- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I think OP decided to keep their cx5, or is still test driving. Maybe I'm confusing op with another op though as there are several of these type threads.
Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V
- Thread starter bluegrass
- Start date
- Status
I think OP decided to keep their cx5, or is still test driving. Maybe I'm confusing op with another op though as there are several of these type threads.
So when you say they've lost their way and totally destroyed the cx5 by implementing most of what you were saying- going upscale, more sound deadening, etc, then narrowly (per the author) losing to the CR-V that's you being correct all along? You're a twisted individual unob
- :
- Denver, CO
They talk s*** about his CR-V because it's a Mazda forum. For what I and many others like about driving, the CR-V will never be the "better" car. I personally wouldn't be caught dead driving a CR-V.
When I think of a CR-V owner, this comes to mind:
I have my own beefs against the 2017 CX-5, but put that aside, it's still a Mazda forum and the Honda fanboys can quote stats and features that make their car "better" and boast about how superior their CR-V is (once again...on a Mazda forum in-case we are forgetting this detail). At the end of the day it's better for...you. It's not "better" for me.
If you're gonna spew garbage, at least don't get your facts wrong.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
The sound deadening didn't cost them half a second to 60. I dunno how they buggered that one up. Taking my suggestion, or more honestly, arriving at it on their own, is all that saved them. Can you imagine if they werent quieter and nicer, given all thsy they gave up!? Same for the safety ratings. Nothing about reducing nvh forced them go produce one of the least safest cx5 models made.
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
You're correct, I had overlooked that the 2016 was a massive safety downgrade from the 2015. I incorrectly thought the 2016.5 was a mid year tweak to fix that, in part. Seems I can't find anything to support that.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
They talk s*** about his CR-V because it's a Mazda forum. For what I and many others like about driving, the CR-V will never be the "better" car. I personally wouldn't be caught dead driving a CR-V.
When I think of a CR-V owner, this comes to mind:
I have my own beefs against the 2017 CX-5, but put that aside, it's still a Mazda forum and the Honda fanboys can quote stats and features that make their car "better" and boast about how superior their CR-V is (once again...on a Mazda forum in-case we are forgetting this detail). At the end of the day it's better for...you. It's not "better" for me.
When I think of a cx5 owner, I think of me. A guy who really doesn't care as long as it gets from a to b. Like a girl I once dated said "it's not sexy, but it's responsible, and responsible is sexy". That's the cx5, to me. Sexy, because it's economical, sensible, and got good cr reviews for not breaking all the time.
OP here.
I mentioned this a few pages back...
I was strongly leaning toward the CX5, but had been waiting on crash test results and comparison test reviews before making a decision.
Both of these have exposed weaknesses with the CX5, so I am now leaning towards the CRV, if I can stomach the interior & exterior styling and the CVT.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
So they nerfed the gas burner class to give the diesel class a chance at PvP?
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
When I think of a CR-V owner, this comes to mind:
Funny thing is, this is all I see driving CX-5s around here, well if you add 30 more years. I've seen one dude driving one, and I asked him how he liked it, "it's my mom's car, but she likes it!" Lol
I have just done some digging and our 2017 CX-5s have only increased in weight by on average 40kg (88lbs). It's broken down as follows:
"Perhaps disappointingly for some, weight rises – around 40kg – but engineering chief Masaya Kodama insists the penalty of the extra mass was inevitable in the face of improved functionality (such as the more versatile rear seats and increased driver-assist tech that collectively add 5kg), crash safety (another 5kg), more opulent cabin fittings (that’s 10kg more), and refinement/dynamic performance (sound deadening and 15 percent rise in torsional rigidity come at a 20kg cost)."
Source: 2017 Mazda CX-5 international first drive
Zf_cxagm10
Member
- :
- Coming soon: Most likely a Mazda
I'd easily pick the CX-5 over a CR-V due to one thing, the CX-5 has a real automatic transmission, I've used my friends 2017 CR-V and it was official that I dislike cvts. I was waiting for a gear shift, instead it stayed at 2.5k till I got to 45 mph. If honda used a real geared automatic then it would have been hard for me to pick.
They didn't nerf the gas engine they just saddled it with more weight (lets get that gt wt weight please) and yeah the probably not so unintended consequence is diesels with their big tq figures shrug off weight gain much easier than just adequately powered gassers..Not that the 17 felt doggish but the diesel will move it noticeably better now than before but with additional weight of diesel..brakes are really gonna need an upgrade.
Front brakes are slightly larger on our diesel compared to the petrol:
Diesel 320mm
Petrol 297mm
Last edited:
I thought 140 seemed awfully high thanks for that informative post
The beauty about competition is that it drives advancement. The fact is that the CRV and the CX-5 are both such great cars thanks to the competition created by each other.
Between these two which car is "better" as an overall package depends on the person looking at them and how their wants / needs align with each. Mazda's "soul" will shine through for some, while Honda's practicality will appeal to others regardless of the other pros / cons for each car.
Fundamentally some will want NA vs turbo, CVT vs 6 speed auto, etc or vice versa. The beauty about a free market is that there's nothing wrong with a buyer choosing one over the other for any reason as it's their money to spend.
The CRV may be the winner on paper in terms of practical specifications and that in itself will make it the winner for some, but it doesn't necessarily make it the winner for everyone. There was something intangible about how the CX-5 suited us just right.
My guess is you'll see these two flip flop for top spot in similar reviews with the other as the runner up and likely closing out with a qualifying phrase along the lines of "it was so close", "if it were our money", etc.
Motor Trend almost says it themselves in the headline for the article "Head vs Heart". Since when was it dumb to listen to your head, and how often do you regret following your heart? Bottom line is that as a buyer you can't really go wrong with either.
Between these two which car is "better" as an overall package depends on the person looking at them and how their wants / needs align with each. Mazda's "soul" will shine through for some, while Honda's practicality will appeal to others regardless of the other pros / cons for each car.
Fundamentally some will want NA vs turbo, CVT vs 6 speed auto, etc or vice versa. The beauty about a free market is that there's nothing wrong with a buyer choosing one over the other for any reason as it's their money to spend.
The CRV may be the winner on paper in terms of practical specifications and that in itself will make it the winner for some, but it doesn't necessarily make it the winner for everyone. There was something intangible about how the CX-5 suited us just right.
My guess is you'll see these two flip flop for top spot in similar reviews with the other as the runner up and likely closing out with a qualifying phrase along the lines of "it was so close", "if it were our money", etc.
Motor Trend almost says it themselves in the headline for the article "Head vs Heart". Since when was it dumb to listen to your head, and how often do you regret following your heart? Bottom line is that as a buyer you can't really go wrong with either.
I really hope Mazda nailed it with the 2017 CX5. Meaning kept up with the competition and can increase sales/market share. Based on what I read it was a real balancing act to update the car and enhance the appeal. I suspect one of the reasons the CRV scores well in some driving areas is because of Mazda. Underdog company in a scale economy industry competing in the affordable price point.
Sideline note - I would think the Subaru Forrester would be the poster child of the "toaster" utility vehicle. Practical, reliable, no nonsense, well designed, point and go and get there (without the scraping the front end with a shallow approach angle). Drives like a truck.
Sideline note - I would think the Subaru Forrester would be the poster child of the "toaster" utility vehicle. Practical, reliable, no nonsense, well designed, point and go and get there (without the scraping the front end with a shallow approach angle). Drives like a truck.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Yes I must admit, I do feel vindicated by the release of the Motor Trend comparison. Just goes to show I was right all along. When you have a major automotive publication like Motor Trend not only recommend the CRV over the CX-5 not just to the average buyer but also ENTHUSIASTS, it speaks volumes.
And in case anyone missed it, it's also won 3 'SUV of the Year' awards already and it's only been out 6 months. I expect it to land a few more awards before the year is over:
AutoTrader
http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20170515/comparison-test-2017-compact-suvs-part-2-40-000/
Autoguide:
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/...de-com-utility-vehicle-of-the-year-award.html
CarandDriver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/best-compact-suv-honda-cr-v-2017-10best-trucks-and-suvs
Last edited:
- Status
