Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unobtanium said:
Serious? Is that just what's popular, or do you really literally not have minivans?!? Might make me move!
Click to expand...

Minivans have fallen the by wayside. They don't even have a section in the sale figures anymore.

SUVs are the norm now.

We had 102901 vehicle sales last month. SUVs took the largest slice of the sales pie, contributing 38.5 percent of new car sales, closely followed by a 37.7 percent share for passenger cars and 20.6 percent for light commercial vehicles.

CX-5 was number one selling SUV again with 2298. Next SUV is Tuscon with 2135 then X-Trail (Rogue) with 1992

Last month was the first full month of new CX-5 sales only I believe. It is doing well
 
Last edited:
Xeler8ing said:
Minivans have fallen the by wayside. They don't even have a section in the sale figures anymore.

SUVs are the norm now.

We had 102901 vehicle sales last month. SUVs took the largest slice of the sales pie, contributing 38.5 percent of new car sales, closely followed by a 37.7 percent share for passenger cars and 20.6 percent for light commercial vehicles.

CX-5 was number one selling SUV again with 2298. Next SUV is Tuscon with 2135 then X-Trail (Rogue) with 1992

Last month was the first full month of new CX-5 sales only I believe. It is doing well
Click to expand...

Wow. American sales dominate. They better care about OUR safety tests.
 
Xeler8ing said:
Over here, women with families drive larger SUV's. For the CX-5, its a mixture of men and women
Click to expand...
Same here. I see a pretty even split of CX-5 drivers here. They also tend to trend younger than a lot of other CUV drivers I've seen.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
As I've said before, most CX5 drivers around here are middle aged women... (altho I'm 41, and they all appear 50 or older.... guess I'm middle age? lol).

The Rogue has by far the largest number of younger female drivers... and I attribute that to their aggressive pricing incentives that help allow younger people get into a vehicle they probably really can't afford.
 
banjos-n-beer said:
The Rogue has by far the largest number of younger female drivers... and I attribute that to their aggressive pricing incentives that help allow younger people get into a vehicle they probably really can't afford.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is true. The Rogue is probably the one exception to my above post.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Unobtanium said:
I was referring to how the CR-V beats the CX-5 in every comparo they have been in, from safety ratings to 1/4 mile times to handling comparisons.
Click to expand...

Now you are bordering being a troll. I appreciate the criticism yrwei has sometimes but this is a bit too far fetched isnt it?

CR-V - new redesign. CX-5 - 2017 was an odd year, keep sales stable plus bring in 'new' vehicle despite it being same underneath. In fairness CR-V outclasses pretty much everything but 1.5 T is a weak engine, low tow ratings despite US being ultra conservative on towing capacity. At this point it pretty much has tow rating of a Camry. Long term reliability is a question, drive-ability is bigger problem with CVT and Turbo.
CX-5 does beat CRV hands down in features that are premium - Cabin / Wind noise / Image / Looks etc.
CR-V and Honda can congratulate themselves for bettering a 5 year old drivetrain - kudos. I own a 16 and i still know i never drive 0-60 and back to 0. In day to day driving my CX5 can wake up from 40mph to 60 much faster than a turbo tiny CVT can. Pretty happy with my car, it has more features than a Honda could at the price point.

And your point is true - CRV beats in every comparison - where luxury features are left out because CR-V does not even come close.
 
Well to be fair here, CR-V's seat is pretty nice as well and has the sliding center arm rest. The lane keep is a bit better as well (tad bit earlier to react to keep car in lane and slightly more force). It has android auto/car play and has a locking glove box.

But yes, that car is quite noisy and I believe the 1.5L is pushing around 16.5lbs of boost so it's not REALLY high. Actually it sounds weird because the Civic SI has same engine and same boost but 207hp. Maybe my numbers are wrong? Anyhow I'm not concerned about engine reliability. I'm pretty sure it will be fine. I just don't know about the CVT.
 
Kaps said:
Now you are bordering being a troll. I appreciate the criticism yrwei has sometimes but this is a bit too far fetched isnt it?

CR-V - new redesign. CX-5 - 2017 was an odd year, keep sales stable plus bring in 'new' vehicle despite it being same underneath. In fairness CR-V outclasses pretty much everything but 1.5 T is a weak engine, low tow ratings despite US being ultra conservative on towing capacity. At this point it pretty much has tow rating of a Camry. Long term reliability is a question, drive-ability is bigger problem with CVT and Turbo.
CX-5 does beat CRV hands down in features that are premium - Cabin / Wind noise / Image / Looks etc.
CR-V and Honda can congratulate themselves for bettering a 5 year old drivetrain - kudos. I own a 16 and i still know i never drive 0-60 and back to 0. In day to day driving my CX5 can wake up from 40mph to 60 much faster than a turbo tiny CVT can. Pretty happy with my car, it has more features than a Honda could at the price point.

And your point is true - CRV beats in every comparison - where luxury features are left out because CR-V does not even come close.
Click to expand...

Does the cx5s android auto and car play and nav work better?
;)
 
bluegrass said:
Hello. I'm new to the forum and in the market for a new vehicle. A little background:
- I buy my vehicles new and keep them for 10-14 years, so picking the right one is extremely important.
- I've owned Honda's all of my life, but I'm having a difficult time convincing myself to get the CR-V.

Vehicles Considering:
- 2017 Mazda CX-5 Touring (2WD) w/ I-ActivSense -- Snowflake White Pearl w/ Leatherette ($27,680)
- 2017 Honda CR-V EX (2WD) -- White Diamond w/ Black Cloth ($27,635)

Pros of CX-5:
1) It is FAR better looking on both the exterior and interior. Not even a close comparison.
2) Comes with a traditional 6-speed transmission, which I strongly prefer.
Click to expand...

I would say reason #1 from the OP is also the #1 reason most people would choose a CX5 over a CRV
I would say reason #2 from the OP is also the #2 reason most people would choose a CX5 over a CRV

But really, it's all about reason #1. And even mango should admit that.
 
Im sure the cvt will be fine too if you can cope with its soft, lifeless operation...27 mpg fuelly avg..pretty dang similar and not worth the penalty for soul sucking imo, not at all.
 
Dimcorner said:
Well to be fair here, CR-V's seat is pretty nice as well and has the sliding center arm rest. The lane keep is a bit better as well (tad bit earlier to react to keep car in lane and slightly more force). It has android auto/car play and has a locking glove box.
Click to expand...

Don't forget it also offers lumbar support.
 
Kaps said:
Now you are bordering being a troll. I appreciate the criticism yrwei has sometimes but this is a bit too far fetched isnt it?

CR-V - new redesign. CX-5 - 2017 was an odd year, keep sales stable plus bring in 'new' vehicle despite it being same underneath. In fairness CR-V outclasses pretty much everything but 1.5 T is a weak engine, low tow ratings despite US being ultra conservative on towing capacity. At this point it pretty much has tow rating of a Camry. Long term reliability is a question, drive-ability is bigger problem with CVT and Turbo.
CX-5 does beat CRV hands down in features that are premium - Cabin / Wind noise / Image / Looks etc.
CR-V and Honda can congratulate themselves for bettering a 5 year old drivetrain - kudos. I own a 16 and i still know i never drive 0-60 and back to 0. In day to day driving my CX5 can wake up from 40mph to 60 much faster than a turbo tiny CVT can. Pretty happy with my car, it has more features than a Honda could at the price point.

And your point is true - CRV beats in every comparison - where luxury features are left out because CR-V does not even come close.
Click to expand...


So now were talking about 40-60 times? Talking about gasping for straws. If you look at the numbers from the Motor Trend article, it takes the CRV 3.4 seconds to go from 40-60. It takes the CX-5 a full 4.0 seconds to go from 40-60. So which one is faster again from 40-60? Stop making things up and stick to the facts. And funny how you keep mentioning that 'tiny' motor the CRV has, well what does it say about the CX-5s motor when this 'tiny' motor has more power and way better fuel efficiency? OK then.

And it's cool that you want to continue the comparison between these 2 vehicles, but the reality is that every online publication/magazine that has done this comparison(including the most influential in Motor Trend) have all picked the CRV over everything else, and I'll take their opinions over yours.
 
Last edited:
Monterra said:
Im sure the cvt will be fine too if you can cope with its soft, lifeless operation...27 mpg fuelly avg..pretty dang similar and not worth the penalty for soul sucking imo, not at all.
Click to expand...

As per certain Honda fan - they dont even feel the transmission on their car (not sure what this means, is it electric or what)

Unobtanium said:
Does the cx5s android auto and car play and nav work better?
;)
Click to expand...
Your winning this argument.

Dimcorner said:
Well to be fair here, CR-V's seat is pretty nice as well and has the sliding center arm rest. The lane keep is a bit better as well (tad bit earlier to react to keep car in lane and slightly more force). It has android auto/car play and has a locking glove box.

But yes, that car is quite noisy and I believe the 1.5L is pushing around 16.5lbs of boost so it's not REALLY high. Actually it sounds weird because the Civic SI has same engine and same boost but 207hp. Maybe my numbers are wrong? Anyhow I'm not concerned about engine reliability. I'm pretty sure it will be fine. I just don't know about the CVT.
Click to expand...
Reliability is a big reason for sticking to Honda/Toyota. So a new drivetrain is stupid choice atleast for knowledgeable Honda fans too.
The engine has been weak going inclines compared to the older I4. That says something, It cant tow as well. City mpg is worse 20-21 from three publication but apparently this is CRV thing. It never hits EPA and misses by 15% or so despite having a 60 year avg owner age.
 
mangoconchile said:
So now were talking about 40-60 times? Talking about gasping for straws. If you look at the numbers from the Motor Trend article, it takes the CRV 3.4 seconds to go from 40-60. It takes the CX-5 a full 4.0 seconds to go from 40-60. So which one is faster again from 40-60? Stop making things up and stick to the facts. And funny how you keep mentioning that 'tiny' motor the CRV has, well what does it say about the CX-5s motor when this 'tiny' motor has more power and way better fuel efficiency? OK then.

And it's cool that you want to continue the comparison between these 2 vehicles, but the reality is that every online publication/magazine that has done this comparison(including the most influential in Motor Trend) have all picked the CRV over everything else, and I'll take their opinions over yours.
Click to expand...

I thought these weren't racecars?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
    • Like
    • Wow
Choices and thoughts on a 2024 CX-5 purchase
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Antoine
Antoine
D
2017 CX-5 Grand Select vs 2021 Grand Touring
Replies
18
Views
642
table5511
table5511
J
New Member here, about to purchase a CX-5
Replies
16
Views
2K
7eregrine
7eregrine

Latest posts

Back