Car and Driver 2019 CX5 article.

husker_soze said:
Got it. I know I'm the minority here...but if I'm really concerned about the drive/handling...I wouldn't buy the CX-5. I'll spend the extra $$$ for that performance on an a different vehicle, like the RDX.

But there are so much more features on the CX-5 that appeal to me that I'd pick it over the RDX. Just my .02
Click to expand...

So you'd pick a slower car with bad brakes and handling BARELY better than the under-tired but otherwise better performing CX5...for performance? Even when putting real tires on the CX5 would allow it to overcome the 0.02g disparity and still slaughter it in other areas?
 
husker_soze said:
Got it. I know I'm the minority here...but if I'm really concerned about the drive/handling...I wouldn't buy the CX-5. I'll spend the extra $$$ for that performance on an a different vehicle, like the RDX.

But there are so much more features on the CX-5 that appeal to me that I'd pick it over the RDX. Just my .02
Click to expand...
Eh? Drive/handling is probably better on the CX-5 lol. Handling is kinda what its known for.

And with better tires, even better.
 
Unobtanium said:
So you'd pick a slower car with bad brakes and handling BARELY better than the under-tired but otherwise better performing CX5...for performance? Even when putting real tires on the CX5 would allow it to overcome the 0.02g disparity and still slaughter it in other areas?
Click to expand...

You're obviously entitled to your own opinion in comparison of the RDX and CX-5...but to answer your question...is YES.
First, is because I don't really give a s*** what you think and don't need help in making my own decision.
Second, is we all have our own criteria on what is important when choosing a vehicle...and just like you, my opinion is I'm not buying a CX-5 for it's performance.
 
ColoradoDriver said:
Eh? Drive/handling is probably better on the CX-5 lol. Handling is kinda what its known for.

And with better tires, even better.
Click to expand...

I don't know as I haven't test driven the CX-5 yet....but have driven the RDX. My plan is to test drive them the same day sometime this summer to get a proper comparison.
 
If it really had a significant issue with grip/handling, I doubt almost every publication would be selecting it as CUV Of The Year. Way overblown IMO. So far mine handles great, even on the stock tires, including in the rain. I have AWD, maybe its a bigger issue on the FWD models?

Im not saying the tire width is a non-issue, but I think its really marginal. Most people arent out on a skidpad trying to eke out an additional .0-whatever. I feel the same way about all the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over whether the 0-60 is 6.2 or 6.4 or whatever. Most people will never notice that, its hard enough to even time that difference accurately. Its fast enough for what it is.
 
husker_soze said:
You're obviously entitled to your own opinion in comparison of the RDX and CX-5...but to answer your question...is YES.
First, is because I don't really give a s*** what you think and don't need help in making my own decision.
Second, is we all have our own criteria on what is important when choosing a vehicle...and just like you, my opinion is I'm not buying a CX-5 for it's performance.
Click to expand...

Opinions are subjective. 0-60 and braking is objective. What you think about that is irrelevant.
 
Nigel Tufnel said:
If it really had a significant issue with grip/handling, I doubt almost every publication would be selecting it as CUV Of The Year. Way overblown IMO. So far mine handles great, even on the stock tires, including in the rain. I have AWD, maybe it*s a bigger issue on the FWD models?

I*m not saying the tire width is a non-issue, but I think it*s really marginal. Most people aren*t out on a skidpad trying to eke out an additional .0-whatever. I feel the same way about all the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over whether the 0-60 is 6.2 or 6.4 or whatever. Most people will never notice that, it*s hard enough to even time that difference accurately. It*s fast enough for what it is.
Click to expand...

This board sure did notice it with the RAV4 Hybrid sport suspension...just sayin!
 
Nigel Tufnel said:
If it really had a significant issue with grip/handling, I doubt almost every publication would be selecting it as CUV Of The Year. Way overblown IMO. So far mine handles great, even on the stock tires, including in the rain. I have AWD, maybe it*s a bigger issue on the FWD models?
Click to expand...

Both the GTR and Sig are only available in AWD.
 
husker_soze said:
I don't know as I haven't test driven the CX-5 yet....but have driven the RDX. My plan is to test drive them the same day sometime this summer to get a proper comparison.
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to hear your take. When I test drove them, I found the RDX felt faster but is actually slower than the CX-5. The CX-5 felt much better in the turns but the RDX might actually be better around a track. The RDX interior is just as nice (but different) as the CX-5 but that is just my opinion. The CX-5 also seemed much quieter than the RDX. The key thing against the RDX is it is too much money. Once you build it to get some of the basic features in the CX_5, you are at 48K. And those dealers don't seem to drop a lot - maybe to 46.5. The CX-5 Signature can be had for 36 and the GT-R (which is just as good if not better than the Signature) can be had for 33-34. That makes the CX-5 almost a no-brainer against things like the RDX and QX50.
 
dougal said:
Will be interesting to hear your take. When I test drove them, I found the RDX felt faster but is actually slower than the CX-5. The CX-5 felt much better in the turns but the RDX might actually be better around a track. The RDX interior is just as nice (but different) as the CX-5 but that is just my opinion. The CX-5 also seemed much quieter than the RDX. The key thing against the RDX is it is too much money. Once you build it to get some of the basic features in the CX_5, you are at 48K. And those dealers don't seem to drop a lot - maybe to 46.5. The CX-5 Signature can be had for 36 and the GT-R (which is just as good if not better than the Signature) can be had for 33-34. That makes the CX-5 almost a no-brainer against things like the RDX and QX50.
Click to expand...

Exactly my current point of view right now. There's so much more features to the CX-5 (at least on their top 2 trims) that I like and the cost difference is a big factor on that.
 
ColoradoDriver said:
Eh? Drive/handling is probably better on the CX-5 lol. Handling is kinda what its known for.

And with better tires, even better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, certainly a minority take. Plus Acura is hardly a performance-minded brand anymore, no matter what the ads say. I really want to love one of the Japanese luxury brands (Lexus or Acura), but they're such poor value, poor style, and vanilla to drive. Mazda is really the only company that comes close to the connected feel of some of the German cars. Here's to hoping they have some awesome cars in the pipeline!
 
Last edited:
dougal said:
Will be interesting to hear your take. When I test drove them, I found the RDX felt faster but is actually slower than the CX-5. ...
Click to expand...

I was very close to buying the RDX for my wife, so I had a lot of seat time in it. While it feels faster, it actually is (slightly). Just check out Alex on Autos latest CX-5 Signature review. He makes it seem like it's night and day, but we're really only talking a couple tenths 0-60.

As far as cost, we could get a loaded Advance for about $44k, while or Sig was $36k. In the end, the RDX was not worth the $8k premium over the CX-5. At least, not for my wife's daily commute vehicle. :)
 
IMO, the CX-5 is much quieter than the RDX for a couple of reasons. But I felt that the RDX handled / cornered slightly better based on an extremely twisty road we drove it on. The acceleration was extremely close and we couldn't tell a huge difference between the two.

BUT it was NOT (in my opinion or my wife's) $10K better than the CX-5 which is why we purchased it instead of the RDX.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
2019 CX5 Turbo - MT Test
Replies
4
Views
1K
finch204
F
J
2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017
16 17 18
Replies
354
Views
41K
mangoconchile
M
Critic
    • Like
  • Locked
Disappointment and Frustration
2 3
Replies
45
Views
6K
Antoine
Antoine

Latest posts

Back