Objectively yes, the CRV has some better specs. But I can 100% assure you that doesn't equal a better driving car. I had the chance to drive a 16 Tucson this past weekend which, objectively out specs the CX5 in a few categories. CX5 still drove noticeably better. Now I haven't driven a 17 CRV, but my point is those numbers don't equal a better driving vehicle. I guarantee you the CX5 is loads more fun to drive than a CRV. In fact, it has been mentioned in a variety of articles the CX5 is still the top dog for a spirited driving machine.
An Interesting Opportunity to Compare
- Thread starter Studum
- Start date
Objectively yes, the CRV has some better specs. But I can 100% assure you that doesn't equal a better driving car. I had the chance to drive a 16 Tucson this past weekend which, objectively out specs the CX5 in a few categories. CX5 still drove noticeably better. Now I haven't driven a 17 CRV, but my point is those numbers don't equal a better driving vehicle. I guarantee you the CX5 is loads more fun to drive than a CRV. In fact, it has been mentioned in a variety of articles the CX5 is still the top dog for a spirited driving machine.
Thanks (2thumbs)
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Volvo XC90 Locking/unlocking from outside the vehicle
Keyless Passive Entry*
If the vehicle is equipped with this system, it is only necessary to have a remote key in your possession to operate the central locking system.
Models with Passive Entry have an indentation on the outside of the handle for locking the vehicle and a pressure-sensitive area on the inside of the handle for unlocking. The tailgate has a rubberized button used only for locking/unlocking.Outer indentation for locking, the pressure sensitive area on the inside of the handle is for unlocking
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Again, depends on what one's definition is of 'a better driving car'. I would think acceleration, braking and handling are all part of what makes a 'better driving car'. All 3 of these were tested, and the CRV came out on top. And sure numbers aren't everything, but they at least provide some substance to back up an argument as opposed to making blanket, cliche statements like 'its more fun to drive' or 'it puts a smile on my face' type stuff like some people here do. I drove a CX-5 for a week(2016.5) and it felt like every other SUV in this category, an economy car on stilts.
If you want to say the CX-5 is more 'fun' to drive or more 'stylish', I can accept that as something being fun and stylish are both subjective to each individual. However I don't think there is a debate as to which is the better OVERALL vehicle, and that would be the CRV. The only reason one would get a CX-5 is for it's looks and how 'fun' it is to them, that's about it.
Better overall to YOU. For what YOU want. For what YOU need. The rest of us here, the CX5 is the better OVERALL car. That's why we're here and why one sits in all our driveways. The end.
- :
- Denver, CO
This thread is not a CX-5 vs CR-V thread. At this point you are perpetuating a huge derailment Mango.
Every freaking person on this forum knows what you think of a CR-V vs a CX-5.
Give it a rest already. Every mention of a CR-V in a thread is not an invitation for you to completely derail it, talking about how much better your CR-V is.....on a freaking Mazda forum.
Give it a rest troll.
(deadhorse
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Every freaking person on this forum knows what you think of a CR-V vs a CX-5.
Give it a rest already. Every mention of a CR-V in a thread is not an invitation for you to completely derail it, talking about how much better your CR-V is.....on a freaking Mazda forum.
Give it a rest troll.
(deadhorse
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
'Drove like every other car in segment' that explains it!! You really don't get it. Maybe its the roads you drive, maybe its how you drive on those roads, maybe you don't know what a good driving car feels like, maybe you're sad with your choice and/or just full of s***, or maybe you simply don't care much and value rear seat and cargo space more- and that's fine. The infamous MT test you keep referencing until the ******* cows come home..you didn't buy your car based its glowing results because you already had it though, right? Have you seen CRs numbers? 54MPH emergency avoidance CX5 vs 52MPH CRV...133/144 60-0 dry/wet VS 137/146 in CRV. CR also prefers the CX5s headlights and ride comfort so this numbers don't lie, the competition is as good or better in every way possible now based on one MT test bulls*** is just that. Sorry OP/all now I'm done.
Last edited:
Not bad on the fuel economy and there's not much difference between Gen1 and Gen2, that's good.
On the throttle sensitivity, you're saying that your Mazda3, which is a 2017 model, doesn't have the same improved throttle sensitivity as in the 2017 CX-5?
Better driving car = car you would rather drive.
If you put a '17 CX-5 and a '17 CR-V in a person's driveway and ask which would you like to take out for a nice drive up the coast or a morning run through the mountains, the answer will tell you which one is a "better driving car".
The CR-V is the perfect example of a car designed by engineers and accountants who aren't car people. They aced the test, made their numbers, but produced something that has little appeal to anyone with a drip of testosterone in their body. I'm a left brain kind of guy, an engineer by education and profession. But I also have an eye for design, and was born with a bit of need for speed, which I've mainly satisfied through motorcycles. I used to really appreciate Honda's engineering and used to be a big fan of the company through the '80s and '90s. They were never a company to shoot for maximum horsepower, but they produced well balanced cars that were fun to drive on normal roads and they had simple, clean, functional designs of high quality.
Sadly, I think Honda has lost their way and is just coasting on their reputation. They badly need a new head of design, as their vehicles are getting uglier with every iteration. I used to point to GM as a company whose designers have no taste, but GM are merely bland. Honda has become ugly. The CR-V could have 300 horsepower, stop in under 100 ft, and lap faster than a Viper but I wouldn't be caught dead in that thing. Same for the Civic and Odyssey. The Ridgeline and Pilot are still tolerable except for the instrument cluster. The 2018 Accord is an improvement over the current model, but still suffers from incongruent design. All IMHO of course. In motorsports, they are a shadow of their former self, and an embarrassment in some series they used to dominate. I think if he were alive, Soichiro Honda would be appalled at what the company has become.
I've never really been a Mazda fanboy. I always thought they were a good engine company, but most of their mainstream cars have been forgettable. However, over the last decade or so Mazda has put some effort into making their cars fun and responsive to drive, and the CX-5 set a benchmark for handling and styling in the class that the other manufacturers are just catching up to. Now Mazda are setting a new benchmark for materials quality and NVH in the class. So for the same price you can buy an ugly, chrome and plasticky Honda like all those soccer moms and snively accountant-types want because it has more space and perceived reliability, or you can buy CX-5 and enjoy your ride so you don't have to troll competing car forums cherry-picking test results to validate your decision.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
It's funny to say Honda has lost it's way, when it still is innovating with cars like the Type R, which has more horsepower and better handling than anything in Mazda's lineup. The Civic is widely regarded as the best vehicle in it's class by automotive journalists, with multiple transmission/engine options. The new Accord boasts a 10 speed automatic transmission, along with a CVT and 6 speed manual, not to mention also comes with multiple engine choices including the same engine found in the Type R. Then there is a CRV, which is completely 100% new, and carries over nothing from the previous generation, but yet somehow they've lost their way. Seems to me like they're the ones innovating more than anyone else in this segment.
If anything, Mazda is the one getting by on rep. They've gotten rid of their Speed3 vehicles, softening the suspension of their newer vehicles to make them less sporty, no engine choices in the CX-5, CX-9 or Mazda6, no CarPlay, carrying over engines, transmission, platforms from 5 years ago etc...but yeah let's ignore all of that and bash the companies that are actually giving their customers options.
And design is all subjective, if Honda produced ugly cars people wouldn't be buying them, plain and simple. What I find fascinating though is how they're able to produce vehicles that have better performance then it's 'sportier' rivals, even when they're not even trying to out-do it's rivals in this area. They've always had a leg up vs the competition in terms of practicality(Cargo space, fuel economy) but now we're starting to see them not only catch up to it's rivals in terms of performance but surpass them.
If anything, Mazda is the one getting by on rep. They've gotten rid of their Speed3 vehicles, softening the suspension of their newer vehicles to make them less sporty, no engine choices in the CX-5, CX-9 or Mazda6, no CarPlay, carrying over engines, transmission, platforms from 5 years ago etc...but yeah let's ignore all of that and bash the companies that are actually giving their customers options.
And design is all subjective, if Honda produced ugly cars people wouldn't be buying them, plain and simple. What I find fascinating though is how they're able to produce vehicles that have better performance then it's 'sportier' rivals, even when they're not even trying to out-do it's rivals in this area. They've always had a leg up vs the competition in terms of practicality(Cargo space, fuel economy) but now we're starting to see them not only catch up to it's rivals in terms of performance but surpass them.
Last edited:
Mango sorry dude, but you are absolutely pathetic. You really are. To spend this much time in a CUV forum, yes a CUV forum of a car you don't even own. And to continue to whine about Mazda and praise your CRV and Honda. You really must have no life at all. I really wish you would answer as to why you spend so much time here?
- :
- Denver, CO
Seriously Mango, he's right. How pathetic is this?
Here's a broken record for you.
And another beating of a dead horse for good measure.
Splinter Cell
Member
- :
- Mazda CX-5 Platinum
Each time I see this B-pillar seatbelt trim cover, it reminds me Mazda doesn't pay attention to detail. This piece of trim cover seems not belonging to here with totally unmatched lines and curves to front door panel. I was amazed to see that the 2017 CX-5 inherited the same B-pillar trim cover which is still totally unmatched to the front door panel! This picture doesn't do the justice about how bad the trim cover is as it isn't a 3-D. Just sitting in the back seat looking at the trim cover and door panel by yourself!
View attachment 217138
IMHO, the position and shape of the cut-out area in the B-pillar trim cover exists to create additional clearance for your hand when reaching back to grab the seatbelt it has nothing to do with the matching the lines and curves of front door panel.
Splinter Cell
Member
- :
- Mazda CX-5 Platinum
Agreed – I think this takes away from what is generally a very useful forum. Personally, I find myself not coming on here as often as I would like because so many posts are corrupted by this irritation.
Dang I wish I had the power to clean up this thread.
Back to the relevant q's:
(dunno)..... if you don't want sporty behavior don't push the sport button???? (not directed at you, but the naysayers). I've played with it to compare to my 3. I actually missed my paddle shifters that I have in the 3 LOL.
All I can say is it's not everyone, but there are definitely some who just happen to be very vocal (and repetitive) where I do agree with your statement. You can hide people's posts and it helps to some extent, but they still find a way in to crap on your threads.
I for one love the intangibles and how they can make a car can be more pleasant/fun to drive than the sum of its parts assembled together.
Agreed - for what they are I'm impressed with the fuel economy. I think Mazda's hit a pretty good sweet spot in balance of power / responsiveness / fuel economy. The only spot where it kind of loses it's breath is higher up in the rev range when you're really wringing it out but it's manageable. That said I feel the power level is perfectly adequate to keep up with traffic and scoot when you need to. It has yet to disappoint us. IMO it's perfectly suited for economical DD duties.
Re: the throttle sensitivity:
Correct. It feels dumbed down a bit in my "3" - tuned more for efficiency I think. The CX-5 responds very quickly to throttle input to the point where it seamlessly downshifts before you even have to think about it needing to do so. The result is you're "in the power" quickly and smoothly when you need or want to be without having to think about it.
My Mazda3 will at times try to hold a gear longer than I would like it to if you're soft with your input or don't quite push it enough. It's just enough that you have to think to yourself to give it a bit more to kick it down, whereas the CX-5 has already done it. The CX-5 base tuning feels like a happy medium between my 3's normal and sport modes - where sport mode is really fun in the twisties but you don't want to drive with the higher revs all the time. If my 3 had the throttle mapping/tuning of the CX-5 I'd be in pure heaven. Well, close to it anyways... what I really wanted was a 6 wagon that isn't available here (rant).
That said you do learn how it behaves, it just took a little while to really pick up on it's personality. I'm now aware of how much I have to goose it or not goose it depending on what I want it to do in the 3. Of course I can always (and do) flip the paddle myself to prep for a situation in my 3 if I so desire then flip it right back to auto without touching the gear leaver. For instance - pacing a car preparing to pass on a 2 lane road, can bring it down in gear so it's in the meat of the power band and ready to go without a moment's hesitation when the oncoming traffic is clear (like a manual). Or approaching a corner I want to play in: flip it down to hold a gear while entering / pulling out and put it back in auto when back to normal. In that regard my 3 is a blast to drive on my long commute.
Also note the Mazda 3 is quicker as it's got less weight and a lower center of gravity... the gen 2 CX-5 just has a very "intuitive" throttle tuning. Not sure that's the right word, but you know what I mean... (I think??? (freak))
The Gen 2 is fine. No major complaints. The Gen 2 is just noticeably better - coming from someone who "likes" to drive.
Back to the relevant q's:
(dunno)..... if you don't want sporty behavior don't push the sport button???? (not directed at you, but the naysayers). I've played with it to compare to my 3. I actually missed my paddle shifters that I have in the 3 LOL.
All I can say is it's not everyone, but there are definitely some who just happen to be very vocal (and repetitive) where I do agree with your statement. You can hide people's posts and it helps to some extent, but they still find a way in to crap on your threads.
I for one love the intangibles and how they can make a car can be more pleasant/fun to drive than the sum of its parts assembled together.
Agreed - for what they are I'm impressed with the fuel economy. I think Mazda's hit a pretty good sweet spot in balance of power / responsiveness / fuel economy. The only spot where it kind of loses it's breath is higher up in the rev range when you're really wringing it out but it's manageable. That said I feel the power level is perfectly adequate to keep up with traffic and scoot when you need to. It has yet to disappoint us. IMO it's perfectly suited for economical DD duties.
Re: the throttle sensitivity:
Correct. It feels dumbed down a bit in my "3" - tuned more for efficiency I think. The CX-5 responds very quickly to throttle input to the point where it seamlessly downshifts before you even have to think about it needing to do so. The result is you're "in the power" quickly and smoothly when you need or want to be without having to think about it.
My Mazda3 will at times try to hold a gear longer than I would like it to if you're soft with your input or don't quite push it enough. It's just enough that you have to think to yourself to give it a bit more to kick it down, whereas the CX-5 has already done it. The CX-5 base tuning feels like a happy medium between my 3's normal and sport modes - where sport mode is really fun in the twisties but you don't want to drive with the higher revs all the time. If my 3 had the throttle mapping/tuning of the CX-5 I'd be in pure heaven. Well, close to it anyways... what I really wanted was a 6 wagon that isn't available here (rant).
That said you do learn how it behaves, it just took a little while to really pick up on it's personality. I'm now aware of how much I have to goose it or not goose it depending on what I want it to do in the 3. Of course I can always (and do) flip the paddle myself to prep for a situation in my 3 if I so desire then flip it right back to auto without touching the gear leaver. For instance - pacing a car preparing to pass on a 2 lane road, can bring it down in gear so it's in the meat of the power band and ready to go without a moment's hesitation when the oncoming traffic is clear (like a manual). Or approaching a corner I want to play in: flip it down to hold a gear while entering / pulling out and put it back in auto when back to normal. In that regard my 3 is a blast to drive on my long commute.
Also note the Mazda 3 is quicker as it's got less weight and a lower center of gravity... the gen 2 CX-5 just has a very "intuitive" throttle tuning. Not sure that's the right word, but you know what I mean... (I think??? (freak))
The Gen 2 is fine. No major complaints. The Gen 2 is just noticeably better - coming from someone who "likes" to drive.
This post could have been written by me, except for the part about riding motorcycles. I currently drive a 2000 Acura TL, but Honda really doesn't do it for me anymore. They seem to be competing with Toyota for visual noise, something that Mazda actively designs out of their cars.
