An Interesting Opportunity to Compare

Monterra said:
Haha not really, did you send Honda a thank you card for successfully benchmarking and finally just catching up to a 5yr old Mazda?
Problem- like you say but consistently contradict yourself when you gloat about your sh*tbox's mt results.. numbers are just numbers esp in this class- feel is where Honda still has plenty of ground to make up...sad
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-cx-5-25-awd-test-review

DISPLACEMENT: 152 cu in, 2488 cc
POWER: 184 hp @ 5700 rpm
TORQUE: 185 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

DIMENSIONS:
WHEELBASE: 106.3 in
LENGTH: 178.7 in
WIDTH: 72.4 in HEIGHT: 67.3 in
CURB WEIGHT: 3507 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec @ 87 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 123 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g*

RE: the 2017 CX5 I guess they (as you) thought numbers really don't matter so if she loses a half step but gains refinement and quietness in spades that's a win for the majority of owners..they're probably right although I'm not enamored with it, no. Which is why its made it an easy choice for me for now to keep and enjoy my 14 that still runs like a clock @70k
Click to expand...


I'll take MotorTrends numbers as they test their cars more thoroughly. Secondly, I like how you didn't like Consumer Reports numbers and went looking around the internet for some better numbers, and looks like you found some but guess what? CRV still has better numbers, especially in braking(116ft vs 166ft). Thirdly, you really feel proud about your 14 CX-5 being able to hang with a CRV? The CRV isn't even a performance car, in fact it's the last SUV anyone would think about when it comes to performance. I bet you sleep good at night knowing that your sporty CX-5 can keep up with a soccer mom in a drag race, great job.

And I wouldn't think twice about taking a 2017 CX-5, over a dated looking, noisy 2014 CX-5.
 
Last edited:
mangoconchile said:
I'll take MotorTrends numbers as they test their cars more thoroughly. Secondly, I like how you didn't like Consumer Reports numbers and went looking around the internet for some better numbers, and looks like you found some but guess what? CRV still has better numbers, especially in braking(116ft vs 166ft). Thirdly, you really feel proud about your 14 CX-5 being able to hang with a CRV? The CRV isn't even a performance car, in fact it's the last SUV anyone would think about when it comes to performance. I bet you sleep good at night knowing that your sporty CX-5 can keep up with a soccer mom in a drag race, great job.

And I wouldn't think twice about taking a 2017 CX-5, over a dated looking, noisy 2014 CX-5.
Click to expand...
1. bulls***, prove it.
2. I like CRs results just fine, they're more real world unabusive type numbers but you had to try to refute w/MT (ofcourse for the what is it how many times now?)
3. Wow you're right 116 vs 166 is a pretty big diff- you moron
4. Nope just like to shove it in your face as you love to shove it in all of ours so Mango, respectfully- GFY
 
Last edited:
Hey everybody. If you quit feeding the troll he/she will wither up and go away. put them on your ignore list
 
Or create a sticky CX-5 vs. CR-V thread and contain it there.
 
Monterra said:
1. bulls***, prove it.
2. I like CRs results just fine, they're more real world unabusive type numbers but you had to try to refute w/MT (ofcourse for the what is it how many times now?)
3. Wow you're right 116 vs 166 is a pretty big diff- you moron
4. Nope just like to shove it in your face as you love to shove it in all of ours so Mango, respectfully- GFY
Click to expand...


1)Problem for you is, Motor Trend's numbers are better than both CarAndDriver and Consumer Reports. And you like Consumer Reports numbers because they're more 'real world unabusive'? How many people in the 'real world' floor their CX-5s from 0-60, or 0-100? You didn't like the numbers they posted and went around looking the internet looking for others once I posted mine. I'll trust MotorTrend's numbers and their drivers over a company who also reviews washing machines.

2)I would say a 70% difference in braking performance between the 2 is very significant.

3)Shoving what in my face exactly...that your sporty CX-5 is slower than my soccer mom driving, retired couple driving CRV? Nice try but thanks for the laughs.
 
Performance is virtually the same. The CRV is just much, much uglier and turd-like.

C/D TEST RESULTS: 2016 CX5, 2017 CX5, 2017 CRV

Zero to 60 mph: 7.7 sec, 7.8 sec, 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.0 sec, 23.8 sec, 21.5 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 31.0 sec, 32.5 sec, 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.0 sec, 7.9 sec, 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec, 3.8 sec, 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 sec, 5.3 sec, 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 16.0 sec @ 86 mph, 16.2 sec @ 86 mph, 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 120 mph, 130 mph, 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft, 177 ft, 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.81 g, 0.82 g, 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:

EPA city/highway driving: 24/30 mpg, 24/31 mpg, 27/33 mpg
C/D observed: 23 mpg, 32 mpg, 25 mpg
 
mangoconchile said:
3)Shoving what in my face exactly...that your sporty CX-5 is slower than my soccer mom driving, retired couple driving CRV? Nice try but thanks for the laughs.
Click to expand...

LOL. How fast it is apparently is the only determining factor of "fun" in Mango's mind. And still trying to justify your CR-V superiority complex on a Mazda forum. Nice try, thanks for the laughs. (moon)
 
Last edited:
bigtex said:
Performance is virtually the same.

C/D TEST RESULTS: 2016 CX5, 2017 CX5, 2017 CRV

Zero to 60 mph: 7.7 sec, 7.8 sec, 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.0 sec, 23.8 sec, 21.5 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 31.0 sec, 32.5 sec, 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.0 sec, 7.9 sec, 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec, 3.8 sec, 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 sec, 5.3 sec, 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 16.0 sec @ 86 mph, 16.2 sec @ 86 mph, 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 120 mph, 130 mph, 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft, 177 ft, 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.81 g, 0.82 g, 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:

EPA city/highway driving: 24/30 mpg, 24/31 mpg, 27/33 mpg
C/D observed: 23 mpg, 32 mpg, 25 mpg
Click to expand...


I agree it is nearly the same with slight edge to the CRV. In the real world not likely noticeable. I was just giving Monterry a hard time as he obsessed with numbers and incorrectly thought my CRV was slower then his ride when it isn't. That and he has some kind of superiority complex and believes his 14 CX-5 is actually better than a 17 CX-5.
 
Last edited:
I've stated that the 17 CX-5 is clearly the "better" car versus my 14 CX-5. But it's also an orange to my apple. The direction Mazda has taken with the 17 to be more of a refined vehicle to appeal to those types, don't appeal to me at all. I like the simplicity of my 14 CX-5, not to mention it's sporty looks which the 17 completely loses in my opinion. Not to mention that the 14 doesn't have all that god awful chrome.

Yeah 17 is a better car, but it's not for me. It's not a superiority complex, it's just tastes. I grew up on Jeeps, so I like a car that's a little rough, and is intended for engaging driving, not gadgets to make me coffee and shine my shoes to distract me from the joy of simply driving.

As for the loud issue, yeah I guess it is, but compared to the Jeeps I grew up with, guess I never really notice it. Because of that background, to me my loud ass 2014 is quieter than anything I drove before it. (dunno)

So for all these reasons that the CR-V is "better", it's not for me, and many others on this forum (hence why we bought CX-5s....). A turd (inside and out) on wheels (CR-V, any year) with all the crap I don't want and a less engaging drive doesn't appeal to me. I'm not sure why you push your god damn CR-V so hard on a Mazda forum...

Man this thread has been totally (hijack) . (I love these emojis) Maybe...

(getout)
 
Last edited:
Different strokes. Overall I think the '17 is more attractive, but I could do without the "beak" (hood overhang) and there are some other parts of the Gen 1 that look better. Some of the other offerings in the class have evolved to look more like the Gen 1, or in the case of the Tuscon, a lot like the Gen 1. So the look of the new model is more distinctive. The reduction in cabin noise is also important to me. I have a somewhat grinding commute that I've spent years making in a Focus ST and I'm tired of the noise. My wife just got a new ride with ANC that is very quiet, and I'm jealous because it really does help to reduce the stress. But I don't like the fact that they've softened the suspension from Gen 1 to Gen 2. I don't think the old model rides hard at all.
 
Red MC said:
I haven't noticed that. The thing I liked about the DSGs was the immediacy of shifting on command. Most non-DSG automatics with manual controls I've driven seem to take your inputs as recommendations, not commands. The worst were the pre-DSG Audis, which could take up to several seconds to execute a shift after you hit the paddle, especially in the lower gears. My wife's old Subaru that I'm now driving does that too from 1st to 2nd and to some extent from 2nd to 3rd. I hate that. When I press the button, I want it to shift right now, i.e. immediately, otherwise it isn't really a manual control.
Click to expand...

I've driven VW and Ford DSGs and if left to their own devices, they are very poor especially at low speeds or taking off. Many a time I've come to an intersection and then saw a gap in the traffic and gave the car some gas and the cars transmission has to think for a few seconds before reacting. Very dangerous.

With the Mazda's auto, pretty much no hesitation and judging by the test drive I had with the new CX-5, this should be a bit better still.
 
mangoconchile said:
I agree it is nearly the same with slight edge to the CRV. In the real world not likely noticeable. I was just giving Monterry a hard time as he obsessed with numbers and incorrectly thought my CRV was slower then his ride when it isn't. That and he has some kind of superiority complex and believes his 14 CX-5 is actually better than a 17 CX-5.
Click to expand...

I don't believe its better I'm absolutely 100% certain that it is a lot better all day all night long Lionel Richie style six ways to fkn Sunday better...for me. and no its not at all because my 14 version is a few 10ths faster which you can clearly see from more than one publication that it is..i don't have a 17 or a 16 so those are fairly irrelevant...to me. And hey dopey.. 166' was 70-0 per Car and Driver not your 60-0 figure so check yo self foo.(smash)
 
Last edited:
Monterra said:
I don't believe its better I'm absolutely 100% certain that it is a lot better all day all night six ways to Sunday better...for me. and no its not at all because my 14 version is a few 10ths faster which as you see it is..i don't have a 17 or a 16 so those are irrelevant...to me. And hey dopey.. 166' was 70-0 per Car and Driver not your 60-0 figure check yo self fool.
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

I think the CR-V is the most boring, god awful, s*** log on wheels...for me.

Man, must stink to sit here posting the same god damn feature lists every single month trying to make us bow down and praise the holy CR-V there eh Mango?

*searching for Mazda forum...*
 
Yeah he really is the most pathetic person I have ever encountered on the internet. He must be just so threatened by the superior cx5 that he spends his night and days trying to convince us otherwise. Only explanation I can think of for how someone could spend so much time in a forum of an item they don't even own.
 
The CRV might be initially quicker off the line but the CVT is a deal breaker for me. It's ok when driving around in D but once you hit the twistys and switch to semi-manual mode, the CX-5 torque converter 6-speed transmission will be superior in feel, response and driver enjoyment IMO. Don't want to say anymore between the two. Not much difference in overall ratings. Whatever floats your boat.
 
Welp, I'm done with this thread. Tried to contribute meaningfully and its too much work to try and filter out the relevant posts from the pissing contest / trolling.
 
Studum said:
Welp, I'm done with this thread. Tried to contribute meaningfully and its too much work to try and filter out the relevant posts from the pissing contest / trolling.
Click to expand...
Hey Studum, are you able to take a few photos to show height differences please. Maybe one side on and one directly from behind. Thank you [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
See? There's no way to completely ignore someone...
 

Attachments

  • Ignore.jpg
    Ignore.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 100
7eregrine said:
See? There's no way to completely ignore someone...
Click to expand...

Yeah I hope the mods can look into this and provide feedback to those who run the website. I don't know much of anything regarding programming and website design but seems like there should be a way to get around this. I also ran into the same issue unfortunately and it negated the ignore.
 
7eregrine said:
See? There's no way to completely ignore someone...
Click to expand...

jhu8 said:
Yeah I hope the mods can look into this and provide feedback to those who run the website. I don't know much of anything regarding programming and website design but seems like there should be a way to get around this. I also ran into the same issue unfortunately and it negated the ignore.
Click to expand...
I agree that it seems to be an obvious mistake to allow you to view the ignored user's quoted message. So yeah the ignore feature is not working 100% right now, but ever since I've used the ignore list, my blood pressure has stopped spiking... :)
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
    • Like
CX-5 Fuel efficiency, comfort and handling
Replies
12
Views
3K
sonny1
S
A
Comparing the 2019 GTR and 2024 Premium Turbo CX-5 models
Replies
7
Views
2K
Apollothedog
A
T
2016 CX-5 Rear view mirror falls off
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Freedom55
F

Latest posts

Back