Wait...0w16 oil?
Not seeing a trans dipstick, are these "sealed" as well?
Wait...0w16 oil?
Sorry didn*t mean my post to sound critical. The CX5 signature is my favorite car ATM. I just think it looks like a luxury vehicle from a far, especially in that trim and in gray, silver, black colors.
Yep, Toyota's new Dynamic Force engines use even thinner 0W-16 oil!
Not seeing a trans dipstick, are these "sealed" as well?
If you're having trouble finding that weight of oil, just go to a Honda dealer and ask them to drain the oil out of a CR-V.
It will be diluted to at least 0W-16. Maybe even thinner...They'll give it to you for real cheap too.
If you're having trouble finding that weight of oil, just go to a Honda dealer and ask them to drain the oil out of a CR-V.
It will be diluted to at least 0W-16. Maybe even thinner...They'll give it to you for real cheap too.
Friend: "What type of oil do you use in your Honda?"
CR-V owner: "87"
Friend: "You use 87 weight oil?!?!?!?!?"
CR-V owner: "No, man. Not 87 weight. 87 <i>octane</i>."
I probably hope that Mazda won't fall in another pitfall after introducing a Turbo in their Skyactive engine. One of the selling point for the Skyactive is fuel efficiency. Previous model replaced by the CX-5 was the CX-7 with 2.2 turbo engine was notorious for having poor gas mileage.
I probably hope that Mazda won't fall in another pitfall after introducing a Turbo in their Skyactive engine. One of the selling point for the Skyactive is fuel efficiency. Previous model replaced by the CX-5 was the CX-7 with 2.2 turbo engine was notorious for having poor gas mileage.
CX-7 was doomed to fall is because of its reliability on 2.2L turbo, not because of its poor gas mileage.I probably hope that Mazda won't fall in another pitfall after introducing a Turbo in their Skyactive engine. One of the selling point for the Skyactive is fuel efficiency. Previous model replaced by the CX-5 was the CX-7 with 2.2 turbo engine was notorious for having poor gas mileage.
CX-7 was doomed to fall is because of its reliability on 2.2L turbo, not because of its poor gas mileage.
I am currently in the market for a new vehicle, and I am currently comparing the CX-5, RAV4 and Forester. I have only driven a used '17 FWD GT CX-5 at a Hyundai dealership and a New RAV4 XLE that was across the street. Tomorrow I plan to test drive a new AWD CX-5 and I was going to look at a Forster Sport but the dealer I wanted to visit will be closed tomorrow.
I like the new look of the RAV4, and I especially like the Lunar Rock color that they have. The interior I thought was nice, and I loved the center console and shifter. It had cargo mats in the back and roof racks/crossbars which is something I am looking for, so that may have swayed my decision in the RAV4 direction a more than expected, but at the price point ($33K) I feel like it should not have cloth seats and is lacking Android Auto. The drive was alright, felt smooth but I wasn't wowed by the feel of the drive. I did enjoy all of the safety features, but I am coming from a 2010 Insight with nothing, and I'm sure the Mazda will have almost all the same features. I was only behind the wheel for 3-5 minutes.
The '17 FWD GT CX-5 didn't blow me away either, but overall I felt like the interior was further ahead of the RAV4. I like the sportier look, and the "off road" driving I will do will be mostly at campsites and such so I'm not too worried about clearance and such, but would like the "outdoor" features. Most of this will be a daily driver in a rural area with trips to a city, work is a 10 minute drive and it's pretty much stop and go that takes up a majority of the time. I am debating if I want the turbo, or if it's just something that is going to be a nice to have - I plan to drive both tomorrow.
Buy a CX-5 GT, which has great handling and plenty of power for a vehicle of its size/weight. Really a well balanced , great driving compact SUV.
I've been driving a CX-5's for going on 5 years in a city with steep hills as well as very congested freeway's, not once have I desired "more power" and, or, a turbo.
Regarding the Rav 4, my opinion is that its drive characteristics are heavy and sluggish, not at all nimble and fun to drive like a CX-5.
To be fair he was speaking to the feel of the car and I would agree RAV4s traditionally feel like ass even if similar numbers. Granted those were older models, but I don't hear anyone saying the new RAV4 " feels great".Ironic that you view a vehicle with near identical acceleration to one that has "plenty of power" as "sluggish".
To be fair he was speaking to the feel of the car and I would agree RAV4s traditionally feel like ass even if similar numbers. Granted those were older models, but I don't hear anyone saying the new RAV4 " feels great".
Exactly. Not uncommon at all for two cars with near-equal acceleration times to feel very different.
Buy a CX-5 GT, which has great handling and plenty of power for a vehicle of its size/weight. Really a well balanced , great driving compact SUV.
I've been driving a CX-5's for going on 5 years in a city with steep hills as well as very congested freeway's, not once have I desired "more power" and, or, a turbo.
Regarding the Rav 4, my opinion is that its drive characteristics are heavy and sluggish, not at all nimble and fun to drive like a CX-5.