Two things holding me back

mangoconchile said:
As far as the comparison OP, the CX-5 is the better looking vehicle and according to reviews has best in class handling(I wouldn't know, I don't track my CRV) but outside of those 2 the CRV is better at pretty much everything else(fuel economy, cargo space, resale value, reliability, CarPlay/AA, etc...)
Click to expand...
17 Crv has new drivetrain. If it's going to be similar to 15&16 in reliability that's actually a point to mazda. Fuel economy is better only for certain driving style. City= CX 5>>CRV.
Also I will take a better driving car because that's the primary function of a car.
 
7eregrine said:
Again for the millionth time, resale value is on par with the CR-V... At least, according to Consumer Reports.
fcb744aa4eec004b35da1fca9b2dbd9e.jpg
Click to expand...

What does this prove exactly? That as a seller you can the same amount of money for your 2011 CRV as a 2013 CX-5? That in itself proves my resale argument. And don't think for a second that a 2017 CX-5 will command as much $$$ as a 2017 CRV in 5 years. There will probably be a 1-2k difference between the 2. Nice try though...
 
It's proves the CX-5 has better resale value. The 14-15s sell in the exact price range...but the CR-V has a higher sticker. There was no CX5in 11 or it would be there, too Nice. Try.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Kaps said:
17 Crv has new drivetrain. If it's going to be similar to 15&16 in reliability that's actually a point to mazda. Fuel economy is better only for certain driving style. City= CX 5>>CRV.
Also I will take a better driving car because that's the primary function of a car.
Click to expand...


Honestly these cars are too new to judge reliability, so I go by brand history. I still see plenty of late 90s CRV's/Accord/Civics on the road today 20 years later. In comparison, how many late 90s Proteges/323/626/B2000s do you see still see out on public roads? The majority of these vehicles are in junk yards. It's the primary reason why Honda/Toyota have class leading resale value, because people know these cars still run 20 years later.
 
Last edited:
mangoconchile said:
Honestly these cars are too new to judge reliability, so I go by brand history. I still see plenty of late 90s CRV's/Accord/Civics on the road today 20 years later. In comparison, how many late 90s Proteges/323/626/B2000s do you see still see out on public roads? The majority of these vehicles are in junk yards. It's the primary vehicle why Honda/Toyota have class leading resale value, because people know these cars still run 20 years later.
Click to expand...

Solid point. I haven't seen a protege on the road in several years... can't even remember the last time.
 
Not disagreeing but I don't see a lot of 20 yr old Civics or Accords either quite frankly.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
7eregrine said:
It's proves the CX-5 has better resale value. The 14-15s sell in the exact price range...but the CR-V has a higher sticker. There was no CX5in 11 or it would be there, too Nice. Try.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So your saying the CX-5 actually has BETTER resale value then the CRV? Can you explain to me this then?

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/best-retained-value-cars.html

The CRV had best in class re-sale value last year. BTW the Accord and Civic were also listed. It also won best in class residual value in 2015 and was an honorable mention in the years prior to that. So much for that argument eh?:)
 
Last edited:
This is the beginning of the CX-5's 4th model year. Do I really need to explain this? Wait 2-3 more years.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
7eregrine said:
This is the beginning of the CX-5's 4th model year. Do I really need to explain this? Wait 2-3 more years.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's not possible to sell a car after 1, 2, 3, or 4 years? The facts speak for themselves. If someone were to sell a 2016 CRV today, it would sell for more than your 2016 CX-5(assuming options/mileage are similar). Same goes for a 2015, 2014, 2013, etc... If you really think that in 10-15 years from now a 2013-2017 CX-5 is somehow going to 'catch up' to the CRV in residual value well I don't know what to tell you because the facts speak for themselves in the data.
 
rochrunner said:
I'm shopping compact SUVs although my purchase time frame is about 10 months away, and both the CX-5 and CR-V are on my short list. But the following two things would really hold me back on the CX-5 -- one important and the other less so.

1) Lack of Android Auto, although I keep hearing that it will get here and probably be retrofitted to existing '17 CX-5s.

2) We also have a 2015 Mazda 3 S-GT, which we really like. But from what I've seen of the CX-5 inside and outside, it would seem that we had two different versions of the same car: one low-slung and the other jacked up! Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I've always liked some variety in my vehicles. What's more, our 3 is in Solar Red and the CX-5 is always shown in a color that is very close to that. Two red sort-of-lookalike Mazdas in the same garage? Not sure if I could handle that. (rolleyes)
Click to expand...

1) If you go with the Mazda, don't buy it for what it could be / may be down the road, buy it for what it is. If you're happy with the car and can live without Android Auto then you will be a happy camper if / when it becomes available. If you can't live without it but you buy it anyways because it's supposed to be coming, then they turn around and announce that for whatever reason it's either no longer coming or not backwards compatible as you thought it would be you're going to be furious. Bottom line is it isn't for sure until it's released.

2) I also have a '17 Mazda 3 GT in Soul Red. Before that I had a '10 GT in Velocity Red. Our new CX-5 is white :) In all seriousness they are based on the same bones and they have the same guts but they are 2 different cars. Same DNA is definitely there, but we bought the CX-5 specifically for that reason (and because we liked it better than the competition).

If you're time frame is in 10 months you have a lot of time to narrow it down to 2 or 3 main competitors and go from there when the time comes. By the time you get there I imagine you'll have the chance to be looking at '17 clear outs or '18 new models.

Best of luck.
 
mangoconchile said:
Please don't ever buy a product based on an employee for a company telling you a feature for that product is coming. Wait for an official announcement. BTW the PR guy TOLD ONE WEBSITE it was coming, and ONLY ONCE. Never once did he ever repeat it.
Click to expand...

Mango, no one is buying the car just because the PR guy said it's coming. No one. So you can stop with your phantom warnings. We are hopeful and excited, but no one has ever said that they bought the car solely because Jacob said it's coming.
 
mangoconchile said:
So you're saying it's not possible to sell a car after 1, 2, 3, or 4 years? The facts speak for themselves. If someone were to sell a 2016 CRV today, it would sell for more than your 2016 CX-5(assuming options/mileage are similar). Same goes for a 2015, 2014, 2013, etc... If you really think that in 10-15 years from now a 2013-2017 CX-5 is somehow going to 'catch up' to the CRV in residual value well I don't know what to tell you because the facts speak for themselves in the data.
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying no car is going to be ranked as having great resale value after 3 years you need at least 5+ years to be even considered. Apparently I did need to explain it....

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
7eregrine said:
No. I'm saying no car is going to be ranked as having great resale value after 3 years you need at least 5+ years to be even considered. Apparently I did need to explain it....

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Again from years 2013 thru 2017, the CRV will have better resale value then a CX-5. But I'll play your game and lets pretend the year is 2022, will a 2013 CX-5 have better resale value then a CRV? No, and if your answer is 'Yes' then I would like to see some data to show how the CX-5 is going to magically catch up to the CRV is residual value seeing as how the current data shows the 2013-2017 CRV to be the best in class residual value.

joe6864 said:
Mango, no one is buying the car just because the PR guy said it's coming. No one. So you can stop with your phantom warnings. We are hopeful and excited, but no one has ever said that they bought the car solely because Jacob said it's coming.
Click to expand...

There are people that bought CX-5s because Mazda advertised 'Live traffic' and being included in their navigation and it never came, and now Mazda is being sued for it:

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...-says-traffic-alert-software-stopped-working/

So based on this, is it far fetched to believe there aren't people out there who might buy a CX-5 thinking CarPlay/AA is coming? Of course not, in fact there are many threads here from people stating the lack of CarPlay/AA is a major factor in preventing them from buying a CX-5. All I'm doing is trying to prevent people from buying a car based on a VERY IMPORTANT feature they think is coming when there is nothing on Mazdas website that it ever will. Nothing wrong with that, and many people here agree with me on that line of thinking.
 
They have the same resale value today. Same years, same prices. You are tiring to debate with...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
Last edited:
mangoconchile said:
There are people that bought CX-5s because Mazda advertised 'Live traffic' and being included in their navigation and it never came, and now Mazda is being sued for it
Click to expand...

Completely different situation (I'm sure you read the link you posted, right?). Live traffic worked at the start, then Mazda discontinued it. For those that purchased after it stopped working, Mazda didn't remove the feature from official marketing material.
Again, I'll state... no one here has ever said they bought the CX-5 because Jacob said AA/CP was coming.
 
Last edited:
rochrunner said:
I'm shopping compact SUVs although my purchase timeframe is about 10 months away, and both the CX-5 and CR-V are on my short list. But the following two things would really hold me back on the CX-5 -- one important and the other less so.

1) Lack of Android Auto, although I keep hearing that it will get here and probably be retrofitted to existing '17 CX-5s.

2) We also have a 2015 Mazda 3 S-GT, which we really like. But from what I've seen of the CX-5 inside and outside, it would seem that we had two different versions of the same car: one low-slung and the other jacked up! Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I've always liked some variety in my vehicles. What's more, our 3 is in Solar Red and the CX-5 is always shown in a color that is very close to that. Two red sort-of-lookalike Mazdas in the same garage? Not sure if I could handle that. (rolleyes)
Click to expand...

I might have a problem, but you can't have too much red in your garage now, can you?

f78d4d14ff46db7555c2b7c2bfc16414.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
joe6864 said:
Again, I'll state... no one here has ever said they bought the CX-5 because Jacob said AA/CP was coming.
Click to expand...


Did I say there was anyone who bought a CX-5 based on this CarPlay rumor? No. But clearly there are potential CX-5 buyers who think it's coming based on some posts/rumors they've seen here. And yes it's an important enough feature to sway someone to purchase one SUV over another. All I'm doing is trying to prevent people from spending $30k on a car that has a prominent feature that may never come. I can give you plenty of examples where companies promise a feature is coming only to screw their customers down the line. Case in point:


https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/20/11271306/microsoft-windows-10-mobile-upgrade-list
 
mangoconchile said:
All I'm doing is trying to prevent people from spending $30k on a car that has a prominent feature that may never come.
Click to expand...

Awww. He's just trying to help. Apparently we should thank him.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
2022 CX-5 with repeated dead battery
Replies
5
Views
2K
cz5gt
cz5gt
Y
CX-5 Headlight Stalk Choices
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
ruthrj
ruthrj
A
CX-5 Engine Cover Turbo Badges
Replies
10
Views
779
chickdr
C

Latest posts

Back