Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
- Thread starter bluegrass
- Start date
- Status
Looking at both of these vehicles (CX-5 and CR-V), as well as the Mazda 6, I'm definitely leaning towards Mazda.
The one thing that keeps coming back to me as a source of concern in the Honda is the 1.5 litre turbo and CVT drivetrain.
The 2015-16 CRV's have serious issues with vibration, something that Honda has never been able to completely eliminate.
Also, a 1.5 litre engine translates to 90 cubic inches. Say that out loud. 90 CI.
That's ridiculously small for the weight this engine has to motivate. Imagine how much worse it will be with a fully loaded ride.
I just foresee all kinds of future problems with such a small engine having to do so much work. It won't last.
The CVT will be the same. It's essentially a snowmobile transmission. Guaranteed to fail at some point.
The rest of the differences are pretty much subjective. Interior/exterior styling for example is a personal decision. Both look nice.
As for features, it comes down to what you want and how much you're willing to pay.
I'm replacing an 11 year old Nissan, and will probably settle on the Mazda.
BTW, stay away from current Nissans. They have gone into the crapper in the last 10 years.
The one thing that keeps coming back to me as a source of concern in the Honda is the 1.5 litre turbo and CVT drivetrain.
The 2015-16 CRV's have serious issues with vibration, something that Honda has never been able to completely eliminate.
Also, a 1.5 litre engine translates to 90 cubic inches. Say that out loud. 90 CI.
That's ridiculously small for the weight this engine has to motivate. Imagine how much worse it will be with a fully loaded ride.
I just foresee all kinds of future problems with such a small engine having to do so much work. It won't last.
The CVT will be the same. It's essentially a snowmobile transmission. Guaranteed to fail at some point.
The rest of the differences are pretty much subjective. Interior/exterior styling for example is a personal decision. Both look nice.
As for features, it comes down to what you want and how much you're willing to pay.
I'm replacing an 11 year old Nissan, and will probably settle on the Mazda.
BTW, stay away from current Nissans. They have gone into the crapper in the last 10 years.
Yes, despite it having a Turbo to boost its power and torque, I just can't bring myself to having a 1.5L engine trying to haul a vehicle of that size. It definitely needs to work more throughout its life compared to a larger capacity NA engine. If it was at least a 2.0L Turbo then maybe.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Don't be a luddite. You're driving a 3600 pound vehicle with a 4 banger. By 1970s logic, that's crap. By today's standards, it's as fast in the quarter mile as a 1970s v8 camaro. Times change, technology advances.
I am not talking about how fast it goes and I wasn't even talking about the no. of cylinders.
- :
- Fmr CX5 Touring
Sonoran,
Almost exactly what I felt when I test drove both. They're different cars but they're both good cars, just in different ways.
One thing that's always bothered me in the Mazda is I've never been able to get my left arm comfortable. It's too low on the arm rest and too high on the window sill. I didn't notice that problem in the Honda which seemed like it had more room. I'm kind of long from the waist up and I've never been 100% right with that part of the car.
The other problem I have in my 2015 is that when I put the back seats down and toss my bike in the back, the head rest bumps the seats, pushing them forward. I don't know if that's still the case with a 2017 or how the CRV handles it. I haven't noticed that in the CRV.
Still, both are really good car in my opinion.
Almost exactly what I felt when I test drove both. They're different cars but they're both good cars, just in different ways.
One thing that's always bothered me in the Mazda is I've never been able to get my left arm comfortable. It's too low on the arm rest and too high on the window sill. I didn't notice that problem in the Honda which seemed like it had more room. I'm kind of long from the waist up and I've never been 100% right with that part of the car.
The other problem I have in my 2015 is that when I put the back seats down and toss my bike in the back, the head rest bumps the seats, pushing them forward. I don't know if that's still the case with a 2017 or how the CRV handles it. I haven't noticed that in the CRV.
Still, both are really good car in my opinion.
boandlkramer
US Specs in Europe
- :
- '17 CX-5 GT AWD; '18 BMW X3
This^^^^
Don't do what I did. Do it right the first time, no matter which car you select. I look at it as 'future proofing' my investment as much as possible.
My 2013's back up camera has bendy lines to show where the car will reverse when cornering.
Must have removed that feature in subsequent years?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
Question Curb parking - touch and feel
This additional dynamic "predictive" guideline based on your steering wheel angle has always been available in Europe for CX-5. Single view only though on CX-5.
Question Curb parking - touch and feel
Hahaha, completely agree. I typically don't hold on to cars for long because I mostly get bored, but sometimes due to not spending extra for the better trim/features. For CX-5, I kind of regret not getting GT with Tech.
Boandlkramer: what happened to your 15 sport? Totaled? I wouldn't mind my 16.5 sport going away either...
boandlkramer
US Specs in Europe
- :
- '17 CX-5 GT AWD; '18 BMW X3
Attachments
- :
- Denver, CO
Whoa jesus christ.
Glad you came out of that safe!
Glad you came out of that safe!
It's not about drag racing. It's about long term reliability and endurance. Take your 1.5L turbo CR-V, load it up with four adults and accompanying luggage, and then head out on a cross country trip. That engine will be screaming it's little butt off trying to keep up with traffic going uphill at 70mph. You'll probably have to hide in the truck lanes to keep out of the way of other traffic.
It might be fine as a grocery getter, but in the long run, I still have major reservations about the durability of that drivetrain.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Not a Jeep, but a AM General Humvee ⋯
A non turbo engine will always tend to be more reliable in the long run compared to a big engine that doesn't have to be pushed as hard. Now there maybe some areas where the 2.5 in the Mazda maybe pushed more than it should for longevity but only time will tell. Mazda and Honda like to use racing to develop new stuff so who knows what will be better but it's hard to argue with K.I.S.S.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
boandlkramer
US Specs in Europe
- :
- '17 CX-5 GT AWD; '18 BMW X3
Thanks! That's when I got the 2016
We both entered the intersection at the same time. The halfshaft and lower a-arm separated at the hub.
Not a Jeep, but a AM General Humvee ⋯
You sir are correct, specifically an M998
Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk
Well, not everyone is thrilled with it. When my wife and I were shopping for a CX-9, I was pretty excited about the HUD, but when I test drove it I changed my mind. It's small and it tries to include too much information. The safety warning indicators it displays are small and seemed easy to miss unless you're staring at it, which is not what you should be doing. Also, I don't like digital speedometers. In the HUD settings I could disable turn-by-turn directions, but there was no option to not display speed, cruise control setting, or speed limit. If I could configure the HUD to display safety alerts only, and display them prominently enough to grab my attention, then I would really like it. But as it is, I thought it was more of a distraction than a driver aid, and I was annoyed that you have to turn it off every time you start the car. So for me, the HUD a strike against the 2017 CX-5. Then again, I don't like the digital tach and speedo on the new Hondas either. My father has a new Ridgeline and I hate the instrument cluster.
The sloping center console looks nice in the showroom, but if it's like the Pilot or Ridgeline it will be prone to glare, especially in overhead sunlight, and shows fingerprints badly. I also don't like the way Honda has made "fixed" buttons capacitive, which makes them much harder to hit when you're trying to pay attention to the road. But at least the Honda offers a touch screen that is usable while driving. Mazda really wants you to use the commander knob, and I hate that thing. It's like trying to operate an iPad with a joystick, clunky as hell. Also, Android Auto is a huge plus.
If you get black seats in the new CX-9 GT, the dash upper is reddish-brown. I wish they did the same thing in the CX-5 because the subtle contrast makes the dash look classy.
I think you have the analysis backwards. That modern high-compression turbo engine makes peak torque from 2000 rpm and the torque curve remains flat until about 5000 rpm. The 2.5 Skyactiv is naturally aspirated, so the torque curve is not flat and peal torque occurs at 4000 rpm in the CX-5 AWD. While cruising along at typical engine speeds of 1500-2000 rpm, the CR-V's engine likely has 50% to 100% more torque on tap, which means less downshifting. Given that it's a fairly new engine and Honda doesn't have a lot of history offering turbos, I would say that reliability is a question mark. But it's definitely not going to be screaming along compared to the CX-5.
CR-V:
190 hp @ 5600 rpm
179 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
CX-5:
187 hp @ 6000 rpm
185 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
- Status
