Two things holding me back

Same year, same trim, same color, same mileage, yet a $4,000 difference between the 2:


I didn't even expect it to be that much difference but umm yeah...Argument done and over with.

Hey OP, if resale is important to you, the CRV is the better choice.


I'll give you an "E" for effort mango but there are a couple of holes in your argument. First, what's the MSRP or average negotiated sale price for the respective vehicles? Without those numbers the $4000 difference you state has much less meaning. Second, I have a '16 CX-5 that was purchased new on 6/30/2015. If I had purchased a new CR-V on that same date, it would have been a 2015. How would those numbers stack up?

I have nothing against Honda, the wife and I have owned 4 of them (1 Civic, 3 Accords) but we've had 2 Mazda 626's also and they were very comparable in every way to the Honda's. I do know I find the CX-5 to more enjoyable to drive than anything else I've owned in recent memory. YMMV.
 
Has anyone tried both the new CX-5 and the new CR-V? I can't recall which one was quieter because the sales guy was talking the whole way. I did notice both were quiet so I guess not a biggie. I was concerned about the CVT but honestly I barely noticed it.

My other notes are as follows:
CX5:
- Nicer interior
- No Carplay/Android Auto
- Awesome HUD
- Height adjustable passenger seat
- Center seat belt on the seat.

CR-V:
- nice torque down low
- Adjustable lumbar
- HUGE trunk
- shorter bench seat in back
- handsfree opening for trunk
- remote start
- noticeable better hwy mileage according to online tests (but YMMV).

Priced both and they are within a few hundred bucks (Grand Touring vs Touring). Mazda gets promotional interest rates, Honda seems to be giving me bigger discounts.

This is one tough decision. If AA/CP were on the Mazda then I would do CX5.

I have owned 2 mazdas in the past (93 FD3S and my current 06 Mazda3) and they are great cars but they might lose me on this one :\
 
Last edited:
Has anyone tried both the new CX-5 and the new CR-V? I can't recall which one was quieter because the sales guy was talking the whole way. I did notice both were quiet so I guess not a biggie. I was concerned about the CVT but honestly I barely noticed it.


I think someone mentioned a few weeks ago the interior noise is about the same in both vehicles.
 
I'll give you an "E" for effort mango but there are a couple of holes in your argument. First, what's the MSRP or average negotiated sale price for the respective vehicles? Without those numbers the $4000 difference you state has much less meaning. Second, I have a '16 CX-5 that was purchased new on 6/30/2015. If I had purchased a new CR-V on that same date, it would have been a 2015. How would those numbers stack up?

I have nothing against Honda, the wife and I have owned 4 of them (1 Civic, 3 Accords) but we've had 2 Mazda 626's also and they were very comparable in every way to the Honda's. I do know I find the CX-5 to more enjoyable to drive than anything else I've owned in recent memory. YMMV.


The MSRP on the CRV was $25 lower than the CX-5 in the 2 vehicles I posted but you're right, there are other variables at play like negotiated sales price, location, etc...For example if I play with the year and mileage(say model year 2013 and 100k mileage) on both vehicles, the difference is around $1300 in favor of the CRV. I wasn't trying to say the difference was $4k across the board, I randomly picked a year, trim, and punched the mileage and this is what came up.

I think most people on this forum(actually every single person except for 1) would agree that overall the CRV will have a better residual value then the CX-5 in most situations. I get that the majority of CX-5 owners probably don't care about it that much, but since it was brought up I had to bring up the data to prove my point.
 
This is one tough decision. If AA/CP were on the Mazda then I would do CX5.

I have owned 2 mazdas in the past (93 FD3S and my current 06 Mazda3) and they are great cars but they might lose me on this one :\

In case anyone was wondering whether a lack of CarPlay/AA would prevent someone from buying a CX-5, the proof is right here in this post, and it's the reason why I keep trying to set the record straight on this whole CarPlay/AA thing with the CX-5. The whole 'people aren't going to not by a CX-5 due to a lack of CarPlay/AA' argument some people put forth is laughable. It's CLEARLY an important feature, let's not pretend like it's not. The numerous CarPlay/AA threads including one with over 300 replies is the proof in itself.

No one wants to be stuck with a crappy NAV system that will be outdated in a few years(I know I didn't).
 
Last edited:
Same year, same trim, same color, same mileage, yet a $4,000 difference between the 2:





I didn't even expect it to be that much difference but umm yeah...Argument done and over with.

Hey OP, if resale is important to you, the CRV is the better choice.
CX-5's aren't worth s*** for trade-in. My 2015 Touring AWD with 58K miles on it in great shape with 50%+ tread-life left was worth $13,600 on trade-in on a new Mazda when the dealer called ME and asked ME to come in for trade eval because they wanted some used CX-5's on the lot.
 
LMAO did Mazda ever even get live traffic for you 2016+ guys? Okay then...what you think's going to happen with AA...
 
LMAO did Mazda ever even get live traffic for you 2016+ guys? Okay then...what you think's going to happen with AA...

Except Mazda never said traffic was coming for the 2016+ CX5. It was seen in a brochure in the very beginning, Mazda then axed the connect services and that was the end of it. Mazda confirmed all that and never said they were going to add traffic back in. They have however, on a couple instances mentioned that AA is coming. Not to mention the breakdown on the firmware code and finding mentions of AA and Carplay code in there. It is coming. When? Who the hell knows. That's the problem.
 
LMAO did Mazda ever even get live traffic for you 2016+ guys? Okay then...what you think's going to happen with AA...
No, Mazda never did. Even after a couple of members here communicated with supposingly an internal guy "JP" from MNAO who promised they'd do something on it. In fact, our first batch 2016 CX-5 GT, assembled in Jan. 2015, has never offered "Live Traffic" feature in Nav system like the sales brochure clearly stated. Only some "historic data" been used, even that feature was gone after a short period of time! I was surprised it takes this long someone filed a class-action lawsuit as people are so lawsuit happy in this country!
 
Except Mazda never said traffic was coming for the 2016+ CX5. It was seen in a brochure in the very beginning, Mazda then axed the connect services and that was the end of it. Mazda confirmed all that and never said they were going to add traffic back in. They have however, on a couple instances mentioned that AA is coming. Not to mention the breakdown on the firmware code and finding mentions of AA and Carplay code in there. It is coming. When? Who the hell knows. That's the problem.
Actually Mazda still advertised "Live Traffic" in its 2016.5 CX-5 sales brochure just like 2016 CX-5:

Also enjoy access to standard USB audio input ports and an available factory-integrated navigation system with cutting-edge features such as voice command, real-time traffic alerts and advanced lane guidance.

Again, for 2016 CX-5 owners, we have never got true real-time traffic data, only the historical data. And that feature also stopped after a short period of time. If you saw my early post #16, an internal person "JP" had been communicating with bmninada and said they'd attempt to resolve the missing "Live Traffic" issue. But that's 16 months ago.

That's why I'm skeptical if ACP and AA would be available for CX-5 very soon!
 
I think someone mentioned a few weeks ago the interior noise is about the same in both vehicles.

Yep. That right here folks is a Fanboy.

CX-9
CX-5
Audi Q3
F-Pace
....
...
...
CR-V

this is the gap. its not first and second its first and eight.

CRV is 8th in the quietness ranking vs CX-5 which is 2nd or 1st if you only consider small crossovers.
 
Yep. That right here folks is a Fanboy.

CX-9
CX-5
Audi Q3
F-Pace
....
...
...
CR-V

this is the gap. its not first and second its first and eight.

CRV is 8th in the quietness ranking vs CX-5 which is 2nd or 1st if you only consider small crossovers.

Really? Hmm... I'll try it again during lunch at another dealership. I did remember when I first tested the Cx-5 in 2013 road noise was very noticeable.
When I tested the new CX-5 I was surprised with how quiet it was and I don't recall the CR-V being loud but I'll go check it out and report back. Might have to test the CX-5 again to see.


Price wise they are dead even. CX-5 has smaller discount but 1.9 financing. CR-V has about $1k more in discount but no special financing.
 
Price wise they are dead even. CX-5 has smaller discount but 1.9 financing. CR-V has about $1k more in discount but no special financing.
In our area 2017 Honda CR-V can be had for $30,000 on top-of-line FWD Touring with MSRP $33,435. Like you said, that's bigger discount on price than 2017 Mazda CX-5 GT with Premium Package.

Honda traditionally offers great interest rate at beginning of the summer for clearance sale; and Mazda normally has additional $500 cash back for Memorial Day holiday.
 
In our area 2017 Honda CR-V can be had for $30,000 on top-of-line FWD Touring with MSRP $33,435. Like you said, that's bigger discount on price than 2017 Mazda CX-5 GT with Premium Package.

Honda traditionally offers great interest rate at beginning of the summer for clearance sale; and Mazda normally has additional $500 cash back for Memorial Day holiday.

Wow good to know!
I think I qualify for a $500 credit for turning in my ole Mazda3
 
Mango, one flaw.

I have a 2014 that was made in Jan 2013, and bought in April 2013. Probably need to alter the comparison years when comparing a same year CR-V to CX-5 for value as the model years are probably different.

As for the other points, yes I see way more 20 year old Hondas on the road than 20 year old Mazdas. What does that prove? Let's look at Honda vs. Mazda marketshare...

And I did actually see a Protege the other day, I see plenty of NA Miatas now that summer is starting, etc.

As for comparing the CR-V to the CX-5, you are stuck on AA/CP and resale value. Fine. The AA/CP is a fair point. I don't care about either feature, but many do, so fair point. Resale value? Yeah maybe some people care as they switch cars every few years. They are both CUV's and their resale value is comparable enough to each other. Many, like me, buy the vehicle to hold one for a long time, so resale value is a moot point.

Put these aside, and drive both and CX-5 is the fun one to drive and looks way better, in my opinion. Seems many agree ;)
 
To mangoconchile. The more posts I read from you extolling the virtues of the Honda, the less I'm inclined to buy it.
You are really starting to get irritating. What exactly are you trying to prove, and who exactly are you trying to convince, other than yourself?
After some bad personal experiences with Honda, along with some real world (bad) experiences I can tell you about that my brother-in-law has had with his 2005 CRV and his 2006 Acura, I can tell you that you will never convince me to even set foot in a Honda dealership, let alone drive or own one.
I can also tell you first hand about a rather nasty experience a friend of mine had with her 2009 Acura RDX. She no longer has it, thankfully.
If you really love your Honda, then go hang out on a CRV forum site. I'm sure you'll be welcome there.

LOL I wouldn't let Mango get on your nerves. I like Honda, owned Hondas, would actually buy them in the future. Whats funny is Mango's blind love for his CRV makes him this trolling crusader that thinks the CRV is God's gift to mankind. Fact is Mango is far from a Honda expert. I mean when he comes bragging about tuning the CRV's turbo engine to add 40 or so HP and posting Fast and Furious photos I merely responded it would be foolish given Honda's base transmissions are notorious for being under spec'ed in relation to V6 engine HP output. Every Accord v6 owner knows and has experienced this. He responds by saying I'm questioning Honda's entire history reputation and engine-making prowess. Ummm yeah...awkwaaaard blind bias alert. A real Honda fan would point out both strengths and weaknesses as to provide people with real informed decisions. A real Honda fan like any other car make fan complains and praises certain aspects. Mango's level of CRV bias blurs the lines between just regular folks trying to share car buying/ownership experiences ...and a determined salesman bent on selling you something.
 
We eliminated the crv because of the noise factor.Test drove top of the line crv and cx5 no comparison.Cx5 won hands down.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
We eliminated the crv because of the noise factor.Test drove top of the line crv and cx5 no comparison.Cx5 won hands down.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

From ArsTechnica, the 2017 CX-5 is indeed quieter than the CR-V.

CX-5-NVH-graph.jpg
 
In case anyone was wondering whether a lack of CarPlay/AA would prevent someone from buying a CX-5, the proof is right here in this post, and it's the reason why I keep trying to set the record straight on this whole CarPlay/AA thing with the CX-5. The whole 'people aren't going to not by a CX-5 due to a lack of CarPlay/AA' argument some people put forth is laughable. It's CLEARLY an important feature, let's not pretend like it's not. The numerous CarPlay/AA threads including one with over 300 replies is the proof in itself.

No one said that "people aren't going to not buy a CX-5 because it doesn't have CP/AA" (if I'm wrong, please feel free to link to a specific post...).
People are motivated by different elements of a vehicle, and for some CP/AA will definitely be a major factor (it was for me, until I drove both and realized the CR-V wasn't for me). For those people, you're not saving them $30k by trolling... they can see for themselves that it's not here yet. And to close off this nonsense... no one has said they bought it because Jacob, a Mazda PR guy, said the feature was coming. No matter how you slice it, you're not telling people what's not already common knowledge.
 
As someone whose kicked the tires on these two cars for the last few weeks, I'm pretty sure they are both good cars.

My back of the hand math suggested that the CR-V would have better resale, maybe up to 10% better. I compared my CX-5 with a CR-V, same mileage on KBB.com. I don't think there's any doubt that in California a used Honda is more valuable than a used Mazda.

When I first test-drove the two I thought they were close enough regarding noise and handling. Yesterday, driving both on the same road, for at least the two cars I drove, they are not. The Honda was noticeably louder. The 2017 CX-5 handles a bit less well than my 2015 but it's still better than the Honda but handling isn't a deal breaker for me. The noise level is. But, even there, it's hard to be sure absent a test of some sort that I can't perform. I know the CX-5 is quieter, I just don't know how much. If you look at the auto decibel database, Mazda shaved 1.3 DB's off the 2017, and Honda made minor improvements on the CR-V, so they should be close, but that hasn't been my experience. The 2017 CX-5 is quieter but maybe others wouldn't notice it as much as I do.

Car Play is a real issue. I'd like to have it, but I don't now, and I survive. Also, GT vs EX-L, and maybe even Touring, the GT had the better sound. Again, could have been configuration issues. The entertainment system on the Honda definitely has a bit of lag.

CX-5 has a red and gray that top anything on the Honda lot, in my opinion. Honda has some interesting colors but they all scream dust to me and Honda has had paint problems in the past. I'm not sure they'll age well. But whose to say what that shiny red will look like in 5 years.

You won't go too wrong either way. The Honda is probably the safer choice in terms of a car buy but it's not like the Mazda is still owned by Ford.
 
Back