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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

FWD CX-5 is 31 and 24. Which is more realistic - added 90 lbs hurt city mpg. 31 for a lower profile on highway is more accurate when my 16.5 never sees even 30 itself.
I might be able to hit 33 in 16.5 hypermiling within reason and being under 70 mph on a non windy day here in Texas with only me as an occupant and A/C turned to low, display turned off and music volume around 6 - praying to the mpg gods.
 
- I've owned Honda's all of my life, but I'm having a difficult time convincing myself to get the CR-V.

This tells you everything you need to know. Don't buy a car that you have to "convince yourself" to get. This tells me you would prefer the CX-5.

You can easily get the dealership to throw in the cargo cover for free. And if you want the moon roof, maybe go with the other package? The most useful safety features are the rear cross traffic alert and the blind spot monitoring which come standard.
 
I have to say, after taking my first highway drive in this car... the radar cruise with stop&go is AMAZING.
Seriously, it made the highway drive so much better especially in the many areas where speeds were fluctuating from 30km/hr to 120km/hr.
Thank you for your insight. This is exactly the type of feedback I am looking for.

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'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...
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.

This answered the question I was going to ask.
Sounds like your kids are younger and will be "passengers" for a number of years...If my kids were younger, I'd be more tempted by the Honda.
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.
Very helpful responses from you both. Thanks.

What I hear you guys saying is...
If I go the cheaper route, I'd probably be better off with the CR-V EX instead of the CX-5 Touring, since I can't get both the safety & luxury packages. But ideally, I would spring for the CX-5 Grand Touring, and get everything I want.

I'm just having a hard time justifying spending an extra $3000 to jump up to the Grand Touring.
 
Last edited:
This tells you everything you need to know. Don't buy a car that you have to "convince yourself" to get. This tells me you would prefer the CX-5.

You can easily get the dealership to throw in the cargo cover for free. And if you want the moon roof, maybe go with the other package? The most useful safety features are the rear cross traffic alert and the blind spot monitoring which come standard.

My thought as well.

I think really you need to actually drive them OP and go from there.
 
I'm just having a hard time justifying spending an extra $3000 to jump up to the Grand Touring.

Take a hindsight's approach now. Spend the extra $3000 now to save all the regrets you will have later by constantly saying "Why didn't I get it!"
 
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 started using radar cruise control last week and it does require a little commitment of faith.

I used it driving out of NYC on Friday night and the highway was either doing 70+ or stop/start. The car did all the work braking and accelerating. I fiddled with the button that adjusted the gap between me and the car in front depending on speed and traffic patterns. I obviously was alert the whole time to ensure I stayed on the road and to override any problems. My observations are:

- the system works great though isn't as smooth as a person since it's only really looking at the car in front rather than looking further down the road.

- cars merging from another lane / entrance ramp are picked up later than a person might so the response is a little jerkier.

- on one tight bend and the traffic slowed suddenly, the system flashed up "BRAKE" so I obliged. I wasn't sure whether the system would have taken care of it, but I wasn't going to leave it.

Bear in mind this is the NY greater metropolitan area so no quarters are given! Traffic spacing in less urbanized areas will likely generate a smoother passage.

All told, I am a BIG fan. I felt more relaxed at the end of the drive than I usually do.

Also, lane keeping assist told me off a couple of times when I was distracted by the kids in the back...quite helpful.

I haven't need to sample the AEB just yet.

One of the big reasons for buying a new car in 2017 is the array of new safety features that my 2009 ML 550 didn't have. So I'm biased.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
If I go the cheaper route, I'd probably be better off with the CR-V EX instead of the CX-5 Touring, since I can't get both the safety & luxury packages. But ideally, I would spring for the CX-5 Grand Touring, and get everything I want.

I'm just having a hard time justifying spending an extra $3000 to jump up to the Grand Touring.

Not exactly..I still think you're better off with the CX-5 Touring with either pkg you choose (I'd choose preferred). There are reasons to choose the CR-V but CVT = 100% deal killer for me.
It is 2850 more for GT which does seem a bit steep for what you get admittedly
OK I got another one 2016.5 GT w/tech..that would close the price gap quite a bit if not completely post disc, has nicer wheels and seats- both the covering and padding (I maybe the minority on the chairs but I think mine are great) I'd sure consider it and probably select it over '17 touring for nearly even $ I would think.. fwiw
 
Last edited:
Regarding the gas mileage, so far on Fuelly:

For the CR-V:

Based on data from 34 vehicles, 201 fuel-ups and 51,893 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 27.02 with a 0.50 MPG margin of error.

For the 2016 CX-5

317 vehicles, 10,962 fuel-ups and 3,192,491 miles of driving, the 2016 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 25.87 with a 0.07 MPG margin of error.

Although the numbers are small, it does look like the CR-V mileage is good with about a 1 MPG overall increase over the CX-5.

The ride will be the deciding factor. You are going to have to drive them to see what you like. We are a Honda family as well - wife has an Odyssey, I owned a CR-V before the CX-5 and my father in law who lives with us has a Civic coupe (to pick up the ladies). Hondas are a known thing. The CX-5 is a different beast. I drove my CR-V and it worked. Could throw my bike in the back and it would get me from point A to point B without much of an issue. But it brought me no joy. The CX-5 does.
 
I'll chime in. I'm an admitted Honda fanboy. I've bought the wife a new one every three years for 12 years, 3 CRVs, current = Accord Coupe. And it's time again.

Now, for reliability, resale value, quality-and-features-in-its-price-point, damned hard to beat. Wife drowned-totaled her 2010, and I was flabbergasted by how much value it held.

Her Accord has a great 2.0 motor. But it has the $%&*#@ CVT, which I cannot stand to drive. 100% reliable, and she could care less, and I rarely drive it, so .....

So, given all those accolades, I drove a '17 CRV. I still do not like a CVT, and I am not at all thrilled with the thought of a 1.5L turbo'd motor. So .... my advice is simply this: Take the CRV on a good long test drive, you may like it. If (big if) it had a 2.0 and a 6 speed, I wouldn't even look elsewhere, but ..... here I am, like you, to learn.
 
I love Hondas as well, but the CR-V was not an option for me. The looks and the CVT, and there being at least two at every stop light was enough to rule it out. It was hard, though, because I love turbos too, and think the CX-5 should have one also, but speaking of turbos and gas mileage, you let that turbo spool up fast and hard more than norm and your gas mileage advantage goes bye- bye. Now aftermarket tuning, and we are talking a different ballgame. I added 170+hp to the wheels of my 4 banger turbo over stock, and I get better gas mileage in regular driving than I did stock due to being able to lean out for power. Now, let that turbo spool, and bye-bye, gas mileage and the car beside me...
 
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?

Lane departure warning and lane keep assist is excellent on more open roads and highways, around the suburbs it can be a bit annoying, i sometimes turn it off in those circumstances. But always leave it on on more open roads. A definite safety plus.

Radar cruise control is simply brilliant! I use it all the time. It is so seamless in its operation that you barely notice that it has slowed you down as you come up behind a slower car. You can adjust the following distance behind the car in front - i reduced it because otherwise the gap was too tempting for other cars to jump into. Once or twice, early days, mine detected cars slowing in the lane beside mine and applied the brakes, which was a bit of a shock, but it seems to have learnt and hasnt done it recently. It also applies the brakes if youre going downhill and exceed the set limit my too much.

SCBS is also great. Had it activate once when I wasnt quite paying attention, although I had looked ahead and would have stopped in time. It made sure. It also activated a couple of times when i was driving into my garage and the auto roller door hadnt quite gone up far enough LOL!

RCTA (rear cross traffic alert) if you get this over there is an excellent feature as well, backing out of car parks at shopping centres, it will pick up cars and people approaching from either side at least 5-6 car lengths away both directions, and alert you so you dont back out in front if them, it is so good that I now completely trust it.

Re the headlights, i have the "adaptive LED" headlights, i dont think you get them in the US due to different regulations? Anyway, they are great, you can leave them set on high beam and they detect cars both ahead of you and approaching and automatically dip. They have a wide spread to the sides at slower suburban speeds so you can see things on the side of the road.

Hope this helps.
 
I'm just having a hard time justifying spending an extra $3000 to jump up to the Grand Touring.
I'm with everyone else here in that you should get the vehicle that you like most that best fits your needs.
That said: you're into this car for the long haul so if worse case scenario you do splurge for the GT and you amortize the $3k over the life of your ownership, the added expense is negligible.

Best of luck with your car search, let us know how the test drives go.
 
I recently purchased a 2017 CX-5 (AWD GT with Premium Package) so I am completely biased in that I can easily say its the best car I’ve ever owned...and I’ve had more than my share. My children are grown and I am single so it was all about driving pleasure for me. I researched the CX-5 for the better part of a year and purposefully waited for the 2017 model. I was an early adopter since I needed a car by this weekend when my daughter returned from school. During my year long research, prior to the introduction of the 2017 model, I read a lot of comparisons between the CR-V and the CX-5, even though I never considered the CR-V (I think Hondas are awesome cars, but as others have said are rather soul-less and I was seeking an engaging car that was fun to drive). The consensus of all that I read was that the CX-5 is a better vehicle for the DRIVER, while the CR-V is a better car for everyone else (more room, more cargo space etc.) Again, my totally subjective opinion is that if I were buying a car that I plan to keep 10 years, I would want to avoid CVT (which is increasingly difficult) and turbo. Honestly you’re not going to get hurt either way...but the CX-5, IMHO feel and drives like a VW or and Audi which is what I was after. I hope it keeps brining on the smiles for a good long time! I’d also add if at all possible you should serious consider going for the GT with Premium. I don’t think I will ever be able to have a car w/o HUD ever again...its awesome!!!
 
I recently purchased a 2017 CX-5 (AWD GT with Premium Package) so I am completely biased in that I can easily say its the best car I’ve ever owned...and I’ve had more than my share. My children are grown and I am single so it was all about driving pleasure for me. I researched the CX-5 for the better part of a year and purposefully waited for the 2017 model. I was an early adopter since I needed a car by this weekend when my daughter returned from school. During my year long research, prior to the introduction of the 2017 model, I read a lot of comparisons between the CR-V and the CX-5, even though I never considered the CR-V (I think Hondas are awesome cars, but as others have said are rather soul-less and I was seeking an engaging car that was fun to drive). The consensus of all that I read was that the CX-5 is a better vehicle for the DRIVER, while the CR-V is a better car for everyone else (more room, more cargo space etc.) Again, my totally subjective opinion is that if I were buying a car that I plan to keep 10 years, I would want to avoid CVT (which is increasingly difficult) and turbo. Honestly you’re not going to get hurt either way...but the CX-5, IMHO feel and drives like a VW or and Audi which is what I was after. I hope it keeps brining on the smiles for a good long time! I’d also add if at all possible you should serious consider going for the GT with Premium. I don’t think I will ever be able to have a car w/o HUD ever again...its awesome!!!

I totally agree with your comments (thou the CVT in the 2017 Honda isn't really that bad) but I think we're overlooking the point that the CR-V doesn't come in Soul Red Crystal. Shut the gate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I was looking at the 2016 models of both so can't speak to the 2017 models. on paper it seemed close. started with the honda. came back from the test drive thinking "I guess i could live with it if i really had to". drove the cx-5 next, came back from the drive thought "wow" and bought it on the spot. the honda was not even a close second. I get about 27 mpg in mostly city driving. the auto high beams are too slow to react on the tight twisty roads when you come around a sharp curve and face another car, so i turn them off in general. i mostly drive in traffic and kind of weave in and out so i turned off the lane departure thing. haven't had to use brake assist yet. really love my cx-5. always fun to drive. i don't know how i ever lived without blindspot monitoring and cross traffic alert!
 
Lane departure warning and lane keep assist is excellent on more open roads and highways, around the suburbs it can be a bit annoying, i sometimes turn it off in those circumstances. But always leave it on on more open roads. A definite safety plus.

Radar cruise control is simply brilliant! I use it all the time. It is so seamless in its operation that you barely notice that it has slowed you down as you come up behind a slower car. You can adjust the following distance behind the car in front - i reduced it because otherwise the gap was too tempting for other cars to jump into. Once or twice, early days, mine detected cars slowing in the lane beside mine and applied the brakes, which was a bit of a shock, but it seems to have learnt and hasnt done it recently. It also applies the brakes if youre going downhill and exceed the set limit my too much.

SCBS is also great. Had it activate once when I wasnt quite paying attention, although I had looked ahead and would have stopped in time. It made sure. It also activated a couple of times when i was driving into my garage and the auto roller door hadnt quite gone up far enough LOL!

RCTA (rear cross traffic alert) if you get this over there is an excellent feature as well, backing out of car parks at shopping centres, it will pick up cars and people approaching from either side at least 5-6 car lengths away both directions, and alert you so you dont back out in front if them, it is so good that I now completely trust it.

Re the headlights, i have the "adaptive LED" headlights, i dont think you get them in the US due to different regulations? Anyway, they are great, you can leave them set on high beam and they detect cars both ahead of you and approaching and automatically dip. They have a wide spread to the sides at slower suburban speeds so you can see things on the side of the road.

Hope this helps.

Well written!
 
Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V

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
Official 2017 CX-5 and CR-V EPA fuel economy ratings from FuelEconomy.gov website:

attachment.php

View attachment 216067

Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back