An Interesting Opportunity to Compare

I don't pay for consumer reports but from what I have read here on this site, that site is a joke. So anyway, I'll provide a link to factual, objective data for you. http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/cr-v/2017/2017-honda-cr-v-vs-2017-mazda-cx-5-comparison-review/

I am a big fan of the CX5, but the 17 CRV brakes better, accelerates quicker, achieves better fuel economy, better quality ride, and a Honda will always have better resale than a Mazda.

The Mazda still out handles the CRV and makes the CRV look like a turd. Mazda made a lot of improvements over gen 1. Very exciting to see. But what I said in my initial post remains true with regards to them being behind the times. They did what they should of done with the 16 in the 17. Now once again, they trail behind in certain areas it actually once led in. I'm not worried. Mazda does some awesome things and I know they will improve once again. They have to. A small company needs to stay ahead of the times in order to attract potential customers. That's why I got my CX5. Ahead of the pack handling, AWD system, and damn good looks!

Consumer reports is all about the numbers and reliability. They don't car much about anything else per se. But their numbers are their numbers and they don't take any ad money - unlike the other "mags".

With that said, Honda's 1.5T is a fantastic engine. Just tremendous. And their CVT is very good as well. You would not know it is a CV-T until you really push it. Their new 2.0T is going to be amazing as well. Mazda needs to bring a 2.0T to market as well.
 
Last edited:
You can nit-pick lots of things on lots of cars. The 2017 CX-5 feels substantially better than my 2014 GT.

When driving, the new CX-5 does not feel much different than the new CR-V. The two things you will notice is that the CR-V feels much bigger and drives accordingly. The CX-5 feels small and sporty, almost like a GTI (and no, I am not saying it handles like a GTI!).

I had a '14 as well and completely agree. The crazy thing is that MSRP on my loaded '17 GT was only about $1500 more than my loaded '14 GT even with all the additional features and improvements.
 
You guys are making me appreciate the Volvo. It's not touch to open, it's definitely pull. So then yours don't work if your wearing gloves? I can't Imagine that's correct?!? They have to.
Volvo also has 4 down windows via remote. Another feature I thought was super cool...never use. LOL

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
1szlz2.jpg


:D
 
I don't think there's a touch sensor, dimcorner. You just need the fob nearby.
If there's no touch sensor build into the back of the handle, how does the vehicle know there's a person with a legit remote key fob who wants to unlock the door and open it without pushing the button on the key fob? You unlock and open the door in one single action by pulling the handle! The build-in touch sensor in the handle basically replaces the mechanical rubber button switch on our CX-5.
 
Consumer reports is all about the numbers and reliability. They don't car much about anything else per se. But their numbers are their numbers and they don't take any ad money - unlike the other "mags".

With that said, Honda's 1.5T is a fantastic engine. Just tremendous. And their CVT is very good as well. You would not know it is a CV-T until you really push it. Their new 2.0T is going to be amazing as well. Mazda needs to bring a 2.0T to market as well.

Correct me if I am wrong but they don't differentiate issues by their severity. Meaning a window issue according to CR would knock down the ratings of a car just as much as transmission issue. Yet a transmission issue is much more concerning than a window issue. Which is why I have heard CR isn't reliable.

But yeah, bring the 2.0T to the CX5. That with the driving dynamics of the CX5 would be lovely.
 
Care to expand on WHY you think "That engine is the joke"?

I have before,along with a few others...

Simply,I prefer engines with spark plugs. Also prefer FI too (work with turbines on the daily)

Glad to see Wankel in the group though, I have one on a go kart that's basically untouchable on the track,well besides the other one with a CRF450r...

They're bringing the diesel here,leave the rest alone...
 
Also, let MBenz,GM,and VW bring that HCCI to the table first. I guess Maybe Mazda thinks being first will be the golden ticket to propel their little car company. I say it won't...
 
^^Consider me unconvinced:) As for discrepancies in testing numbers I think one conclusion we can safely draw is the touring makes for a more 'sprightly' set up. Why? Less weight where you really don't want it. I experienced this first hand on my '14 by fitting heavier slightly wider Scorpion Verde AS plus tires..3.xx lbs heavier (per TR didn't actually verify myself)...but a pretty small percentage weight gain per corner-> YUGE (bad) difference. Gave them back on plus program for oe sized, very near oe weight P7s which I honestly don't like either but are definitely less bad for the CX5 in that at least it doesn't feel like I've dropped anchor anymore. Did I mention I always felt 18s were the right size for the CX5? 235/60-18 I just never ended up doing it.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I am wrong but they don't differentiate issues by their severity. Meaning a window issue according to CR would knock down the ratings of a car just as much as transmission issue. Yet a transmission issue is much more concerning than a window issue. Which is why I have heard CR isn't reliable.
Actually Consumer Reports have lost their credibility by putting out false information on Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu Trooper during their rollover tests a while ago. Their contradictory recommendations on cars such as VW Rabbit was also a joke. But I do check their reliability stats on cars whenever I have a need.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but they don't differentiate issues by their severity. Meaning a window issue according to CR would knock down the ratings of a car just as much as transmission issue. Yet a transmission issue is much more concerning than a window issue. Which is why I have heard CR isn't reliable.

But yeah, bring the 2.0T to the CX5. That with the driving dynamics of the CX5 would be lovely.

Not fully sure but I do think they put a huge emphasis on reliability and cost of maintenance and repair. They were formed by people from the CPSC so they are primarily about safety.

And I agree. I would love to see that Honda 1.5T or even the 2.0T in the CX-5. It felt fantastic in the Honda Civic Hatch!
 
CRV is about what the gen 1 CX5 is. A second quicker than the 17 CX5. Now, these are CUV numbers we're talking about here so really it doesn't matter too much, but it still doesn't change the fact that the 17 is slower than gen 1. By much, no. But slower nonetheless. I think what's interesting is how much more spacious the CRV is, meanwhile still being lighter, faster, and achieves better fuel economy. My main thing is I just hope Mazda sees this and really improves the upcoming years. Give us that better fuel economy while optimizing power. You like to call it an evolution the 17 CX5, but to be evolutionary, it needs to deliver and improve on the basics. Not adding techy items to cover up the basics of a vehicle that got worse.

MT posted their "real world data" and the CRV does in fact beat out the CX5. So, I think you're wrong and there is no need to wait anymore. It gets better gas mileage. We could argue how accurate their testing is but they still use the same standards for testing each vehicle. Which also to note, the 16 CX5 achieved an average 3mpg better than the 17 in overall mpg.


0-60 times are the roughly the same in gen 1 and gen 2 CX5 as would be expected because they have the same engine and transmission with a few tweaks on the '17. There is no "one second" difference that you mention. Car & Driver tested the '17 again last month and got 7.8 seconds in the FWD and everyone says the AWD should be faster as has already been discussed here. When they tested the '16 they got 7.7 seconds. The CRV did get 7.6 seconds. For all practical purposes, performance-wise, all 3 vehicles perform nearly identical. Maybe you should actually drive a '17 before you decide all they did was add "techy items" to cover up a vehicle that got worse, lol. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, the MSRP increased $40 from a loaded '16 to loaded '17. Not bad considering all that was added.


C/D TEST RESULTS: 2016 CX5, 2017 CX5, 2017 CRV

Zero to 60 mph: 7.7 sec, 7.8 sec, 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.0 sec, 23.8 sec, 21.5 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 31.0 sec, 32.5 sec, 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.0 sec, 7.9 sec, 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec, 3.8 sec, 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 sec, 5.3 sec, 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 16.0 sec @ 86 mph, 16.2 sec @ 86 mph, 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 120 mph, 130 mph, 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft, 177 ft, 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.81 g, 0.82 g, 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:

EPA city/highway driving: 24/30 mpg, 24/31 mpg, 27/33 mpg
C/D observed: 23 mpg, 32 mpg, 25 mpg
 
If there's no touch sensor build into the back of the handle, how does the vehicle know there's a person with a legit remote key fob who wants to unlock the door and open it without pushing the button on the key fob? You unlock and open the door in one single action by pulling the handle! The build-in touch sensor in the handle basically replaces the mechanical rubber button switch on our CX-5.
941c493abf6ba4d140fa493ab7b46c09.gif


It's really quite simple yrwei: You pull on the door handle, the cars asks "is the fob nearby", fob checks in "here I am" and the car says "Ok door, open". Seriously. This is how mine works. When you first tug on the handle you can hear it hesitate for like a micro second ("Are you there, fob?") and then it releases the lock. Volvo, man. Volvo don't **** around. ;)
 
Last edited:
Geeze, can this please not turn into another CX-5 vs the world thread?

It was meant as an opinion and extended comparison between gen 1 and 2, and to a further extent my Mazda3.

Isn't there a CX-5 vs CRV thread already that those preachers can hang out in? I have no interest in that fight, my money has already been (well) spent.
 
Back