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

[Kaps]

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

Again, you can buy a car based on paper stats. Most Honda / Toyota buyers are in this category - here is a review on CRV Turbo's ability, they say its worse than the old 2.4 which is a certified Left Lane Hugger worldwide.
http://www.trucktrend.com/truck-reviews/1611-first-drive-2017-honda-cr-v/

We did have a few complaints, however. The 1.5L turbo engine seemed a bit flat-footed compared to the 2016 CR-V and its 2.4L I-4. In most traffic situations, it worked fine, but when merging on hills or onramps, the turbocharged engines torque curve didnt feel as wide as its specifications might suggest. With a full load of humans and cargo, we fear the turbocharged engine might seem sluggish. And although the CR-V comes loaded with many creature comforts, a few were notably absent, including ventilated seating and a big panoramic sunroof.

 

[Xeler8ing]

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

Hmmmm... Even Japan doesn't have this I believe

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Monterra]

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

Eh- I think yours is backwards and misled by headline numbers and there certainly is no downshifting in the CR-V's CVT haha!! So just because the Mazda's peak torque occurs higher up the band now (for some reason just on the AWDs..?) it certainly doesn't mean its not putting out a healthy number @2000 and although I don't have the curves in front of me I'd bet the CX-5s is also impressively broad and flat- that's what makes the engine so good imo.

What does the 1.5l Honda need in lieu of displacement/compression to produce that amount of low end torque? Boost. And lots of it when fully loaded @70+ into headwinds, climbing hills, it'll need all the boost and definitely more than 2000 revs to keep up...turbo whistling along. I don't doubt Honda still builds (at least major) components that'll last I'd bet on 2.5l NA engine to outlive the 1.5T particularly if their lives don't merely consist of Starbucks and TJs runs.

 

[CX-5um]

Eh- I think yours is more backwards and misled by headline numbers and there certainly is no downshifting in the CR-V's CVT haha!! So just because the Mazda's peak torque occurs higher up the band now (for some reason just on the AWDs..?) it certainly doesn't mean its not putting out a healthy number @2000 and although I don't have the curves in front of me I'd bet the CX-5s is also impressively broad and flat- that's what makes the engine so good imo.

What does the 1.5l Honda need in lieu of displacement/compression to produce that amount of low end torque? Boost. And lots of it when fully loaded @70+ into headwinds, climbing hills, it'll need all the boost and definitely more than 2000 revs to keep up...turbo whistling along. I don't doubt Honda still builds (at least major) components that'll last I'd bet on 2.5l NA engine to outlive the 1.5T particularly if their lives don't merely consist of Starbucks and TJs runs.

The 1.5T is perfect in their Civics and basically I would take a Civic Hatchback 1.5T over the Mazda3 hatchback. The CRV should've been given a detuned 1.8T or 2.0T engine instead putting out 190HP/ 185tq. Future iterations merely need a slight tick in boost giving Honda a successful 10-year engine cycle. Instead that excellent 1.5T helps save Honda manufacturing costs. Interesting to see how receptive Mazda's Diesel and Skyactiv2 series engines will be in the US.

 

[mangoconchile]

I find it funny people questioning the long term reliability of the 1.5T, considering Honda has been producing vehicles that last 250k miles, sometimes 300k+ for decades now. People buy Honda's due to their outstanding reliability, so I doubt Honda would be using this engine in their most popular vehicles(CRV/Civic/likely in the new Accord) if they weren't confident in it's abilities to hold up long term. I'm sure they did lots of stress testing on this engine prior to putting it into production.

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.

Taken it from someone who owns one, I've taken mine on 3 road trips so far with a full load(4 passengers, cargo area fully loaded) thru the Nevada mountains, absolutely no issues so far. My engine was not 'screaming' as you say. If anything, the CX-5 NA engine would be the one screaming due to it's peak torque coming in at 4k vs the CRV at 2k. Furthurmore I think everyone would agree turbo-charged engines perform better at altitude than NA engines.

 

[CX-5um]

I find it funny people questioning the long term reliability of the 1.5T, considering Honda has been producing vehicles that last 250k miles, sometimes 300k+ for decades now. People buy Honda's due to their outstanding reliability, so I doubt Honda would be using this engine in their most popular vehicles(CRV/Civic/likely in the new Accord) if they weren't confident in it's abilities to hold up long term. I'm sure they did lots of stress testing on this engine prior to putting it into production.

Taken it from someone who owns one, I've taken mine on 3 road trips so far with a full load(4 passengers, cargo area fully loaded) thru the Nevada mountains, absolutely no issues so far. My engine was not 'screaming' as you say. If anything, the CX-5 NA engine would be the one screaming due to it's peak torque coming in at 4k vs the CRV at 2k. Furthurmore I think everyone would agree turbo-charged engines perform better at altitude than NA engines.

I give Honda the benefit of the doubt considering its a great engine company. The 1.5t engine is great engine in their cars. I think that the engine was so good that you can actually put it in a CRV for some hauling. That said I can also see how steep hills can provide a bit of a challenge for the small 1.5l wonder. Here's some feedback I read online.

https://www.auto123.com/en/car-reviews/2017-honda-cr-v-first-drive/63130/
Back to the turbo engine, which really does wonders for the CR-V drive. Pickup from start is brisk, and apart from some climbs on steeper grades, I rarely found myself wanting for more power.
Youll have to live with the sole transmission choice, however, which is a CVT. Normally, these are acceleration-sapping things, and while you dont feel as much of that with the new CR-V, the amount of noise it makes is a little grating. There are pre-programmed shift patterns including D, S, and L, with that last one really being saved for steep climbs and the occasional passing maneuvers.

http://www.wheels.ca/car-reviews/honda-rampsup-2017-cr-v/
We expected the CR-V to shrug off the twisty turns north of Sooke and it did except for steep climbs where the engine felt strained.

https://www.motor1.com/reviews/129833/2017-honda-crv-first-drive/
While the 1.5T occasionally struggles with steep hills, the majority of the time, this engine feels right at home under the hood of the CR-V.

In the CRV is there a separate shift option for steeper grades or does the CVT still maintain the most power/efficient part of the band automatically?

 

[Kaps]

In the CRV is there a separate shift option for steeper grades or does the CVT still maintain the most power/efficient part of the band automatically?

Just like Apple has i-Pod, honda has a gear option t-Pod - the power of dreams so if you are asleep and climbing a grade there is no loss of power felt. jejeje.

 

[Xeler8ing]

A suggestion - maybe rent each car for a week and see how it performs where your daily driving will occurs (along with an occasional blast down the highway/going up a windy road) and then make the decision.

 

[dyingquail]

A suggestion - maybe rent each car for a week and see how it performs where your daily driving will occurs (along with an occasional blast down the highway/going up a windy road) and then make the decision.

I've done that before with an Altima Hybrid (O, it had a CVT), but I have no idea how to get a Honda, or even a Mazda, really. I'd be willing to drive to Oakland, or San Francisco, leave my car in long-term parking for a day of driving around the Bay Area but I can't find either of these cars to rent. Worse, as far as I know, Honda doesn't work with fleets at all. I have heard of people renting Mazda's before.

So, I'm open to any suggestions, from anyone, as I'd love to do this.

 

[Xeler8ing]

I've done that before with an Altima Hybrid (O, it had a CVT), but I have no idea how to get a Honda, or even a Mazda, really. I'd be willing to drive to Oakland, or San Francisco, leave my car in long-term parking for a day of driving around the Bay Area but I can't find either of these cars to rent. Worse, as far as I know, Honda doesn't work with fleets at all. I have heard of people renting Mazda's before.

So, I'm open to any suggestions, from anyone, as I'd love to do this.

You need to wait a while for the rental company's to have them in stock.

 

[dyingquail]

You need to wait a while for the rental company's to have them in stock.

I guess what I'm saying is that for Honda's I think the wait is, forever. And Mazda's may be close to that. Now, Nissan's, Toyota's, anything American, they're probably already there.

But I'm open to ideas!

 

[Xeler8ing]

I guess what I'm saying is that for Honda's I think the wait is, forever. And Mazda's may be close to that. Now, Nissan's, Toyota's, anything American, they're probably already there.

But I'm open to ideas!

Any friends or neighbours that have bought either?

 

[zweren]

Occasionally you can rent loaner vehicles directly from dealerships if you need a long test drive to decide which vehicle best meets your needs.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Occasionally you can rent loaner vehicles directly from dealerships if you need a long test drive to decide which vehicle best meets your needs.

Forgot about that option!

 

[mangoconchile]

Use Turo like I did when I rented a CX5

 

[7eregrine]

Before I bought my car, I went on a road trip. Looked every where fro someplace to rent a CX5. Couldn't find any place. And of course the Booking lines for all the rental car companies are IN INDIA, so they have no idea what's on a articular lot. So I rented an Escape. Get back home and turned in the rental...and parked it across from a CX5.

Rental car companies really should list exactly what cars they have instead of: Small CUV, Ford Escape OR SIMILAR...

 

[2horses]

When I was looking, one dealership I was working with offered to let me take the car overnight, and keep it for a day or so to see if I really liked it. The other one wouldn't even think of doing that. Guess which dealership won my business.

Ask, all they can say is no.

 

[cyberguest]

just want to echo earlier mentioned lane keep assist feature being much more effective and reliable in CRV than CX5.

going in straight lane on highway:
in CX5 (2nd day of owning it), the system turns a little for you, but it doesn't turn back to keep the car straight after, so you could end up bouncing between two lines; however, system is not reliable, so in between bouncing, you are most likely out of the lane after 1 or 2 bounces. some other times, it didn't turn enough, so car would slowly go out of lane.
in CRV, it turns you back more, keeps you in the lane straight after, and reliable almost every time (based on 15 min test drive)

also the lane departure warning vibration on CX5 is not even noticeable on highway, CRV vibrates real hard that you won't miss it. I had to change the CX5 warning alert type to Beeping Sound.

 

[m8te]

just want to echo earlier mentioned lane keep assist feature being much more effective and reliable in CRV than CX5.

going in straight lane on highway:
in CX5 (2nd day of owning it), the system turns a little for you, but it doesn't turn back to keep the car straight after, so you could end up bouncing between two lines; however, system is not reliable, so in between bouncing, you are most likely out of the lane after 1 or 2 bounces. some other times, it didn't turn enough, so car would slowly go out of lane.
in CRV, it turns you back more, keeps you in the lane straight after, and reliable almost every time (based on 15 min test drive)

also the lane departure warning vibration on CX5 is not even noticeable on highway, CRV vibrates real hard that you won't miss it. I had to change the CX5 warning alert type to Beeping Sound.

I don't know about the CR-V but thats how lane-keep assist is supposed to work in the CX-5, it's only meant to slightly correct the steering to get your attention so you gain complete control of your vehicle. It's not meant to be a self-steer car. Personally I rather have complete control of the vehicle rather than a computer steer for me therefore the rumbling noise of the Lane Departure Warning is sufficient enough for me. You're also able to adjust the volume of the warning. I definitely wouldn't want any form of vibration, I take it you mean the vibration sound.

 

[Xeler8ing]

I don't know about the CR-V but thats how lane-keep assist is supposed to work in the CX-5, it's only meant to slightly correct the steering to get your attention so you gain complete control of your vehicle. It's not meant to be a self-steer car. Personally I rather have complete control of the vehicle rather than a computer steer for me therefore the rumbling noise of the Lane Departure Warning is sufficient enough for me. You're also able to adjust the volume of the warning. I definitely wouldn't want any form of vibration, I take it you mean the vibration sound.

Exactly. IMHO should assist not try and take over.