- :
- Denver, CO
And you are correct. This is a case of "the average buyer".
Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
- Thread starter bluegrass
- Start date
- Status
And you are correct. This is a case of "the average buyer".
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Yep yep.
I think you need to broaden this statement (wink)
Rogue (or X-Trail as it is known here) has just had an update and from the latest comparison test done here, it is still behind the CX-5 in terms of driving dynamics.
- :
- 2005 Mazda 6 Wagon Sport & 2016.5 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring
I would buy a Transit Connect before a Rogue. Besides the ugly, highway driving is what drew me away. It was cavernous inside but did not make me smile while driving it. Given that finding a new one on a lot is difficult, low mileage used ones out it in the Rogue price range.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not just cheap, but cheap and large. If you look at cargo volume vs. sales in this segment, they are correlated.
My sister-in-law just bought a Pathfinder. They needed something that could fit two kids or adults in the rear seat plus dogs in back. The Pathfinder had the most cubic feet per dollar.
Much of the appeal of the CR-V is the fact that it has the most practical, usable space in the class. That also helps keep the Explorer.at the top of its class.
Nissan buyers aren't dumb, they're just not car people.
paging_drburgos
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX5 GT - Premium
The idiots around here that can't read "stop" signs, or can't read "no right turn on red", or "no u-turn", or the ones who throw trash out of their windows onto the street are usually driving Nissan's. So I've come to assume that all Nissan (specifically Altima drivers) are morons. Them and Dodge Challenger folk (sorry, not trying to stereotype, but yeah I am). Seems like Dodge drivers and Nissan drivers are interchangeable most of the time. Prius drivers think their s*** don't stink and they drive like they own the road but it's okay because something about changing the planet because their cars don't use gas (that's a joke btw). I think they're powered by unicorn tears. BMW drivers get a pass only because it's not their fault that none of their turn signals work. One day BMW will figure that out.
Mini-rant over. Time to hop in my car and go sit in LA traffic. Oh well, at least the cabin is nice.
I'm the odd one out... of course not in CA and technically my G35 isn't sold as a domestic rebadged Nissan...even though it is known as a Nissan at home in Japan. 
I get what you are saying though about bad drivers.
My stereotype... never a slow driver from British Columbia camped out in left lane. They are all doing like 80+ MPH .... not sure if they are in a hurry to get to Seattle or Portland.
I get what you are saying though about bad drivers.My stereotype... never a slow driver from British Columbia camped out in left lane. They are all doing like 80+ MPH
.... not sure if they are in a hurry to get to Seattle or Portland.
1
123373
Motor Trend just compared the new CRV and CX5. In addition to the summary below, the CRV has better brakes and faster 0-60 times. 7.5 vs 8.4.
Motor Trend article summary:
"This time, though, we don't necessarily have to couch it that way. Yes, the Mazda CX-5 is prettier, more luxurious, and a little more fun to drive, but the Honda CR-V is just damn good. If you want to be coldly rational, the CR-V has more space, gets better fuel economy, has more-advanced technology, and is cheaper to own. It's also very good to drive. In the past, we lead-footed sports car lovers might have excused the Mazda's deficiencies in exchange for its lusty driving experience. But this time, we have no hesitation in recommending the CR-V to enthusiasts as well as our automotively apathetic friends and family. It's a narrow margin of victory, but whether your other car is a Camaro or a Corolla, if you want a compact crossover, you'll be slightly better served by the new Honda CR-V."
2017 Honda CR-V vs. 2017 Mazda CX-5: Head vs. Heart - Motor Trend
https://apple.news/A5qgU0d8ySu-vRVIovAGSfg
Motor Trend article summary:
"This time, though, we don't necessarily have to couch it that way. Yes, the Mazda CX-5 is prettier, more luxurious, and a little more fun to drive, but the Honda CR-V is just damn good. If you want to be coldly rational, the CR-V has more space, gets better fuel economy, has more-advanced technology, and is cheaper to own. It's also very good to drive. In the past, we lead-footed sports car lovers might have excused the Mazda's deficiencies in exchange for its lusty driving experience. But this time, we have no hesitation in recommending the CR-V to enthusiasts as well as our automotively apathetic friends and family. It's a narrow margin of victory, but whether your other car is a Camaro or a Corolla, if you want a compact crossover, you'll be slightly better served by the new Honda CR-V."
2017 Honda CR-V vs. 2017 Mazda CX-5: Head vs. Heart - Motor Trend
https://apple.news/A5qgU0d8ySu-vRVIovAGSfg
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh oh.
Ouch. I decided to hold off on selecting a vehicle for two reasons...
- crash test ratings
- comparison reviews with the CRV
Both of these appear to show weaknesses with the CX5.
I hate to say it, but I was heavily leaning toward the CX5, but now it looks like that isn't the best choice.
Just finished reading. The review highlights everything that a lot of us have been saying, much to the dismay of current '17 CX-5 owners. One thing I didn't know about was the better brakes in the Honda; and I do appreciate the review highlighting how much more space the CR-V has.
Nonetheless, the CX-5 is still a solid option. Just not the best one. If I were in the market for a crossover now, I'd buy a CR-V in the EX trim with AWD (around 27k in my area) and be perfectly content with it.
Yeah, pre17 I would't have given the CRV a thought. Now, it would definitely be on my list. The cx5 is still without a doubt a better, sharper looking car though. But the crv does seem to have many things the cx5 lacks. I think my deciding factor would be how the car just drives.
I agree there isn't much separating the two.
What helped me was insurance rate was lower for CX-5 and I could get the CX-5 for less. Honda here wasn't budging much.
Also it was quieter inside the Mazda.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
I'm the odd one out... of course not in CA and technically my G35 isn't sold as a domestic rebadged Nissan...even though it is known as a Nissan at home in Japan.
My stereotype... never a slow driver from British Columbia camped out in left lane. They are all doing like 80+ MPH
Wow. Isn't that the truth. Noticed that on my vaca to BC a about 10 years ago. Speed demons everywhere. Now, compare that to the east coast Canadians (Quebec, nova scotia). They're mega slow pokes, never in a hurry at all.... but at least they're usually courteous enough to pull over and not hog the passing line while going 5 under the limit.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
Thanks for that. Certainly a good read. Honda has really stepped up their game. One thing I noticed is that they really increased the ground clearance too, by almost 2".
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Kindof what I have been saying. The CX5 is pretty "meh" for 2017 in every possible non-Apple having, mid 8-second to 60, not a 5-star safety rated vehicle kinda way...
...but people will still say it's the best, even if it's slower, can't hang in the corners with the competition (but it does FEEL fast, yeah?), and so on.
Mazda lost their way. They used to have the market kindof cornered in the <25K CUV market for performance, at least. Not so much now.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
I agree, and what us "haters" have been saying all along. Imagine that. All good, both viable options. Pick one and roll with it. I'm not gonna hate on you as I'd be happy with a CRV as well, but glad to own this CX-5, so far anyways...
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
If I were forced to buy a new CUV (which I never would), I'd buy the CR-V. Similar cost. Better performance. Much better mpg. All of this equals more money left over (which is why you would even consider a vehicle like this to BEGIN with), and it's much more popular...which means that once it's out of warranty, 3rd party repair will be much easier, as more parts from low-mile vehicles will be available from salvage yards.
I had to replace the transmission in an Infiniti G20 once. $650 for the box, $650 for the work. You know what that woulda cost at a dealer?! Def. get the more popular option since it's so close in every other area. You will be glad 5-8 years later.
Mazda hasn't lost their way others (crv in particular) have caught and now they need to press on..the 17 was more about refinement which i won't fault them for. Let's see the diesel, and mid cycle before throwing the baby out with the bath water, k. The crv is damn good but I'd still rather drive the Mazda, i don't ask that much utility wise from my suv but i do want as much s as i can get and despite the numbers for my $, mazda still king of getting the s part right, they should push that envelope further now though...
Last edited:
I just test drove a CRV this past weekend.
Compared with CX5 driving test this is what I noticed.
I am comparing a Honda EX-L vs. CX-5 Touring with Pref equip package
Pros:
-Very smooth over bumpy roads, unfortunately wasn't about to test the CX5 in same conditions
-More spacious
-More features on ex-l even if you don't go with there top of the line trim including standard remote start (Although this didn't work through a wall), handsfree power lift-gate, getting the cruise control/lane departure all that stuff is possible along with power gate/moon roof. On the Mazda touring trim is either 1 or the other
-3-view rear camera with dynamic guidelines (this is huge because my wife always get into rear parking issues)
-The rear AC/heat air vents are adjustable in terms of direction (I believe it is fixed on the cx5?)
-EX-L trim has leather interior, Touring trim of cx5 is leatherette
-Android auto + carplay... cmon Mazda its 2017 when the heck is coming!
-8way lumbar seat driver vs 6way for cx5. Also has MEMORY. Passenger seat is also powered
-heated exterior side mirror
-I hate the placement of USB of CX-5
-Lots of room to palce stuff in center console.
Cons:
-Louder on the road (not by much)
-The look is ugly. From a profile side view it looks like a minivan
-I'm not a big fan of where the driving stick is, a little bit elevated
-Visibility was not as clear as CX5 from the front
-CVT doesn't have the nice revving sound/switching/power feeling
-60/40 rear seat folding vs 40/20/40 on cx5
The other big thing is 5/5 safety test ratings since I have a baby coming. I believe Mazda only got 4/5 on the rear seats. Other than what I mentioned above, the ride seemed pretty identical to me.
Also can anyone verify for me that the cx5 touring vs gt has different center armrest in front? IIRC touring is like a peninsula shaped armrest favoring driver side but pics im seeing of GT show a standard rectangular arm rest.
EDIT: NVM, that was a 2016.5 that has a different armrest.
Compared with CX5 driving test this is what I noticed.
I am comparing a Honda EX-L vs. CX-5 Touring with Pref equip package
Pros:
-Very smooth over bumpy roads, unfortunately wasn't about to test the CX5 in same conditions
-More spacious
-More features on ex-l even if you don't go with there top of the line trim including standard remote start (Although this didn't work through a wall), handsfree power lift-gate, getting the cruise control/lane departure all that stuff is possible along with power gate/moon roof. On the Mazda touring trim is either 1 or the other
-3-view rear camera with dynamic guidelines (this is huge because my wife always get into rear parking issues)
-The rear AC/heat air vents are adjustable in terms of direction (I believe it is fixed on the cx5?)
-EX-L trim has leather interior, Touring trim of cx5 is leatherette
-Android auto + carplay... cmon Mazda its 2017 when the heck is coming!
-8way lumbar seat driver vs 6way for cx5. Also has MEMORY. Passenger seat is also powered
-heated exterior side mirror
-I hate the placement of USB of CX-5
-Lots of room to palce stuff in center console.
Cons:
-Louder on the road (not by much)
-The look is ugly. From a profile side view it looks like a minivan
-I'm not a big fan of where the driving stick is, a little bit elevated
-Visibility was not as clear as CX5 from the front
-CVT doesn't have the nice revving sound/switching/power feeling
-60/40 rear seat folding vs 40/20/40 on cx5
The other big thing is 5/5 safety test ratings since I have a baby coming. I believe Mazda only got 4/5 on the rear seats. Other than what I mentioned above, the ride seemed pretty identical to me.
Also can anyone verify for me that the cx5 touring vs gt has different center armrest in front? IIRC touring is like a peninsula shaped armrest favoring driver side but pics im seeing of GT show a standard rectangular arm rest.
EDIT: NVM, that was a 2016.5 that has a different armrest.
Last edited:
- Status
