decent driving dynamics (not to mention the diesel for towing our small trailer).Mazda has what I want. I'm not 'confused' (rlaugh)
Average age for new CRV buyers is 60. Best believe Honda builds the CRV to attract and keep that population group to stay put.
The following was a study for the CX-5 owner.
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-buyers-guides/power-profile-mazda-cx-5
"Who Buys the Mazda CX-5?
Compared with the Small SUV segment average, CX-5 buyers are younger. In 2015, 47% of CX-5 owners identified themselves as members of Gen X (those born from 1965-1976) or Gen Y (1977-1994), compared with 37% of Compact SUV buyers.
Additionally, CX-5 owners earn more money. On average, owners have a median household income of $93,000, compared with $90,130 for the Small SUV segment in general.
Price and performance sell the CX-5, with 52% of owners identifying themselves as one or the other type of buyer. Compare this to the segment average, in which 35% of owners identify as a price buyer or a performance buyer.
Logically then, Mazda CX-5 buyers more frequently cite responsive handling and powerful acceleration as a purchase preference when choosing a new vehicle (92% vs. 88% segment average). Nevertheless, fewer CX-5 buyers believe that their friends and family think of them as knowing a great deal about autos, compared with the segment average (53% vs. 54%, respectively).
When asked whether a vehicle is just a way to get from place to place, only 39% of CX-5 owners agreed, compared with 45% of Small SUV buyers in general.
In other respects, Mazda CX-5 owner demographics are closely aligned with the Small SUV segment.
What Do Owners Most Like about the CX-5?
Based on the results of the 2015 U.S. APEAL Study, and according to the people who own one, the five most appealing attributes of the Mazda CX-5 are (in descending order) the exterior styling, driving dynamics, interior design, visibility and safety, and storage and space."
- :
- Denver, CO
Describes me well too. I'm 26, bought it at 22 and was single at the time. Most important factors when buying it were acceleration, ride/driving dynamics, and definitely the styling, and had to be fun to drive. Was it only a means to get from point A to point B? Hell no.
I knew about old CR-V drivetrain, it never got EPA, it never even touched 25 combined. For 10 years. Its like Honda did not even try to improve anything.
The bad mpg meant any re sale advantage you had was eaten up by more fuel costs. So its pretty same as owning a Mazda.
And the new CR-V like many predicted - small displacement turbos will give you good mpg as long as you granny it all the time, minute you add weight or stop n go your mpg plummets. All professional reviews said 22 mpg city.
That is Toyota Highlander ish mpg. Sad.
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
Pretty much describes me (28).
I've said before that if my two kids were younger that I may have gotten a CRV or another Forester instead. I've had a Forester for 15+ years now, as well as a Maxima, while my wife often drives my MIL's Honda CRV (2005 or so). Ruled out the Forester 'cause quite frankly I just wanted something different. I told my wife that the Forester was the more "practical" and "safer" choice. Wouldn't have considered the Honda prior to the '17, but if my kids were younger I might have gone that route just for the extra USB ports in the rear and some of the other features that the 2016 CX-5 didn't have. But my kids (twins are 15 now) walk to school, are close to driving themselves, and given that I tend to keep a car for 10 years or so I figured that, over the long run, this was going to be more "my" car than the "family" car. So I opted for the Mazda because it was a bit sporty and definitely more fun to drive. But it still fits the four of us very well and even for a "cheap" CUV it's a hell of a lot more comfortable than my old Forester.
frenchbiker
Contributor
- :
- 2016 CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech
In 2015, 47% of CX-5 owners identified themselves as members of Gen X (those born from 1965-1976) or Gen Y (1977-1994),
That's interesting. Why do they focus on the 47% and not the other 53%?
I'm a member of Gen W by the way.
That's interesting. Why do they focus on the 47% and not the other 53%?
I'm a member of Gen W by the way.
Last edited:
There are several "2017 CRV's" that are 100% certainly not 2017 CRV's
This one with over 34,000 miles tracked at 16.4MPG called "van" is not a 2017 CRV. This single mislabled CRV brings the average down
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/cr-v/2017/kbereman/587602
this one with 7800 miles tracked at 46.3MPG is also not a 2017 CRV (it's been on fuelly since 2014!)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/cr-v/2017/shinytop/298220
If you remove the "van" from the data you end up with 26.2MPG average, which is more reasonable.
Speaking of demographics..
CX-5 customers are about 6X more likely to use fuelly than CR-V customers.
357k CRV's sold in 2016, but only 1,5M miles logged on fuelly.
112k CX-5's sold in 2016 and 3.3M miles logged on fuelly.
Last edited:
In that second example it looks like the guy has 2 cars on his profile. The one with 1 fuel up is most likely the 17 CRV.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/shinytop
