Mazda CX-5 vs Subaru Crosstrek XV

I am looking at either a CX-5 or a Crosstrek. Lets say 2015 because I know there are new models of both but I am not planning on buying new.

I am looking to get opinions why I should get one over the other / why you purchased your CX-5.

About me:
I am very utilitarian. I drive about 20k miles per year. I have 2 motorcycles. I keep some tools in my trunk for work. No kids. I drive by myself majority of the time.

What I am looking for:
A utilitarian crossover. Good gas mileage.
A "little" bit of towing capacity. Interior volume. Comfortable ride. Hopefully low maintenance cost. Good reliability.

Ok. As for towing, I know the tow ratings for the cx-5 and Crosstrek are 2000 and 1500 lbs respectively. I "think" both of these are suitable. I dont plan on pulling anything big. It would mostly just be used for pulling a lightweight trailer with 1 or two motorcycles on it.
I am thinking about getting one of those motorcycle carriers that just attach to the trailer hitch(see: MotoTote.) I would worry about putting my 500lb v Strom on there but my sub 300lb dirt bike could be fine. Could a CX5 handle that much tongue weight? Anyone know the tongue weight limit for the cx5?

What about trims? I feel like I should get a grand touring to have all the bells and whistles as my 2005 car is a limited so it has the old bells and whistles. I don't want to feel like I am buying a downgrade.

Thanks in advance for thoughts and opinions.

I was pretty keen on the Crosstrek prior to cx5 for my commute bc it was economical to buy and to run and do 25k/yr and already had a fun car at that time so it made good sense. The CVT was an absolute non-starter for me which I still thought no problem they offer a manual I drove manuals b&f to work for 15 years so certainly was open to it..but it was still just too slow, too bare bones, too loud on highway esp with just 5 cogs and had rev hang as i recall also. I had previously sampled the cx5 but initially the 2013 with the 2L which was insufficient for the vehicle maybe even a bit more so than the XV. Drove a 14 Touring with the new 2.5 and thought it was much better, liked the cloth seats on paper but not in person and definitely not after spending time in the seat. Found them very uncomfortable (narrow) in the shoulders so I was back in limbo for awhile. Almost pulled the trigger on a Santa fe sport (almost 4k off) but the steering was just awful and handling meh and i told myself I had to give the mazda one more try. It was next door to Hyundai, drove a gt that i kinda didn't want for the added cost and for the 19s that are expensive with limited tire options. Well that test drive with a good salesman who told me to cruise check out the instant mpg on highway, then had me push it on some technical back roads where the mazda really shines changed my view on it completely. Oh and the seats were and still are awesome a bit wider just where i needed it but still nice, firm and supportive. I ended up going all in with tech package (for the headlights). Think i paid whisker over 30 with roof rack and rails back in aug of 2013. 73.5k miles later..its hands down the best all around vehicle Ive purchased in that it gets me out of my driveway and through winters here with flying colors, is both comfortable and entertaining to drive and economical to run..it was worth the extra money up front as Im in no rush to re-up and may even keep as beater into my next cx5 purchase (almost a lock)..I am seeing plenty of gen2s running around now..and as good as the 2.5 sky g is Im waiting on compression ignition option to surface.

If you can deal with slowness and loudness of xv, if you don't travel distances esp on highway xv would likely be adequate i just feel the mazda is in a different league and is a larger, more usable, more refined and the better accelerating, riding, steering and driving vehicle with more features on offer esp if you go up to gt tech which i recommend esp if you plan on keeping mid-long term.

Crosstek is criminally slow. Tow it and you have to call upon all mythical forces from bible belt to ensure no yahoo in his F150 sends you and your bikes off mount guadalupe.
Cx5 on highway fully loaded with cargo also loses its zoom at 75-80 mph. For single occupants you wont notice this drastic drop of power at about 85 mph.

BUT up until 55 mph the CX5 is way more responsive.

So if its single occupant + tow an AWD CX5 will always be more capable.

In around town mpg wise the CX5 will do from 26-29 range. On highway never seen any FWD hitting 31+ or any AWD hitting 29 except certain posters over here who always have tail wind Lol. 2.0L numbers are much better.

My conclusion is unless your life and death depends on having AWD capabilities - Subaru makes little sense. No point in owning one and sacrificing on interior fit n finish, CVT which seems like a switch between Usain Bolt and Jack Black based on which speed you are in. Utility wise its hard to beat and will be cheaper though Crosstek resale is normally strong.

Imo - the most value trim on CX5 is Touring. Touring AWD seems to be your sweet spot. See the resale prices and figure it out. On fuel efficiency you would be looking at a max of 4 mpg difference or so. So nothing too big. CX5 AWD has a usable gas tank of 12.5 gallons (it starts warning around 12.5) - so you are looking at 375 miles or so of range, though the actual tank on paper is 15.4 gallons.

From what you describe - Crosstek will be hard to justify unless cost is more important to you than towing abilities / cargo room / getting to highway speeds faster than 12 seconds.

I agree with Kaps.

Are people really that confused? Lots of people are comparing apples to donuts!
Sit in a CX-5 and sit in a Crosstrek.
Drive a CX-5 and drive a Crosstrek.
Both are nice, smart cars but they feel very different to sit in and to drive.
Am I expecting too much to expect people would just be able to know what works for their needs and which car would make them smile wider?

You can learn a lot about a car with out even stepping near one, which is all I believe the OP is asking for, other people's opinions.

Cx3 is more analogous.

I thought that the Forester was closer to the CX5 than the Crosstrek. For a while i was really thinking that the Forester with turbo was the car for me, but it would have had to be standard shift(cvt=not for me). Creature comfort of the CX5 crushes the Crosstrek, day to day driveability of the CX5 wins for me.

Mom has a 2015 Crosstrek.

It is horrendously slow. CVT is boring and as Monterra says "a non-starter" to me. The seats are incredibly hard and uncomfortable. The interior is very spartan.

My personal opinion, the CX-5 is the superior vehicle all around.

Kaps said:

Crosstek is criminally slow. Tow it and you have to call upon all mythical forces from bible belt to ensure no yahoo in his F150 sends you and your bikes off mount guadalupe.
Cx5 on highway fully loaded with cargo also loses its zoom at 75-80 mph. For single occupants you wont notice this drastic drop of power at about 85 mph.

BUT up until 55 mph the CX5 is way more responsive.

So if its single occupant + tow an AWD CX5 will always be more capable.

In around town mpg wise the CX5 will do from 26-29 range. On highway never seen any FWD hitting 31+ or any AWD hitting 29 except certain posters over here who always have tail wind Lol. 2.0L numbers are much better.

My conclusion is unless your life and death depends on having AWD capabilities - Subaru makes little sense. No point in owning one and sacrificing on interior fit n finish, CVT which seems like a switch between Usain Bolt and Jack Black based on which speed you are in. Utility wise its hard to beat and will be cheaper though Crosstek resale is normally strong.

Imo - the most value trim on CX5 is Touring. Touring AWD seems to be your sweet spot. See the resale prices and figure it out. On fuel efficiency you would be looking at a max of 4 mpg difference or so. So nothing too big. CX5 AWD has a usable gas tank of 12.5 gallons (it starts warning around 12.5) - so you are looking at 375 miles or so of range, though the actual tank on paper is 15.4 gallons.

From what you describe - Crosstek will be hard to justify unless cost is more important to you than towing abilities / cargo room / getting to highway speeds faster than 12 seconds.

Click to expand...

You get the ejucation you pay for.

Unobtanium said:

Cx3 is more analogous.

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

Crosstrek: 148HP
CX-3: 146 HP
CX-5: 187 HP
Forester: 170-205HP

The cross trek is very odd. We test drove one when looking for a car for my son. It is very, very slow and honestly, felt really slow with the CVT. This must have been what the 2.0 CX-5 was like. It is also very loud with lots of wind noise and CVT hum. Honestly, if you are looking for a rough and tumble car you are going to kinda abuse and take camping, it would be good, otherwise, I would stay away.

Crosstrek is a good bit more usable size wise so I'd say it kinda splits the diff between the mazda options. Left with choosing between the cx3 and the crosstrek Id go cx5

dougal said:

The cross trek is very odd. We test drove one when looking for a car for my son. It is very, very slow and honestly, felt really slow with the CVT. This must have been what the 2.0 CX-5 was like. It is also very loud with lots of wind noise and CVT hum. Honestly, if you are looking for a rough and tumble car you are going to kinda abuse and take camping, it would be good, otherwise, I would stay away.

Click to expand...

While it's easy to make the assumption that performance of the 2.0 Crosstrek is similar to that of the 2.0 CX-5, that's simply not the case. I have owned the latter for 5 years and recently spent almost a week in a rental Crosstrek in Mexico for comparison. 2.0 litre CX-5s get a bad rap from people who have never spent any time in them. Performance is "adequate" with this engine. It's just not as good as a 2.5. The 2.0 litre Subaru, on the other hand, is decidedly underpowered. This probably has something to do with the way it interacts with the CVT, but unlike others here, I think Subaru's CVT (along with Honda's) are the best on the market and would not be a deal-breaker for me if Subaru would up their horsepower game. Like every other Subaru (Impreza) I have driven as of late, I enjoyed my time in the Crosstrek, but I never was unaware of the fact that it desperately needed another 50 horsepower and more torque at lower rpm.

Several members here have reported complete transmission failure in their CX-5s ranging from 2014-2016. The most recent ones:

https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123861506-2015-CX5-2-5-AWD-Transmission-took-a-dump
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123862019-Transmission-blown-at-72K-miles


https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123814755-First-CX-5-Transmission-Has-Been-Replaced
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...-My-CX-5-transmission-failed-and-was-replaced
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...-shifting-after-2015-transmission-replacement
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123854261-Full-Transmission-Replacement
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...se-having-Transmission-Issues-with-their-CX-5
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123854272-2015-CX5-Transmission-Replacement

If you decide on getting a CX-5, GET A WARRANTY. Members have been quoted at 5k from Mazda for replacement. Members here have also reported Mazda under-fills the transmission fluid from the factory, so I would check the levels when you're having the car inspected.

Subaru has done a lot of work on the Crosstrek for 2018, including some sound deadening and better interior materials in the upper trims, new features, a little bit more rear leg room and cargo space, new features, and other tweaks. It offers a lot of space and AWD for the money, and unlike the HR-V it's rated for light towing. It's still an economy CUV, but if you're a utilitarian driver, and can live with the very weak passing power, it seems like a good choice.

Red MC said:

Subaru has done a lot of work on the Crosstrek for 2018, including some sound deadening and better interior materials in the upper trims, new features, a little bit more rear leg room and cargo space, new features, and other tweaks. It offers a lot of space and AWD for the money, and unlike the HR-V it's rated for light towing. It's still an economy CUV, but if you're a utilitarian driver, and can live with the very weak passing power, it seems like a good choice.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And rear seat passenger room is something that all Subarus excel at. Compare the Impreza with the Mazda 3 in this regard and the difference is astonishing. I'm hoping Mazda fixes this on the next gen 3 as I'm seriously considering that as my next car.

The Subaru XV is in the small CUV category with the likes of CX-3, HR-V etc and is based on the Impreza platform. the CX-5 is a category higher than the XV in the mid-size bracket.

m8te said:

The Subaru XV is in the small CUV category with the likes of CX-3, HR-V etc and is based on the Impreza platform. the CX-5 is a category higher than the XV in the mid-size bracket.

Click to expand...

Yea, no, maybe...
As someone here pointed out, the XV is kind of a tweener when compared to that subset of vehicles. The HR-V and CX-3 have wheelbases between 101"-103" and overall lengths under 170". Subaru XV has about a 105" wheelbase and 176" overall length while CX-5 measures 106.3" and 179".

we have a 2016 Touring AWD (CPO)...started w/9899 miles... [we looked at the Forester 2.5i base, but did not like the CVT or platinum interior]

after 7258.5 miles (in 7 months), we have used 270.8 gallons of gasoline and averaged 26.88mpg (I keep track on an excel spreadsheet).

Visits to the pump have averaged $24.43

The biggest downside to the CX-5, that we have discovered is the cabin, is it is noisy when it rains. There is no sound insulation above the front seats (we do not have a sunroof) and when the rain hits the roof, it just makes a loud banging sound. I cannot speak for a sunroof model.

The heater blow hot and the A/C can get cold. Easy ingress/egress, easy loading, zippy when I need it to be, just an overall good car., but it won't light your soul on fire or be the center of attention at the local car show. I do not tow or have a tow hitch so I cannot comment on anything related to towing.

FWIW...when it sport mode, it will only shift up to 4th, but will hold gears and be reluctant to upshift, but provides a much more responsive throttle...when in manual mode, you can only upshift to 5th