2019 Mazda CX-5 vs. 2019 Toyota RAV4 (Car&Driver)

IMO the history of inconsistency on reliability is why Mazda can't build up a bigger market share. People usually blame it on Ford, but you simply can't blame the rotary engine, and the recent CX-7 on Ford. When I purchased our 2016 CX-5, one reason was the reliability rating on Mazda from Consumer Report at the time is no. 4. Then next year it dropped to no. 6, and no. 12 the following year. It does come back up to no. 3 this year, but the inconsistency of reliability is the problem.

For a while I always recommended CX-5 to friends and family. A couple of them bought 2016 CX-5's were mad at me due to expensive LED DRL failure. Others who refused to get a Mazda mainly are questioning its reliability, some of them have had Mazda before and they all had bad experience on reliability issues from their previous Mazda's.

I don't recommend Mazda to friends and family anymore mainly because newly added cylinder deactivation and turbo, which to me are not good features for long-term reliability based on history record.

First off the rotary engine had a fine track record for those who actually followed the owner's manual and add oil every 1000 miles and let the engine warm up before revving it high, the problem with the rotary was that people treated it like it was a regular four banger Japanese engine and didn't follow the maintenance manual. Secondly, Ford's hand was all over the CX-7, they gave Mazda the R&D money to develop one of the first Direct Injection Turbo charged 4 cylinders. The engine first debut in the Speed 3, then Ford wanted to see how the engine would perform in a midsize SUV and hence it was tweaked an put into the CX-7. Ford went on to use that technology and design their eco-boast engines, they are actually the only car manufacturers in the world still using Mazda MZR engine blocks for their 4 cylinder eco boast engines...Mazda saw the writing on the wall and the reliability issues with those engines, just Google ford eco boast problems and you will find a ton. So Mazda decided to engineer from the ground up a brand new engine which became the Skyactiv engines we have today...and most Mazda vehicles which are still in the current line up that were created while still under Ford, like the 3, 6, CX-9 all have pretty decent track records when it comes to reliability, and most issues for that era can be directly traced back to Ford.
 
Anyone compared the Turbo with regular vs. premium fuel? Any noticeable difference?

After 3 tanks of each, I consistently get an extra 2 MPG out of 93 versus 87. This narrows the price gap, and others have said that premium fuel helps reduce the risk of oil dilution (because the engine changes the timing with octane). I cannot say that I notice a performance difference, as I rarely wind it out to 4,000+ RPMs.

Depending on the per-gallon price spread (which varies a lot from week to week), 300 miles worth of 93 runs between $3 and $6 higher than 300 miles worth of 87 at their respective mileage.

Of course, this is a small dataset, but so far my worse mileage with 93 is still better than my best mileage with 87.
Also keep in mind that I've switched back & forth, so there is always some mixing of the two since I don't go below 1/4 tank.
 
Last edited:
After 3 tanks of each, I consistently get an extra 2 MPG out of 93 versus 87. This narrows the price gap, and others have said that premium fuel helps reduce the risk of oil dilution (because the engine changes the timing with octane). I cannot say that I notice a performance difference, as I rarely wind it out to 4,000+ RPMs.

Depending on the per-gallon price spread (which varies a lot from week to week), 300 miles worth of 93 runs between $3 and $6 higher than 300 miles worth of 87 at their respective mileage.

Of course, this is a small dataset, but so far my worse mileage with 93 is still better than my best mileage with 87.
Also keep in mind that I've switched back & forth, so there is always some mixing of the two since I don't go below 1/4 tank.

Oddly, when I fill up with a mix of 93 and 98 octane, I notice a bit of a DROP in mpg...but that's not taking into account the humanistic aspect, whereupon I am now driving #RaceCar and want to floor it everywhere, rofl!
 
Oddly, when I fill up with a mix of 93 and 98 octane, I notice a bit of a DROP in mpg...but that's not taking into account the humanistic aspect, whereupon I am now driving #RaceCar and want to floor it everywhere, rofl!
It makes some sense. The lower the octane, the more volatile the fuel is.
 
At some stations, 93 octane does not have any Ethanol added. Lower grades all have 10% Ethanol. My MPG is better using non-ethanol. This is in my current car - 2015 Mini JCW. (Picking up CX-5 Sig Monday)
 
+2
I love my NA, but would never choose it over the turbo.
But if you don't care about acceleration, the NA will suit you just fine.
And remember, the 18 has cylinder deactivation....

I am perfectly happy with my NA, but if I had a turbo available (within the trim/pricepoint I wanted), that would absolutely be what I would go for.

The CD in the NA now though, and the reports of the rocker arms falling off as a result would make the NA a no go for me these days though.
 
It makes some sense. The lower the octane, the more volatile the fuel is.

I read that--paradoxically--low octane fuel actually contains more energy. Higher octane also has a slower burn, if I recall that article correctly.

So as far as HP and MPG are concerned, ignition timing compensates for lower fuel energy density.
 
At some stations, 93 octane does not have any Ethanol added. Lower grades all have 10% Ethanol. My MPG is better using non-ethanol. This is in my current car - 2015 Mini JCW. (Picking up CX-5 Sig Monday)

Man, I need to move. All you folks with access to ethanol-free gas.

I'll bet your MPG is better without ethanol.
 
Man, I need to move. All you folks with access to ethanol-free gas.

I'll bet your MPG is better without ethanol.

I do like all the ethanol-free fuel here, and a TON of other aspects about where I live. I considered VA and TN and so forth, but the proximity to the eastern seaboard required for stable low unemployment numbers and sound economy turned me off to it.
 
I do like all the ethanol-free fuel here, and a TON of other aspects about where I live. I considered VA and TN and so forth, but the proximity to the eastern seaboard required for stable low unemployment numbers and sound economy turned me off to it.

As you know, each state has its unique regions. I stayed in Northern Virginia until I got close to retirement age specifically for the job market. I took my Northern Virginia job with me to the central part of the state (in between Charlottesville and Richmond). I got laid off a few years before I was ready to retire, and found that not even the state capital had that much of a job market. Up north I could be back working that same day, even if it meant in a consulting capacity.

It stinks that employment is not more equally spread. It seems that we make a forced choice between job security and lifestyle.
 
I hear you. People go where the jobs are, and employers go where the people are, and when the economy is good it becomes a vicious circle that blows up the population of a metropolitan area until the infrastructure can't handle any more. There are plenty of medium-sized cities in nice areas that I'd love to live in or around, but it could be hard for both my wife and I to find a good job and we'd be tying our fortunes (metaphorically) to just one or two employers. We went for a compromise and live in Southern NH, within commuting distance of the large Boston job market, but just an hour and a half from the mountains and 40 min from the ocean so it doesn't take long to escape the sprawl. I have friends in the N Va/DC area and my impression is that it's harder to get away.
 
Couldnt agree more. Im stuck in NoVA hell just for work.

I lived in Vienna from '63 (when the Beltway had just opened) until about 10 years ago. I moved to Louisa County and brought my job with me (telecommuted). Got a place on over 50 acres in the middle of nowhere.

I had been here for just a week when they jerked my leash to drive to McLean for a meeting. As soon as I got to where things backed up (Gainesville), my first thought was "I can't wait to get back home." After 45 years in Vienna, all it too was one week in the country for the country to become home and NOVA to become "that place."

Fairfax County grew from 250,000 to over 1,000,000 when I left. Everything around it exploded even more.
 
I have friends in the N Va/DC area and my impression is that it's harder to get away.

If you go out of town on the weekend, traffic on I-66 (the main highway going west out of DC) becomes stop & go on a Sunday afternoon when you get within 30 miles of DC. That drive will take at least 2 hours. Local traffic on the weekend is not much better. You won't be doing anything after work but driving home & hunkering down during the week. It has become horribly life-limiting.

There is no traffic here in the country unless you drive into our two big "cities" of Charlottesville or Richmond (the state capital), but that's because there are no jobs. Lots of the folks I've met here used to drive to Northern Virginia for work (100 miles--and Lord knows how many hours--each way) during much of their careers, for both white collar and blue collar work. I could not do it.
 
Toyota sold over 43,000 Rav4*s in May for a record month. Is it that good or are people drinking Toyota Kool-Aid?
 
Toyota sold over 43,000 Rav4*s in May for a record month. Is it that good or are people drinking Toyota Kool-Aid?

It's the perfect car for the millennial. Looks like a rugged 4runner but handles smaller, hybrid model gets really good mileage, and it's backed by Toyota's reputation for reliability and resale value. If I wanted to stay in the Toyota family I'm sure I'd take a hard look at the RAV-4, especially with gas prices on the rise.
 
Back