Questions after test driving 2017 CX-5 and CRV

F

fivetiger

Member
:
2004 Mazda3 S 4 door
I've narrowed my search down to either a CX-5 or a CRV. After test driving them on the same day, I still have some questions. I drove the mid-trim levels of both cars.

1) When test driving on the highway, passing other cars seemed easier in the CX-5. Is it possible that the CX-5 has better acceleration? It doesn't have a turbo like the CRV. Did it just "feel" like I was moving faster (more resistance, engine noise, etc)?

2) The CRV uses a CVT, which are reported to make a droning sound. I noted none of that, and in fact, it was the CX-5 that had a higher pitched whining sound in the background both at startup and while accelerating. My 2004 Mazda3 doesn't make that sound. Is that normal for the CX-5?

3) I'm a little worried about the leg room in the back seats. My kids are 6 and 8 now, so could be 16 and 18 by the time I'm done with this car. Their legs are already cramped in my Mazda3. The CRV seemed to have more leg room, but it definitely has a lot more room in the way back, and has the same exterior length...so it can't be bigger everywhere, right? Did I just imagine that the CX-5 seemed a little cramped?
 
To answer your questions:

1) Feel I think is just down to the different engine/tranny. CX-5 has a 6-speed auto with 2.5L NA engine. The CR-V on the other hand is a CVT with 1.5L Turbo. The CVT probably affects how it "feels" the most and that's what you are noticing when accelerating.

2) On startup with the CX-5, the engine revs up faster than normal as part of the warm up sequence and then it quiets back down. Is this what you are referring to? As for the acceleration part, mine doesn't whine at all. Only time it might approach anything that might be construed as whining is going up a hill, punching it, and getting close to the red-line before the gear shift. But even then, I wouldn't call mine a whine.

3) CR-V has more cargo space, sure. How much of that functionally affects your day to day is debatable. Packed floor to ceiling, then yes, more space. I'm unsure of the backseat space. I'd imagine that as an adult, maybe you should get in the backseat of both and see? May be a better indication on space than having the 6 and 8 year old back there and "estimating".
 
Last edited:
When I test drove them both I thought the CR-V was a bit faster but it wasn't a huge difference. The CX-5, for me, doesn't really have any problems at 65 or at low speeds, it's in-between that it can be a bit tough. For example, merging on the freeway.

I thought the CR-V was louder, both in terms of road noise and when the turbo kicked in. I also thought the CVT was really smooth and I didn't notice any lag or excessive noise at idle. Keep in mind that the CX-5 goes through a warm-up cycle that takes about 30 seconds, longer when it's new, so the engine does run louder at first. If you listened to it at a stop-light, you'd probably notice almost no sound at all. It's almost hybrid like at idle, or at least my 2015 is.

I can't speak to rear leg-room, I never sit back there. But, the driving position of the 2017 CX-5 is more cramped than my 2015 or the CR-V because the center console is angled. On the other hand, it has more vertical room than the CR-V. Honda's are not made for a long torso.
 
Last edited:
1 was always going to be true. Even without test driving crv i can say that. Few others have pointed exactly the same. If you are planning to drive just on paper- go with CRV (since it looks better on paper) but when you pump the throttle, only one of them wakes up sooner.
2 CX5 will let you hear it when you push it. But steady driving its way quieter than CRV. I would think 2-3 thousand dollars worth of noise deadning on CRV might make both equal. Basically you have to strip it down and add sound proofing to 60% of the structure. CX5 is quiter than Audi Q3, Jaguar F-PACE.
 
The CRV will walk your dog, do your dishes and mow your lawn. All while you're stuck at work.

If that matters to you, go CRV.

(lol2)
 
dyingquail said:
When I test drove them both I thought the CR-V was a bit faster but it wasn't a huge difference. The CX-5, for me, doesn't really have any problems at 65 or at low speeds, it's in-between that it can be a bit tough. For example, merging on the freeway.

I thought the CR-V was louder, both in terms of road noise and when the turbo kicked in. I also thought the CVT was really smooth and I didn't notice any lag or excessive noise at idle. Keep in mind that the CX-5 goes through a warm-up cycle that takes about 30 seconds, longer when it's new, so the engine does run louder at first. If you listened to it at a stop-light, you'd probably notice almost no sound at all. It's almost hybrid like at idle, or at least my 2015 is.

I can't speak to rear leg-room, I never sit back there. But, the driving position of the 2017 CX-5 is more cramped than my 2015 or the CR-V because the center console is angled. On the other hand, it has more vertical room than the CR-V. Honda's are not made for a long torso.
Click to expand...

My 2014 is like this as well.
 
I considered both cars too. I didn't notice much difference between the two cars in acceleration, the CRV seemed slightly faster to me. On the highway the CX-5's automatic transmission will downshift when you hit the accelerator hard whereas the CVT will simply continue to keep the engine in its highest torque range. Maybe the downshift and resulting dramatic increase in RPM makes it seem like acceleration is higher. In actual fact they're pretty close with the edge going to the CRV.
The CRV's CVT is very well implemented. There was no droning that I noticed, and Honda has programmed the CVT to produce little pseudo stepped shifts to make it sound and feel more like an automatic (which I think is idiotic because it reduced efficiency).

The CX-5 does have some drivetrain noise, the valves and injectors have a bit of a tick and whine to them. Engine noise wise, the Honda seemed to me much louder under hard acceleration, the CX-5 slightly louder under mild acceleration. The CX5 is a quieter car overall though.

The Honda has more rear seat leg room, but IMO the CX-5 has sufficient leg room. Unless you expect your kids to be over 6'2" I think the CX-5 will be OK.
The Honda has more room, the cargo compartment is longer with the seat up and much taller, especially if you drop the floor into it's lower position. With the rear seats down the length and width of the cargo areas are similar, but the Honda still has more height. Honda made better use of the car's dimensions regarding interior space, the hood on the CX5 is longer and the Honda's slightly taller.
 
fivetiger said:
3) I'm a little worried about the leg room in the back seats. My kids are 6 and 8 now, so could be 16 and 18 by the time I'm done with this car. Their legs are already cramped in my Mazda3. The CRV seemed to have more leg room, but it definitely has a lot more room in the way back, and has the same exterior length...so it can't be bigger everywhere, right? Did I just imagine that the CX-5 seemed a little cramped?
Click to expand...

I also recently test drove a 2017 CR-V EX-L FWD and 2017 CX-5 GT FWD. In terms of rear & cargo space, there is no comparison between the two. It's not even close.

CR-V's rear leg room and overall rear space is the best in its class and more comparable to Pilot which is a mid-size SUV (although width is better on Pilot by its exterior size).
 
fivetiger said:
I've narrowed my search down to either a CX-5 or a CRV. After test driving them on the same day, I still have some questions. I drove the mid-trim levels of both cars.

1) When test driving on the highway, passing other cars seemed easier in the CX-5. Is it possible that the CX-5 has better acceleration? It doesn't have a turbo like the CRV. Did it just "feel" like I was moving faster (more resistance, engine noise, etc)?

2) The CRV uses a CVT, which are reported to make a droning sound. I noted none of that, and in fact, it was the CX-5 that had a higher pitched whining sound in the background both at startup and while accelerating. My 2004 Mazda3 doesn't make that sound. Is that normal for the CX-5?

3) I'm a little worried about the leg room in the back seats. My kids are 6 and 8 now, so could be 16 and 18 by the time I'm done with this car. Their legs are already cramped in my Mazda3. The CRV seemed to have more leg room, but it definitely has a lot more room in the way back, and has the same exterior length...so it can't be bigger everywhere, right? Did I just imagine that the CX-5 seemed a little cramped?
Click to expand...



1)The CRV is the faster vehicle(with better fuel economy too). There is also an ECO mode in the CRV. Did you make sure it was disabled? When it is enabled, it cuts some of the power to increase fuel economy.

2)The CVT in the CRV(along with the CVT in the Forester) are among the best in the business. Can't comment on the noise in the CX-5(I haven't driven on in a while), but the 'droning' noise you're referring to is usually found on vehicles with crappy CVTs like Nissans. The engine in the CRV can get a little noisy if you really floor it but since most of it's torque is delivered in the lower RPM range there is never really a need to floor it to get to speed.

3)CRV has more rear leg room and more cargo space available than the CX-5.

Here is an excellent comparison between the 2:

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/cr-v/2017/2017-honda-cr-v-vs-2017-mazda-cx-5-comparison-review/
 
Leg room is great in my cx5 my 2 friends road in the back and both are in there mid 20s around 5'10 and they don't mind it at all.
 
Drove both and I have a 4 year old and a rear facing about the be 2 year old.

1. CR-V is possibly a little faster on paper but feel wise it about the same. I did notice it was louder when on highway and when accelerating hard.
2. Rear leg room is about .5 to 1 inch more. I test fitted the rear facing car seat on both. Once front facing it's not a biggie. Seats on CX-5 feel a little narrower and the center stack is wider. Hated the volume control on the CR-V steering wheel.
3. Cargo is better on the CR-V since it does have a lower load floor and i believe there is no hump or very little on 2nd row middle floor. It does carry more but I think most is made up vertically. I do think that the CX-5 has more width and about the same depth in the cargo space.

I traded in my Mazda3 and picked the CX-5 mainly because it was quieter, more upscale feeling, and cheaper than the CR-V. Definitely way more room in the back seat than the Mazda3
 
fivetiger said:
I've narrowed my search down to either a CX-5 or a CRV. After test driving them on the same day, I still have some questions. I drove the mid-trim levels of both cars.

1) When test driving on the highway, passing other cars seemed easier in the CX-5. Is it possible that the CX-5 has better acceleration? It doesn't have a turbo like the CRV. Did it just "feel" like I was moving faster (more resistance, engine noise, etc)?
Feel doesn't relate to actual real-world. I've had sports cars that felt stoopid fast, and were actually total turds. I've also had cars that didn't feel that fast on the freeway, but you look down and the needle is blurring past 140.
2) The CRV uses a CVT, which are reported to make a droning sound. I noted none of that, and in fact, it was the CX-5 that had a higher pitched whining sound in the background both at startup and while accelerating. My 2004 Mazda3 doesn't make that sound. Is that normal for the CX-5?
Some of them, I think. CVT's are great. I dunno what people here are complaining about honestly. I hate conventional transmissions because they are built around slip and friction, CVT's have evolved past that for the most part and offer better performance and economy.
3) I'm a little worried about the leg room in the back seats. My kids are 6 and 8 now, so could be 16 and 18 by the time I'm done with this car. Their legs are already cramped in my Mazda3. The CRV seemed to have more leg room, but it definitely has a lot more room in the way back, and has the same exterior length...so it can't be bigger everywhere, right? Did I just imagine that the CX-5 seemed a little cramped?
Click to expand...
Depends on how you adjust the seats honestly. No CUV is going to be fun with 3-4 adults in it, but all CUV's will function like that just fine. You sound like maybe a 4 Runner or Highlander would be a better option due to your family size.
 
Dimcorner said:
I traded in my Mazda3 and picked the CX-5 mainly because it was quieter, more upscale feeling, and cheaper than the CR-V. Definitely way more room in the back seat than the Mazda3
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on this aspect. OP if you are going to have your family in this 90% of the time - you may go with CRV if you can get past the looks. Typically people just can't look at this in their drive way and move on.
Our test drive included Tucson / Rogue / CX5 - with Rav4 being the default fall back option. Honda has dropped the ball on design. For me, its not that their cars look bad, its as if they went out of the way to make their cars even more ugly. Accord and Pilot are the only exception because they are plain vanilla looking.
But if you drive it as a 2nd car - daily driver with family in it on weekends / short trips the CX5 makes a good case.
 
fivetiger said:
I've narrowed my search down to either a CX-5 or a CRV. After test driving them on the same day, I still have some questions. I drove the mid-trim levels of both cars.

1) When test driving on the highway, passing other cars seemed easier in the CX-5. Is it possible that the CX-5 has better acceleration? It doesn't have a turbo like the CRV. Did it just "feel" like I was moving faster (more resistance, engine noise, etc)?
Click to expand...
Based on the tests I've seen, the 2017 CRV is only slightly quicker than the CX-5. The difference in times might not even be noticeable in everyday driving. What you're most likely feeling is the sensation of being pushed back to the seat a little when the CX-5 downshifts quickly to accelerate and pass. While I haven't driven the 2017 CR-V, my guess is you will not get this same feeling because of the CVT.

fivetiger said:
2) The CRV uses a CVT, which are reported to make a droning sound. I noted none of that, and in fact, it was the CX-5 that had a higher pitched whining sound in the background both at startup and while accelerating. My 2004 Mazda3 doesn't make that sound. Is that normal for the CX-5?
Click to expand...
The high pitched whine at startup is the engine trying to warm up the catalytic converter. It is mainly noticeable with SkyActiv engines, though my Speed3 does the same, except it doesn't sound high pitched.

I'm not sure what you mean by high pitch whine when accelerating. The CX-5 does allow you to hear the intake induction sound when you're accelerating briskly. It is more of a growl in my opinion and I love hearing it in a CUV.


fivetiger said:
3) I'm a little worried about the leg room in the back seats. My kids are 6 and 8 now, so could be 16 and 18 by the time I'm done with this car. Their legs are already cramped in my Mazda3. The CRV seemed to have more leg room, but it definitely has a lot more room in the way back, and has the same exterior length...so it can't be bigger everywhere, right? Did I just imagine that the CX-5 seemed a little cramped?
Click to expand...
The Honda CR-V is more roomier than the CX-5. That's just by design. Honda prioritizes cargo space and interior room a lot more than Mazda does. Consequentially, this is also what makes the CR-V ugly imo. Anyway, I find the back seats and leg room quite comfortable and roomy enough in the CX-5. If you are really tall though and you foresee your kids being tall, then yes the CR-V will be better, or you might even skip that and get a 3 row SUV.
 
Kaps said:
You hit the nail on this aspect. OP if you are going to have your family in this 90% of the time - you may go with CRV if you can get past the looks. Typically people just can't look at this in their drive way and move on.
Click to expand...

It's not that bad. It's just a crossover. We got a lot of personalities in this segment across the brands. I do think the new CX-5 is better but I like the older version better than the 2017.

Also, the HR-V looks a lot like the CX-5 from some angles.
 
I drove both. Actually a 16 CX5 versus the 17 Honda. You're not imaging it...the CX-5 feels quicker though that could be my inexperience with CVTs. Also have 6 year old and I've had 5 people in my car many times, with the boy. We fit fine. I move my seat up a bit. I don't have to have it all the way back, I just prefer to when I'm alone.
 
In my opinion the interior design of the CX5 and the driving experience of the CX5 are what seperates the two.

The CRV, while competent, is just too plain vanilla to me. The CX5 actually has some spunk to its steering, throttle response, and overall handling. The CRV just feels like an appliance that happens to move people, albiet efficiently.

To me, to steal a phrase from Mazda, "Driving Matters", so it was my choice.
 
As for some that say the CR-V is much faster than CX-5 that is not true. Depending on your initial reaction at take off and other variables, one or the other could get over the line quicker than the other.

The CR-V is not superior in acceleration in any way. They are both not sports cars.

The new CR-V has finally arrived in Aus and here some of the initial review / comments on the engine and drivetrain:


Outputs are good for the class despite the small capacity, reported as 140kW at 5600rpm and 240Nm between 2000 and 5000rpm. Many rivals use a comparatively anaemic engine at base level, but the CR-V offers this unit across the board. Diesel option? Nope.
Claimed fuel consumption is a middling 7.0-7.4L/100km, though on our test we hovered around 9.0L/100km. The 0-100km/h time is 9.9 seconds, for anyone who cares.

Source: http://www.caradvice.com.au/570061/2018-honda-cr-v-review/


The engine is more than adequate for the task of a suburban family runabout. It won't win any green light grands prix, as there's a degree of initial lag away from a standstill while the turbo builds up boost and the CVT engages the right ratio according the driver's input. But, once on the move, it is nice and quiet at leisurely speeds and has a decent spread of mid-range torque to keep momentum flowing out on the open road.
The CVT has the elastic qualities that are typical of its type, flaring under heavy acceleration and lacking the instant response of a fixed-gear transmission, but it won't matter to most that simply want to drop it into D for drive and leave it to its own devices.

Source: http://www.drive.com.au/new-car-rev...170726-gxjhpf.html?trackLink=articleResults10


I think it will come down to feel and which drivetrain you prefer. Turbo + CVT or NA + Torque converter.
 
m8te said:
As for some that say the CR-V is much faster than CX-5 that is not true. Depending on your initial reaction at take off and other variables, one or the other could get over the line quicker than the other.

The CR-V is not superior in acceleration in any way. They are both not sports cars.

The new CR-V has finally arrived in Aus and here some of the initial review / comments on the engine and drivetrain:


Outputs are good for the class despite the small capacity, reported as 140kW at 5600rpm and 240Nm between 2000 and 5000rpm. Many rivals use a comparatively anaemic engine at base level, but the CR-V offers this unit across the board. Diesel option? Nope.
Claimed fuel consumption is a middling 7.0-7.4L/100km, though on our test we hovered around 9.0L/100km. The 0-100km/h time is 9.9 seconds, for anyone who cares.

Source: http://www.caradvice.com.au/570061/2018-honda-cr-v-review/


The engine is more than adequate for the task of a suburban family runabout. It won't win any green light grands prix, as there's a degree of initial lag away from a standstill while the turbo builds up boost and the CVT engages the right ratio according the driver's input. But, once on the move, it is nice and quiet at leisurely speeds and has a decent spread of mid-range torque to keep momentum flowing out on the open road.
The CVT has the elastic qualities that are typical of its type, flaring under heavy acceleration and lacking the instant response of a fixed-gear transmission, but it won't matter to most that simply want to drop it into D for drive and leave it to its own devices.

Source: http://www.drive.com.au/new-car-rev...170726-gxjhpf.html?trackLink=articleResults10


I think it will come down to feel and which drivetrain you prefer. Turbo + CVT or NA + Torque converter.
Click to expand...


No one is saying it is MUCH faster than the CX-5, but it is faster, lighter, has better stopping power and faster around a track(if that matters at all) than a CX-5. In addition to it's much improved performance over the previous generation CRV, it offers more cargo space, lots of rear leg room, better fuel economy, Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, Turbo engine, better residual value...plus it's a Honda so you know reliability will be top notch. This 2017 CRV has a good chance of being MotorTrend's SUV of the year, much like the 2015 CRV was. OP, IMO you only get the CX-5 if you like it's styling and care about NVH levels. Best option if you can wait is to wait for both models to show up on Turo and rent each one for a weekend.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
    • Like
    • Sad
Mazda CX-5 comparison test drives
2 3
Replies
48
Views
7K
Chocolate
Chocolate
S
2024 Test Drive: CX-5, Outback and Forester
Replies
3
Views
657
yrwei52
yrwei52
R
  • Question
New CX-5 Pre Test Drive Question
Replies
3
Views
585
Bulldog Dad
B

Latest posts

Back