Best Alternative to CX-5

I know how screens are measured, thanks. It was more of a joke because phones are so big now. Stay with me here.

7eregrine said:

Tranny issue were straightened out in 17. And the GC isn't in the same class. Thought OP wants a Compact SUV.

Click to expand...

Were they really? Was it retroactively fixed? What was the issue, tuning?

The grand is too big for me.

Unobtanium said:

I hate the way it looks, but besides that, they have had constant transmission issues. I'd miss this one and go for the Jeep Grand Cherokee instead.

Click to expand...

xtrailman said:

The grand is too big for me.

Click to expand...

Roger that, not arguing as you have your own needs, but may I ask why? I'm curious. Is it just space you'd never use, so screw paying for the gas to move it, or is it as though it actually would not be usable due to roads/garage/etc? I see you live in "Worksop, GB", so asking for the cultural enrichment.

finch204 said:

Looking at it as a total package, even including the CX-5's flaws (no AA or Carplay), there's nothing better than a CX-5 in its segment. IMO the only possible alternative for it is a BMW X3. You will have to dip into the CPO market to get one with a relatively affordable price though.

Click to expand...

Mostly agree.

Having driven just about every Compact SUV on the market before purchasing the CX-5 (save the Mitsu, Nissan and Mercedes vehicles), I can tell anyone that the CX-5 drives and responds better than everything on the market that I've driven, despite its middling to poor, on-paper power. The only runners up would be the X1, Q3 and the Tiguan as far as overall vehicle feel and performance goes.

BUT

The X1 is smaller feeling inside, and I personally find the controls and options to be confusing and intrusive rather than convenient and intuitive. It also comes at a premium for being a BMW, and will depreciate faster off the lot being a "luxury" vehicle that comes with a premium price tag and maintenance fees. You'll basically be in a base model X1 for the same price as a high end CX-5 or middle pack Tiguan. On the bright side, you get good power and driving dynamics, coupled with BMW's maintenance package for the first couple years anyway.

Q3 is basically like the X1.

The Tiguan is a great machine too, but I had trouble getting a deal where they were brand new and still trying to offload the outgoing models. It also doesn't look that nice to me, almost like a lifted station wagon. It is however roomy and comes with AA and ACP. Interior is nice, and the infotainment and options are great. The deals are probably getting more reasonable now that it's been out for a bit too. MSRP comparison though, the Tiguan is more expensive. The drive is also less dynamic and responsive, but if you don't mind sacrificing some driving pleasure for some options (pano roof, AA and ACP, etc etc.), then its a serious option.

For me it came down to the CX-5 and the Tiguan, and I just preferred the CX-5. It is well-refined, comes with plenty of options, and drives excellently. That combined with the fact I couldn't get a great deal on a Tiguan and it was a no contest.

The only place where I disagree is that the BMW X3 is in the same chat space as a CX-5. If we're talking brand new, it just isn't, hahaha. It's far too expensive to put in the same conversation, unless money is no option, and its in a different competitive class. The X1 I mentioned above would be more in line with the pricing range of a CX-5, Tiguan, Jeep, etc etc. and of a similar size to the CX-5 with a wheelbase only an inch smaller and overall dimensions being similar. While the X3 is just small enough to compare with some of the bigger models in the segment, it really only compares with other luxury makers since it comes in so much more expensive than the regular brands imo.

Unobtanium said:

Were they really? Was it retroactively fixed? What was the issue, tuning?

Click to expand...

I don't really know but in the ass ton of research I did across the board the 16 tranny was getting higher marks and overall a lot less failures across the board.
In the end I still didn't feel comfortably buying the year the tranny was supposedly ironed out and was a part of my decision to not get it.

DubbuD said:

The only place where I disagree is that the BMW X3 is in the same chat space as a CX-5. If we're talking brand new, it just isn't, hahaha. It's far too expensive to put in the same conversation, unless money is no option, and its in a different competitive class. The X1 I mentioned above would be more in line with the pricing range of a CX-5, Tiguan, Jeep, etc etc. and of a similar size to the CX-5 with a wheelbase only an inch smaller and overall dimensions being similar. While the X3 is just small enough to compare with some of the bigger models in the segment, it really only compares with other luxury makers since it comes in so much more expensive than the regular brands imo.

Click to expand...

I agree that the BMW X3 brand new, is too expensive to compare to the CX-5. That's why I said you will have to dip into the CPO market to try and find one, even then, it might still be quite expensive. If I'm not mistaken, the BMW X3 was, might still be, the benchmark for the Mazda CX-5. They occupy the same "compact suv" segment and they are both "sporty" suvs. Mazda even took inspiration from BMW's iDrive system when they created their Commander Knob/infotainment system. This is why I think barring price, the X3 is the only alternative to the CX-5. And if Mazda decides to drop the 2.5T engine into the CX-5, then you wouldn't even need to consider the X3.

Now if money was not a limiting factor and I don't have any issues paying for a brand new BMW X3, I might as well get a Macan. It is a little bit smaller, but it is more performance oriented than both the CX-5 and X3, which is what I would want.

Edit: to get back on topic for the OP, I would recommend getting another CX-5 even if it doesn't have AA or Carplay.

F-Pace if $$$ were no object.

Unobtanium said:

Were they really? Was it retroactively fixed? What was the issue, tuning?

Click to expand...

The ZF 9-speed takes up the same physical space as a 6-speed. It does this by nesting planetary gearsets and utilizing additional clutches. There isn't enough space in the package to use multiplate friction clutches everywhere, so two of the clutches are dog clutches. Unlike friction clutches, dog clutches work by hard mechanical engagement, they don't slip. The power path through the transmission needs to be unloaded to engage or disengage a dog clutch. If there is a still a load on the clutch when you try to disengage it, it may stick/hang up. If there is a load when you try to engage a dog clutch, you'll get a clunk and possibly some damage. Any shifts that require engaging or disengaging a dog clutch require cooperation between the engine and transmission. Under positive power flow, the engine control software has to cut power momentarily to unload the transmission. Conversely, on deceleration the engine has to be "blipped". The timing of the transmission action and engine action have to be very precise for a smooth shift. So far, every manufacturer who has used the ZF 9-speed has taken a couple years and multiple software updates to get it working right.

Unobtanium said:

Were they really? Was it retroactively fixed? What was the issue, tuning?

Click to expand...

My 2015 model has zero issues with over 60k on it. I believe only the early models had transmission issues.

7eregrine said:

F-Pace if $$$ were no object.

Click to expand...

I used to think that way, but now I'd go with the Stelvio.

RAV4- decent choice, good torque, nice ride, surprisingly solid handling, just very ugly

CRV- horrid direct injection issues. Cant decide which is uglier this or the Toyota

Tiguan- solid chassis and nice interior, but lots of electronic issues and the turbo engines are unimpressive and not reliable.

Kia/Hyundai? Bleh. Good Audi type interior, sells on features rather than chassis tuning and drivetrain. Nothing special.

A BMW X3 could be a solid choice used but only if you are buying a 6 cylinder version (2011 x3 28i) or any other year 35i is good.

banjos-n-beer said:

I used to think that way, but now I'd go with the Stelvio.

Click to expand...

One of the attnys at my job, coincidentally the 2016 CX-5 GT lease, just test drove that actually. He is a fan.

I like cars you can throw about a bit, but still feel small on the road.
I've never read anything good about any Jeep in the UK.

Unobtanium said:

Roger that, not arguing as you have your own needs, but may I ask why? I'm curious. Is it just space you'd never use, so screw paying for the gas to move it, or is it as though it actually would not be usable due to roads/garage/etc? I see you live in "Worksop, GB", so asking for the cultural enrichment.

Click to expand...

GJ-Molestor said:

RAV4- decent choice, good torque, nice ride, surprisingly solid handling, just very ugly

Click to expand...

Have they gotten better then? I test drove one in 2013 and it drove like a floating boat. Hated it.

Agreed, they are also ugly as all getout. I still say the CR-V wins the ugliness contest, but the RAV4 is not that far behind it.

What do you guys think of the new Volvo XC40 as an alternative if price wasn't an object? I did look at these before going with the CX-5. The CX-5 was just more bang for the buck!

gce said:

What do you guys think of the new Volvo XL60 as an alternative if price wasn't an object? I did look at these before going with the CX-5. The CX-5 was just more bang for the buck!

Click to expand...

It would certainly be in the running... but to me the Volvo would slant more towards a luxury/comfort ride opposed to the super sporty nature of the Stelvio in Quadrifoglio trim.

My brother has a current XC90 T5. I really like the interior... but the engine seems a bit raspy/noisy to my ears.

I just stated the wrong model. What I meant to say was the XC40.

gce said:

I just stated the wrong model. What I meant to say was the XC40.

Click to expand...

I had assumed you meant the XC60. the XC40 is a bit smaller than I'd like, and the design language doesn't seem quite as appealing as the larger models.

ymmv

I LOVE the XC40. LOVE LOVE LOVE.
What I cannot stand and Volvo has probably lost me as a customer for life, is pricing.

Only color XC40 that DOESN'T have an extra $600 cost?? Black. So if you want that 2 tone look, and as much as I like black cars, I want that two tone look: it's $600. For ANY color. Fine. Pay that. Next step 19'... ok good there...
Next... o man... that 2 tone interior is sharp! Add $100.
OK.. packages. Wait... heated seats aren't standard? Isn't this a VOLVO made in SWEDEN? Volvo always included heated seats. Sigh... add another $750. Gotta add Premium package. Cool toys in that. $900 And the Advanced Package. $995. Gotta have those headlights. O wait... if you get Advanced you HAVE to add the Vision package? Sigh... there's another $1,100, that's where Blind Spot monitors are so gotta have that.
Harman Kardon sound system... I'm not paying... what are we up to? $43,135 and NOT getting a kick ass stereo. $800. I GUESS I could pass on the Moonroof since it's panoramic and $1,200. No other option. My last 6 cars have had sunroofs. Screw it...add that.
$45,000.

But it's got ACP...

Sorry Volvo. Ya' lost me... Sure is pretty though.Here's the one I built: