Any cross shopping with the 2019 RAV4?

CX-5 doesn't look all that flattering in this pic, IMO, but that RAV4 looks like an oversized kid's toy.

I've seen a few black/white 2-tone Hybrids in person, and they look amazing except for somehow the wheel-wells/tires/rims don't jive, and the exhaust is just clown shoes. It looks hung on as an afterthought. Otherwise, very striking!
 
CX-5 doesn't look all that flattering in this pic, IMO, but that RAV4 looks like an oversized kid's toy.

Absolutely. One thing Toyota does is they really differentiate each trim level. Whereas Mazda gives you a competitive amount of features standard, Toyota really forces you into buying a higher trim level. The Rav4 is a boring plastic box with steel wheels and plastic hubcaps, unless you get a more expensive trim. Then it's a slightly better looking boring box.
 
Absolutely. One thing Toyota does is they really differentiate each trim level. Whereas Mazda gives you a competitive amount of features standard, Toyota really forces you into buying a higher trim level. The Rav4 is a boring plastic box with steel wheels and plastic hubcaps, unless you get a more expensive trim. Then it's a slightly better looking boring box.

It's not like Mazda has a 75 horsepower incentive to buy a higher trim level or anything.
 
They do, but they don't make the base CX-5 a penalty box like Toyota does with the Rav4. The touchscreen is also larger, standard, and it only cost 36 dollars for a factory Nav SD card (purchased through aftermarket) to enable factory Nav with voice command.

A better value than the Rav4 for sure. Mazda should do a better job of communicating these advantages in their ads, because they have a number of standard luxury features (like brake auto-hold) that aren't common in the segment.
 
Last edited:
It's not like Mazda has a 75 horsepower incentive to buy a higher trim level or anything.

Very true. The Gen 2 NA trims are just a "what for?" in my opinion from a Gen 1. Only worthwhile reason to upgrade would be for the turbo version, but I'm not willing to pay that price new. We'll see how I feel when they are more reasonably priced on a CPO offering. Or perhaps trickle down to a Touring. I don't know.
 
Very true. The Gen 2 NA trims are just a "what for?" in my opinion from a Gen 1. Only worthwhile reason to upgrade would be for the turbo version, but I'm not willing to pay that price new. We'll see how I feel when they are more reasonably priced on a CPO offering. Or perhaps trickle down to a Touring. I don't know.

If my 2015 hadn't broke to the tune of $1400 and the dealer hadn't only taken $300 off trade-in and still given me fair value for it, I'd have been a very content person to wait for the Turbo to be CPO...and then I'd keep my 2015 and continue to grumble about it because it would be paid off, lol!
 
It works 100% of the time, the rav cannot.

Both the Rav4 and CX-5 has systems which are basically FWD, but drive the rear wheels based on a wide variety of factors, including wheel slip, speed, steering angle, yaw, etc. I doubt the Mazda drives the rear wheels much (if at all) at highway speeds either for gas mileage reasons. Just don't see how this is much of a differentiator. One thing I have heard is that since the Rav4 drives the rear wheels exclusively with the electric motor, there are lower limits about how much power can be applied to the rear axle. This might have some impact for challenging off-road conditions (e.g., climbing a steep hill with poor traction).

- Mark
 
Both the Rav4 and CX-5 has systems which are basically FWD, but drive the rear wheels based on a wide variety of factors, including wheel slip, speed, steering angle, yaw, etc. I doubt the Mazda drives the rear wheels much (if at all) at highway speeds either for gas mileage reasons. Just don't see how this is much of a differentiator. One thing I have heard is that since the Rav4 drives the rear wheels exclusively with the electric motor, there are lower limits about how much power can be applied to the rear axle. This might have some impact for challenging off-road conditions (e.g., climbing a steep hill with poor traction).

- Mark

The CX5 doesn't drive the rear tires unless it needs to. Thing is...it can. The RAV4 cannot. FWD only, at highway speeds. What does that mean? 40? 55?80? I dunno. I just know it's a "nope!" from me.
 
Don't discount the driving dynamics of the Rav4 hybrid if you've not driven one. I drove one back to back with a CX-5 Sig and the hybrid powertrain of the Toyota really worked for me. Both cars had good pickup, but the quiet, electric-like initial thrust of the Rav4 won me over. And the CX-5 engine I drove seemed a bit unrefined, "thrashy", and there was some bootstrapping with the turbo which made the throttle harder to modulate - maybe I drove a bad one. All that being said, the passenger seat lack of headroom and difficulty getting in/out of the Rav4 are big disqualifying problems, at least for my wife.

- Mark
Oh, I like Toyotas hybrid systems...I would probably own a hybrid Camry but cant get past what they did to the front end recently. That said, the new RAV4 hybrids 0-60 is a full second behind my 2010 RAV4 and approximately the same behind the CX5 turbo. Yeah, the torque from the electric motor makes it feel like it is really stepping out but its an illusion.
 
Both the Rav4 and CX-5 has systems which are basically FWD, but drive the rear wheels based on a wide variety of factors, including wheel slip, speed, steering angle, yaw, etc. I doubt the Mazda drives the rear wheels much (if at all) at highway speeds either for gas mileage reasons. Just don't see how this is much of a differentiator. One thing I have heard is that since the Rav4 drives the rear wheels exclusively with the electric motor, there are lower limits about how much power can be applied to the rear axle. This might have some impact for challenging off-road conditions (e.g., climbing a steep hill with poor traction).

- Mark

While you are right about it mostly being FWD, the difference is that the CX-5 CAN and WILL activate AWD as needed regardless of speed. Sounds like that's not the case for the RAV4 which sounds like a total fail to me.
 
Point take on the start-stop system vs cylinder deactivation. I had to choose my evil and live with it. I also think the CX-5 looks better. For what it is worth I rented a RAV4 AWD to Canada and back two winters ago. That helped me make up my mind. Maybe this was an isolated case, but on flat road, with the cruise on, it would constantly accelerate and decelerate, enough to feel it in the cabin. The RPMs and speed appeared to remain constant, but I believe I was feeling the CVT constantly modulating, trying to find the correct ratio to maintain speed. Slightly annoying control loop issue. I have not experienced this in our Forester.
 
I own both a 2017 GTI and a 2019 CX 5 Signature. The CX 5 is definitely more of a drivers vehicle. It's only 2 tenths of a second slower than the GTI to 60mph and handles really well. You feel the turbo kick in more on the GTI and the feel is more linear on the CX 5. As for off road...I wouldn't. It really was not designed for off roading. I really enjoy the Mazda. It's called a sports car masquerading as a small SUV. That's pretty accurate.
 
Just checked Toyota's configurator for the Rav4. Almost $34K for a Rav4 Limited and you don't even get real leather seats. Poor value across the entire line compared to the Mazda.

oflXqIY.jpg
 
I tell you what.

I hate the way Toyota has that configurator set up. Trying to get what you want--and figuring out the differences between a dozen variations--is insanity.

And it seems that each of the myriad variants is missing at least one thing that you want.
 
They do, but they don't make the base CX-5 a penalty box like Toyota does with the Rav4. The touchscreen is also larger, standard, and it only cost 36 dollars for a factory Nav SD card (purchased through aftermarket) to enable factory Nav with voice command.

A better value than the Rav4 for sure. Mazda should do a better job of communicating these advantages in their ads, because they have a number of standard luxury features (like brake auto-hold) that aren't common in the segment.


Better value? The RAV4 offers more cargo/rear leg room, way better MPG, wireless charging, panoramic sun roof, drive mode selector, better resale and likely better long-term reliability. And who really uses the factory NAV anyway? That's supposed to be an advantage?

Mazda's advantages are better looks, better driving dynamics and more power. Things which are low priority for most families.

Personally I think the value on both is about the same, just depends on what your needs are. And the reality is people are going to value the RAV4's advantages over the Mazda. The RAV4 Hybrid gets insane MPG and puts the diesel CX-5 to shame.

I personally like the rugged look of the RAV4, but Iv'e watched the reviews on it and see a lot of complaints regarding the buzzy engine noise and the fact that you really need to step on it for it to get going, but I doubt most families care about that.

I'd personally get the CX-5 Sig but if I had a wife and kids I'd probably get a RAV4 or Forester.
 
Last edited:
Better value? The RAV4 offers more cargo/rear leg room, way better MPG, wireless charging, panoramic sun roof, drive mode selector, better resale and likely better long-term reliability. And who really uses the factory NAV anyway? That's supposed to be an advantage?

Mazda's advantages are better looks, better driving dynamics and more power. Things which are low priority for most families.

Personally I think the value on both is about the same, just depends on what your needs are. And the reality is people are going to value the RAV4's advantages over the Mazda. The RAV4 Hybrid gets insane MPG and puts the diesel CX-5 to shame.

I personally like the rugged look of the RAV4, but Iv'e watched the reviews on it and see a lot of complaints regarding the buzzy engine noise and the fact that you really need to step on it for it to get going, but I doubt most families care about that.

I'd personally get the CX-5 Sig but if I had a wife and kids I'd probably get a RAV4 or Forester.

Yes, better value. See here:

https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...he-2019-RAV4&p=6655863&viewfull=1#post6655863

You need to load up the Rav to get what you get standard in the CX-5. And paying $34K and getting fake leather seats (pleather, aka plastic leather) doesn't appeal to me.
 
One of my friends is cross-shopping it. Background:

-Looks like a model, cheered for some pro-level sports teams, comes from a 6-figure income job, now works as a motivational type personality/life coach.

Chose the RAV Hybrid. She road-trips a lot and the 40mpg as well as the much more appealing styling (to her) won it over. 2-toned white/black.
 
Back