Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bluegrass

Banned
:
SUV
Hello. I'm new to the forum and in the market for a new vehicle. A little background:
- I buy my vehicles new and keep them for 10-14 years, so picking the right one is extremely important.
- I've owned Honda's all of my life, but I'm having a difficult time convincing myself to get the CR-V.

Vehicles Considering:
- 2017 Mazda CX-5 Touring (2WD) w/ I-ActivSense -- Snowflake White Pearl w/ Leatherette ($27,680)
- 2017 Honda CR-V EX (2WD) -- White Diamond w/ Black Cloth ($27,635)

Pros of CX-5:
1) It is FAR better looking on both the exterior and interior. Not even a close comparison.
2) Comes with a traditional 6-speed transmission, which I strongly prefer.
3) Includes several notable features (LED headlights, auto dimming mirror w/ Homelink, faux leather seats, leather steering wheel/shifter).

Cons of CX-5:
1) Considerably worse MPG estimates. 4 MPG lower city, 3 MPG lower highway.
Can owners chime on actual fuel economy? I'm surprised the CX-5 gets significantly lower mileage.
2) Lacks several important features (moon roof, remote start, fog lights, cargo cover)
These seem like really big features to give up, and I don't want to spend $3000 more to upgrade to the Grand Touring.

Any other drawbacks to the CX-5 that I'm missing?
I realize responses are going to favor the CX-5, but I'm just looking for insight into the decision making process from current owners.

Thanks.
 
I've read enough threads here to know that I don't want that Honda fanboy chiming in.

I'm simply looking for real-world experience & feedback from actual CX-5 owners.
 
the cr-v has more cargo volume and i believe has many more standard features at this trim level. it all depends on how much you value what is missing. if you want a side by side spec comparison, you can compare the 2 models here https://www.mazdausa.com/shopping-tools/compare-vehicles/cx-5.


i went with the CX-5 over the CR-V, but I was between the GT and Touring so there was less of a discrepancy in features. My sister did just buy a 17 CR-V and i will say they are both very nice cars.
 
Have you test driven both yet, or are you just going off of paper stats for now?

I don't let MPGs be the end-all for me, but that's just a personal decision. You could get the moonroof and a few other goodies if you swapped out the I-ActivSense package with the other one, which I think is actually more desirable.

Either way, good luck!
 
Honda.
Because its $45 cheaper.

Also - dont ever say this on this forum : Moon Roof is an important feature. Lighted window switches are different - they are important. Moon roof is for people who are short and dont need head room.
 
banjos-n-beer said:
Have you test driven both yet, or are you just going off of paper stats for now?
You could get the moonroof and a few other goodies if you swapped out the I-ActivSense package with the other one, which I think is actually more desirable.
Either way, good luck!
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I've viewed and sat in both vehicles, but I haven't driven them yet. Waiting for a time when the wife & kids are not with me.

I agree that the 'Preferred Equipment Package' has features I would prefer on a daily basis (moonroof, upgraded stereo, navigation).
However, since I keep my cars for 10+ years, I really think I should get the latest safety features currently available, especially since the family will be in this car on a daily basis.
 
The MPG thing....some people for some reason (looking at you Uno) get terrible MPG. Others get MPG pretty inline with EPA numbers. My own is easily 30+ highway and 26+ city.

To me a difference of a couple MPG doesn't matter in the long run especially if I am losing the driving fun I have with my CX-5.

Feature wise, if certain features are extremely important to you and only available at certain price points between 2 competing cars, than go with the one that has what you want at the price you want.

However, test drive both if you haven't already and then go from there. Stats and spec sheets are one thing, but get behind the wheel and go from there.
 
The remote start, cargo cover, and fog lamps can be purchased as accessories on the Touring model.

So youre only forgoing a sun roof if youre set on a Touring w/ iActivsense. And if you really really want a sun roof on a Touring, you could get an aftermarket sun roof installed but it wont be as good as Mazdas factory sun roof.

I havent driven a CR-V or looked at its specs so I cant comment on it.

 
It depends on the type of driver you are. If you want a car to just get you where you are going and as long as it gets you there in the comfort you expect then I'd say Honda. If you like to drive and like the feel of a sports car but need more utility and want to be able to get some where and as your walking away look back and smile because you enjoy driving it then I say Mazda.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
bluegrass said:
Thanks.

I've viewed and sat in both vehicles, but I haven't driven them yet. Waiting for a time when the wife & kids are not with me.

I agree that the 'Preferred Equipment Package' has features I would prefer on a daily basis (moonroof, upgraded stereo, navigation).
However, since I keep my cars for 10+ years, I really think I should get the latest safety features currently available, especially since the family will be in this car on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Of all the safety tech offered, I find the BSM (Blind Spot Monitoring) and Rear Cross Traffic Alert to be the most useful. SCBS is okay, but I've had branches in my driveway activate it... which the dog in back surely didn't like!

I think both BSM and Rear Cross Traffic Alert are standard on the Touring, which is why I would go with the Preferred Equipment Package over the other if I were to add one to the Touring model.

Just my humble opinion.

Oh- and like ColoradoDriver, I get ~31 on the highway and average 27+ overall, and we have the AWD models.
 
Last edited:
Since they're identical in price, it's as simple as choosing the one you like more. No need to compare pros and cons of each.
 
banjos-n-beer said:
Of all the safety tech offered, I find the BSM (Blind Spot Monitoring) and Rear Cross Traffic Alert to be the most useful.
Click to expand...
Can anyone else comment on these ActiveSense safety features...
- High Beam Control
- Lane Departure Warning with Lane Keep Assist
- Mazda Radar Cruise Control with Stop & Go
- Smart Brake Support

Are these features useful? Do they work? Would you go with the other equipment package instead?
 
jlx21 said:
Since they're identical in price, it's as simple as choosing the one you like more. No need to compare pros and cons of each.
Click to expand...
How do you go about "choosing the one you like more" if you don't compare the pros and cons of the vehicle???
 
According to the EPA, the difference in fuel economy isn't that big:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Mazda_CX-5.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2017_Honda_CR-V.shtml

CX-5 FWD 2.5L = 26 city, 33 hwy, 29 combined
CR-V FWD 1.5L = 28 city, 34 hwy, 30 combined

I also looked at the real world data from Fuelly:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/cr-v?engineconfig_id=37&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

Average for the CX-5 2.5L since 2014 looks to be a hair over 26.
Average for the CR-V 1.5L is 27.5

One important thing to note is that the Fuelly data includes FWD and AWD models, I'm guessing mostly AWD. The difference between the FWD and AWD is 3 MPG combined in the CX-5, but only 1 MPG in the CR-V. So if you could compare data from only the FWD models, I'll bet the numbers would be pretty much the same, well within the margin of error considering the 1.5L turbo is a new engine and there's not a lot of real world data yet.
 
bluegrass said:
Can anyone else comment on these ActiveSense safety features...
- High Beam Control
- Lane Departure Warning with Lane Keep Assist
- Mazda Radar Cruise Control with Stop & Go
- Smart Brake Support

Are these features useful? Do they work? Would you go with the other equipment package instead?
Click to expand...

I have to say, after taking my first highway drive in this car... the radar cruise with stop&go is AMAZING. We hit some pretty heavy traffic and I didn't need to use my gas or brake even once. It slows and accelerates so perfectly the passengers wouldn't even have a clue that you're not doing it. I tried it in the city and even coming to a stop was flawless. Then you just tap the gas when ready to go and you're set!

Seriously, it made the highway drive so much better especially in the many areas where speeds were fluctuating from 30km/hr to 120km/hr. I was able to focus more on the other drivers instead of controlling speed.
 
When I was car shopping, like you, I was looking at everything on paper. Ultimately what made my decision was what car put a smile on my face when I drove it.

Since I have a negative perception of CVT, my choices were the Transit Connect (that thing is cavernous for it's size), used Flex or used 4Runner.

Everything else I drove left me flat but I found the CX-5 to be the perfect balance - fun, my connection to the vehicle, comfortable, looks, livable space, price gas mileage and expected upkeep costs.

Until you get them on the road, it is all hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
joe6864 said:
I have to say, after taking my first highway drive in this car... the radar cruise with stop&go is AMAZING. We hit some pretty heavy traffic and I didn't need to use my gas or brake even once. It slows and accelerates so perfectly the passengers wouldn't even have a clue that you're not doing it. I tried it in the city and even coming to a stop was flawless. Then you just tap the gas when ready to go and you're set!

Seriously, it made the highway drive so much better especially in the many areas where speeds were fluctuating from 30km/hr to 120km/hr. I was able to focus more on the other drivers instead of controlling speed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, where one lives and drives certainly is an influence. Personally, I rarely if ever use cruise control anymore. I find that when I do, my mind wanders away from driving a bit, and that concerns me from a safety perspective as I prefer to be as focused as possible on the task at hand. Further, not sure how much faith I want to put into all these electronics that will be prone to failure at some point in time. Guess I'm not ready for autonomous driving quite yet!
 
I heard you say that you strongly prefer the 6 speed to the CVT which is where I think a lot us here fall. I drove both these vehicles and I'm not going to say the CR-V doesn't have things going for it because it certainly does- things that stood out to me as CR-V pluses were:
-cargo and overall roominess(not a big deal to me as wife has a bigger car if needed)
-built in remote start
-brakes (Mazda's don't suck but Honda really stepped it up on the CR-Vs clampers this time)
-Android auto

IMO Honda did a very nice job and if it weren't for that dammed CVT I'd have to consider it but it does so I won't.
Given this- for me the only decision here is Touring w/preferred vs. GT
I recommend the GT because for really not much more $ you have your cake and eat it too.
 
bluegrass said:
Thanks.
since I keep my cars for 10+ years, I really think I should get the latest safety features currently available, especially since the family will be in this car on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
This answered the question I was going to ask. When I bought my 2016 CX-5, the 2017s weren't out yet, but I did seriously consider the 2017 CR-V... and still chose the "older" CX-5. But my kids are older teens (15-16) now, and I knew I was no longer going to be driving them around for many more years... so things like rear vents or rear USB ports wasn't as much of a consideration. I tend to keep my cars for a long time too, so looked at the CX-5 as being more "my" car than a "family" car in the long term.
Sounds like your kids are younger and will be "passengers" for a number of years, so the many rear seat features (and safety features) should be more of a priority for you. If my kids were younger, I'd be more tempted by the Honda. Or if I was buying now I'd be much more tempted by the 2017 CX-5 over the 2016.5. I'd also very highly recommend the Bose/moonroof package as I think the audio is quite good. For practicality given your kids, I'd have to say you might be better off with Honda, but if it was up to me and you could swing the extra cost I'd say go for the CX-5 GT. Over ten or more years the added cost would seem minimal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
    • Like
    • Wow
Choices and thoughts on a 2024 CX-5 purchase
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Antoine
Antoine
J
New Member here, about to purchase CX-5
Replies
16
Views
856
ceric
ceric
Chocolate
    • Like
Consumer Reports New Car Issue 2024
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
N7turbo
N7turbo

Latest posts

Back