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

[Monterra]

Couple of Edmunds reviews I found to give this thread a little bump..

My wife and I test drove the 2017 CRV EXL, which has wonderful reviews, and the car felt "ok" to us. There was nothing really exciting about the CRV, except for the cargo space and remote starter. One week later, we test drove the 2017 CX-5 GT, and we were both very impressed. The interior is gorgeous, doors thump just like a German car, and the car feels substantial on the road. My wife made a comment how she felt tuned and "one" with the car while driving it. I was likely impressed with the quality of the car and felt the power was adequate although, this car could be made near perfect by adding a turbocharger or a slightly more powerful engine. So overall, this is a clear winner between the CRV and the CX-5. We decided to wait few months until Apple Carplay comes out on the CX-5 before we purchase this car. As a long-time Honda owner, my suggestion to all of you out there is go out there at least test drive this car. You will be pleasantly surprised with the driving dynamics and overall fit and finish of the cabin. However, if you are looking at more cargo and rear seat space, look at the CRV, which will be much better suited for this.

And a CX5 loyalist:
I owned a 2013 Mazda CX5 Touring when they first came out and then I purchased a 2016 Mazda CX5, but this time I moved up the Grand Touring, then I just bought a 2017 Mazda CX5 Grand Touring. Also each of the cars I purchased was the same color a Silver Gray. The odds of buying not only the same car, same model and basically the same color are extremely rare and that speaks for it's self as to how good the car is. Plus my wife bought a 2013 CX5 2 weeks after I had bought my 2013 CX5 and she loves it. So I look at our CX5s as family.

 

[bluegrass]

A new review from Car & Driver...
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review

Their final takeaway...
"Those who value steering and handling can look past the smallish rear seat, which isnt so far off the class norm to be a deal breaker. And while we would like a bit more power, the CX-5 is a compelling and enjoyable small SUV in a class that too often is anything but."

 

[antoxa310]

My wife and I test drove the CX-5, CR-V and the Forester back-to-back on the same day as these were our top choices and we wanted to make the decision which car to go with. In the end we decided to go with the CX-5 and will be buying one soon. In terms of ranking, we ranked them as follows:
1. CX-5
2. Forester
3. CR-V

We really liked the Forester for the big windows and awesome visibility all around. I never drove a CVT before but in the Forester it was very smooth and actually felt a lot better than I thought it would be. The big downside to the Forester was the spartan interior and the lack of basic comfort features. Even to get the navigation you had to climb to one of the top trims, it was not offered even as an option in any of the lower or mid trims. Honestly, I felt like I was driving a 10 year-old car in terms of comfort and interior features.

The CR-V was dead-last in our ranking. We felt the tiny engine was inadequate. In a 60 km/h (about 40 mph) city street and stop and go traffic, the car felt very sluggish until the turbo kicks in. Without turbo the engine is way undersized for that kind of car and the turbo had to activate constantly in this kind of traffic. Once the turbo kicks in it creates a jerking motion for the car. After driving for about 20 minutes this jerking motion got so annoying for us, we just wanted to end the test drive. In addition, the infotainment system in the CR-V was needlessly complicated as it required many button presses on the touch screen to get to the most basic functions.

We drove the top trim of the CR-V and the GS trim (equivalent to Touring in the U.S.) for the CX-5 and we felt the interior in the CX-5 was better made. Visibility all around in the CR-V was equivalent to the CX-5 but not as good as it was on the Forester. I would give a 10 visibility rating to the Forester and an 8 rating to CR-V and the CX-5. We felt that the visibility on the CX and CR-V was still very good and enough for practical use.

In terms of the CX-5, we specifically asked to drive the GS trim as that's what we targeted. We felt the interior was better than the other cars, even though CR-V was a higher trim level and the Forester was equivalent mid-trim level. In terms of comfort features, for a middle trim level the CX-5 had a ton of value for the money (not to mention the free navigation promotion from Mazda) and felt much more upscale. The engine felt good and had no trouble in city traffic. We also took the car on the highway to see how it handles quick acceleration and the need to merge into 100 km/h (about 70 mph) traffic. I currently drive Mazda 3 so I wanted to feel the difference of the heavier car. It was surprisingly smooth. The big difference we noticed is how solid the car felt. I felt like the car was barely moving and I had to check the speedometer multiple times to verify that indeed I am driving at highway speeds. The work that Mazda has done on NVH made a huge difference and very noticeable compared to CR-V and Forester. It did take away that feeling of going fast but it made it feel much more upscale.

In the end we decided that CX-5 is what we are looking for, so we'll be getting ours soon.

 

[Unobtanium]

Will say the gas mileage just totally sucks on these things. Went on a 650ish mile trip. My average was 23.5mpg. I would have maybe hit 24, except I idled a bit eating, handling some business on the phone, etc and that dropped it a touch.

 

[Kaps]

My wife and I test drove the CX-5, CR-V and the Forester back-to-back on the same day as these were our top choices and we wanted to make the decision which car to go with. In the end we decided to go with the CX-5 and will be buying one soon. In terms of ranking, we ranked them as follows:
1. CX-5
2. Forester
3. CR-V

We really liked the Forester for the big windows and awesome visibility all around. I never drove a CVT before but in the Forester it was very smooth and actually felt a lot better than I thought it would be. The big downside to the Forester was the spartan interior and the lack of basic comfort features. Even to get the navigation you had to climb to one of the top trims, it was not offered even as an option in any of the lower or mid trims. Honestly, I felt like I was driving a 10 year-old car in terms of comfort and interior features.

The CR-V was dead-last in our ranking. We felt the tiny engine was inadequate. In a 60 km/h (about 40 mph) city street and stop and go traffic, the car felt very sluggish until the turbo kicks in. Without turbo the engine is way undersized for that kind of car and the turbo had to activate constantly in this kind of traffic. Once the turbo kicks in it creates a jerking motion for the car. After driving for about 20 minutes this jerking motion got so annoying for us, we just wanted to end the test drive. In addition, the infotainment system in the CR-V was needlessly complicated as it required many button presses on the touch screen to get to the most basic functions.

We drove the top trim of the CR-V and the GS trim (equivalent to Touring in the U.S.) for the CX-5 and we felt the interior in the CX-5 was better made. Visibility all around in the CR-V was equivalent to the CX-5 but not as good as it was on the Forester. I would give a 10 visibility rating to the Forester and an 8 rating to CR-V and the CX-5. We felt that the visibility on the CX and CR-V was still very good and enough for practical use.

In terms of the CX-5, we specifically asked to drive the GS trim as that's what we targeted. We felt the interior was better than the other cars, even though CR-V was a higher trim level and the Forester was equivalent mid-trim level. In terms of comfort features, for a middle trim level the CX-5 had a ton of value for the money (not to mention the free navigation promotion from Mazda) and felt much more upscale. The engine felt good and had no trouble in city traffic. We also took the car on the highway to see how it handles quick acceleration and the need to merge into 100 km/h (about 70 mph) traffic. I currently drive Mazda 3 so I wanted to feel the difference of the heavier car. It was surprisingly smooth. The big difference we noticed is how solid the car felt. I felt like the car was barely moving and I had to check the speedometer multiple times to verify that indeed I am driving at highway speeds. The work that Mazda has done on NVH made a huge difference and very noticeable compared to CR-V and Forester. It did take away that feeling of going fast but it made it feel much more upscale.

In the end we decided that CX-5 is what we are looking for, so we'll be getting ours soon.

I never drove the CR-V but this comment hits home. Just logically think CVT + Turbo will always suck. Poor gas mileage in stop n go.
On gas mileage 17s are in tune with 16s. In my mixed driving 34 on trip going to work and 27 back is doable. On way back i pick my daughter so its a different route. And I am not driving like a prick but not being a slouch too.
One of the biggest areas where CX-5 out classes CRV is multiple lane city driving. Cx5 thrives in this environment. It loves it, CRV though is jerky / non linear and 3 mpg less than CX-5. This is an ultimate urban cuv.

 

[Monterra]

Speaking of keeping in family..I'm actually now considering keeping the '14 few more yrs and maybe leasing an '18 diesel (fingers still crossed on its arrival) before adding a twin(86/BRZ) when my x1 lease goes back next year. 2 cars, 2 CX5s? Confirmed nut case? Asking to misfuel the diesel (virtually impossible w/gas) oops wrong CX5? Highly unlikely but hey ppl make boneheaded mistakes every day so can't fully discount the possibility Thought behind this was they're different enough to keep me interested short-mid term and buying a sports car I don't need while a ~100k mile CX5 that I do need to get to work in any weather might need to be replaced in the not so distant future..

 

[bluegrass]

Will say the gas mileage just totally sucks on these things. Went on a 650ish mile trip. My average was 23.5mpg. I would have maybe hit 24, except I idled a bit eating, handling some business on the phone, etc and that dropped it a touch.

Sounds like you either have bad driving habits or something is wrong with your vehicle.

The Car & Driver review I just posted indicates 32 MPG in real world driving.

 

[Kaps]

Sounds like you either have bad driving habits or something is wrong with your vehicle.

The Car & Driver review I just posted indicates 32 MPG in real world driving.

For a 2017 FWD I would target 34 mpg on freeway @ 65, maybe 31-32 @ 70 mph. For 16 its way less.
AWD seems to be very close to EPA.

 

[Monterra]

Will say the gas mileage just totally sucks on these things. Went on a 650ish mile trip. My average was 23.5mpg. I would have maybe hit 24, except I idled a bit eating, handling some business on the phone, etc and that dropped it a touch.

@5 or so over posted, translation: 90ish mph in unobtaniumland right bro?

 

[Kaps]

@5 or so over posted, translation: 90ish mph in unobtaniumland right bro?

Its inappropriate to attack Unob on this. Reason i say that - he brings a data point to the discussion. The datapoint looks outlandish but is a data point none the less.
I have had some unpopular opinions on highway mpg too for FWD 16 - assuming me or unob are not lying, these are real world mpg #s we see.
More data points are good for potential owners.

 

[Monterra]

This was in no way/shape/form meant as an attack on unob. Some interstates in his area run 80-85 posted speed as a video he posted here confirms so for him to just come out and say mileage really sucks and not at least qualify that with but we do have the highest posted speeds in the country is a data point but imo one that can mislead more than inform. Further, I think the performance car lineage of his past says he ain't the average CX-5 user and your results will almost certainly be better than his and by a good margin as mine are..28-29 keeping it @70+/-5. Doing 90 while barely illegal on his roads (at night no less) is just not a typical use case for the vast majority of CX5s in the wild.

 

[Unobtanium]

Sounds like you either have bad driving habits or something is wrong with your vehicle.

The Car & Driver review I just posted indicates 32 MPG in real world driving.

Roger that. Cruise control is terrible. Horrible algorithms.

 

[Unobtanium]

This was in no way/shape/form meant as an attack on unob. Some interstates in his area run 80-85 posted speed as a video he posted here confirms so for him to just come out and say mileage really sucks and not at least qualify that with but we do have the highest posted speeds in the country is a data point but imo one that can mislead more than inform. Further, I think the performance car lineage of his past says he ain't the average CX-5 user and your results will almost certainly be better than his and by a good margin as mine are..28-29 keeping it @70+/-5. Doing 90 while barely illegal on his roads (at night no less) is just not a typical use case for the vast majority of CX5s in the wild.

Average speed was calculated out at 68mph not counting the idling time, which dropped it to mid 60's. I ran 70-85 mostly, minus a few small towns.

 

[Kaps]

Roger that. Cruise control is terrible. Horrible algorithms.

I dont know what this means? CC on Mazda is very accurate +/-1 or 2 mph. Downshifts when slowing. The rental camry would go as far as 62 mph when CC was set to 57 during downhills. Awkward. I like the CC on Mazda a lot.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

My cruise control works very well.

Though to be fair, sounds like all Uno was saying is he was using cruise control and still got bad MPG.

 

[mactire.rua]

Granted my ownership is not as long as others but I have noticed extended runs over 70 will drop the MPG. For me the sweet spot has been runs between 45 through 65. Great for cruising back roads but it is not an efficient interstate cruiser. Good thing I prefer back roads over interstates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NelsonLewis]

My cruise control works very well.

Though to be fair, sounds like all Uno was saying is he was using cruise control and still got bad MPG.

Probably so. Not a big fan of the CC either. Kinda sucks, and definitely sucks for highway miles with hilly terrain. It can't Mimic pulling the hills like I can manually, it's way late to engage and revs way harder than it needs too, hence killing MPG.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Granted my ownership is not as long as others but I have noticed extended runs over 70 will drop the MPG. For me the sweet spot has been runs between 45 through 65. Great for cruising back roads but it is not an efficient interstate cruiser. Good thing I prefer back roads over interstates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep yep, ditto.

 

[Monterra]

If you watched the video unob posted awhile back you'll understand why his results suck. Granted it looked pretty flat, but sounded like he was driving into fn a monsoon @90, the 2.5 was having to work real hard to meet his cc demands, kicking down a lot, I honestly felt a little bad for his rented mule..i mean Mazda watching it.

 

[bluegrass]

Probably so. Not a big fan of the CC either. Kinda sucks, and definitely sucks for highway miles with hilly terrain. It can't Mimic pulling the hills like I can manually, it's way late to engage and revs way harder than it needs too, hence killing MPG.

This is interesting. I assume you are referring to the 2017 model CX-5?

Can you and others chime in a bit more on this issue? Do you find the CC to be worse than other similar vehicles?