I hope Mazda did some real good stuff for 2017...

They did not do that because of 0-60 times. They did it because overall, the 2.0 was just too sluggish. You can hop in a car and feel if its too sluggish. That's what happened with the 2.0. It was just reported that it was under-powered over and over. So, Mazda put out the bigger engine. But it was not because of 0-60 times.

I think his frustration is the continual stupid posts of poor gas milage and harping about how much slower the CX-5 is compared to the new CR-V. When in reality, the CX-5 get pretty much the reported gas milage and is equivalent in "speed" to the new CR-V. And I agree with him for the most part, nobody is gong to buy a CR-V or CX-5 because of the 0-60 times being 0.1 seconds apart. Well, maybe one person. (screwy)
 
The new CRV will trump that now buddy. 0-60 in 5.8 secs with the 1.5 turbo. It will corner almost like a Miata. Add to that the 76 cubic ft, CX5 is about 69 cu ft. of cargo when seats are folded.
Add to that it will be 3-5K cheaper than CX5 for similar trim and will be about 2.5~3 mpg better in gas mileage. Also Honda quality >> CX5. And that wood on the dash - damn nothing screams I am a rich guy than wood on your dash.

well said

all the cx5 had going for it was the great handling, and the new crv is up in that territory now. most people will flock to honda quality over mazda. well dont have to assume, the facts already indicate the crv has been the best selling cuv at least in the usa for the past x amount of years. the 2017 has rave reviews from pretty much near all car review media outlets. I believe the 0-60 is actually claimed at 7.3 though. still quick for this size vehicle. I think reviews said it was like a full second faster than the outgoing model.



people say they dont want to feel like they are driving a grocery getter family soccer car type vehicle.. well then you are looking into the wrong vehicles whether its the crv or cx5. this is generally what these vehicles are aimed for except going full out family car soccer mom Van. For many unlike us arguing on the internet, many in fact do buy these vehicles based on starting a family and want more room to bring groceries etc. so ironically the handling ability is not on the top of our list. its just a bonus that the cx5 handled great, and now the CRV can also claim that title. so what family guys like me look for is the interior and all the features and amenities. Now which clearly point to the CRV as the winner. its much more roomer and doesn't have quite a tight feel up front like the CX5. add that to the improved gas mileage and now capable handling, and improved power and 0-60 times. that is why its getting a lot of praises and winning in its class.

perhaps why the 1st gen cx5 has won praises all the years prior because it added a sportier edge to the class. but those times have passed, have to get with the times and bring the features in to compete. the 2016.5 clearly has been shown its age. and it's not looking good or the 2017 which looks like it focused more only on exterior changes.

thus why the OP made a great thread to say he hopes mazda did some real good stuff for the 2017.. so far its only the exterior. that wont help them win this battle with the crv. esp if in 2018 honda for the USDM market brings the panoramic roof and heated rear seats thats already in the canadian variants. better bring that 2.5L turbo from the cx9 keep that headsup display but also bring android auto and apple car play, it will be "standard" "expected" features for top of the line or mid level trims from many manufacturers
 
people say they dont want to feel like they are driving a grocery getter family soccer car type vehicle.. well then you are looking into the wrong vehicles whether its the crv or cx5. this is generally what these vehicles are aimed for except going full out family car soccer mom Van.
This a million times over. CX5 does not even need to exist, its a stupid idea - its an unnecessary car - what is the point of it.
If i wanted utility and good handling car - I will buy a BMW 3 seriers or a Porsche and a reliable Rav4 - why would I buy a CX5.
Have you ever heard someone buy a Gray crayon! hell no - they just buy black and white crayons and mix them.
 
This a million times over. CX5 does not even need to exist, its a stupid idea - its an unnecessary car - what is the point of it.
If i wanted utility and good handling car - I will buy a BMW 3 seriers or a Porsche and a reliable Rav4 - why would I buy a CX5.
Have you ever heard someone buy a Gray crayon! hell no - they just buy black and white crayons and mix them.

What?

Maybe some of us only wanted to buy one car, that was reliable, safe and utilitarian, while still being somewhat fun to drive.
 
Some pretty absurd comments here but I'm going to reply because I fit the description in this 2 car scheme mentioned above..prior to the RWD x1 I owned a 6MT 128i for 6+ years- it was in my garage when the new CX-5 arrived. Turns out I pretty much always want to have some measure of fun with capable handling even for my AWD daily driven vehicle aka grocery getter, mom mobile, hell I don't give a rats ass what you want to call it (CX-5 replaced CR-V) thanks Mazda- very nice all around vehicle- suits my needs, while still giving me some wants.

If circumstances limited me to one car- the enthusiast in me would want for more but I'd buy the exact same (or lower spec) Mazda CX-5 and figure out a way to get a toy car added back.
 
Last edited:
This a million times over. CX5 does not even need to exist, its a stupid idea - its an unnecessary car - what is the point of it.
If i wanted utility and good handling car - I will buy a BMW 3 seriers or a Porsche and a reliable Rav4 - why would I buy a CX5.
Have you ever heard someone buy a Gray crayon! hell no - they just buy black and white crayons and mix them.

I have owned a couple of BMWs a Audi. a few SAABs some Peugeots. and a bunch of other good handling cars. I need a vehicle with the seating position of the CX-5 and I want good handling in the car I am driving, not just the toy in the garage but the car I am driving right now. I am very glad that the CX-5 exists.

Zoom Zoom
 
Whoa dude I think your hostility is somewhat misguided here.

My apologies if I am coming across as hostile. I assure I am not angry. But it does annoy me that we are being told the CRV is the game changer today that is just outclassed Mazda... based on stats and a review.
Not one person here saying "Mazda needs to step it up" has actually driven a CRV. I drove one in November. I still bought a CX5.
 
I drove a '17 CRV in Jan and later that day bought my CX5! There's a lot to like about the new CRV, and in many cases I'd recommend it over the CX5 to my friends. But I still preferred the 16.5 CX5 for both interior and exterior appearance and for the features I could get for the price.
 
Who was saying that the new CRV handles better than the current CX-5? Is there a link to a comparo video or review?

By the way, the CRV has a CVT (which I'm not a fan of), but it better be getting good mileage because of it, otherwise, what's the point. The CX-5 gets respectable mileage all while using a 6-speed automatic.
 
This a million times over. CX5 does not even need to exist, its a stupid idea - its an unnecessary car - what is the point of it.
If i wanted utility and good handling car - I will buy a BMW 3 seriers or a Porsche and a reliable Rav4 - why would I buy a CX5.
Have you ever heard someone buy a Gray crayon! hell no - they just buy black and white crayons and mix them.

I don't know what to think of your posts anymore lol
 
My apologies if I am coming across as hostile. I assure I am not angry. But it does annoy me that we are being told the CRV is the game changer today that is just outclassed Mazda... based on stats and a review.
Not one person here saying "Mazda needs to step it up" has actually driven a CRV. I drove one in November. I still bought a CX5.

I know you're kinda new here.... but to rehash, we also have a 2015 CRV along with the 2016 CX5. The CRV drives/handles like a washing machine. The CX5 more like an elevated go-kart. But the GF still wanted the CRV for its more utilitarian aspects. I find the CVT kinda annoying, the seats terribly uncomfortable, and the random vibrations at idle when < 600 rpms to be downright infuriating.

Having said that, in the 2 years we've had it all we've done is oil changes (there is one recall we haven't taken it in for yet).

Whereas the CX5 has been hit with 3 recalls (2 performed), has had the LED headlights replaced for hazing/milkyness, has had a sensor on the brakes replaced, and has various rattles and squeaks. Further, the longer I've owned it, the fit and finish on the interior is starting to show its deficiencies. The gaps between plastic and fabric are expanding, and there is about an 1/8" gap on the driver side where the a-pillar, dash and mid-dash all converge. One of the plastic panels on the spoiler now rattles, and the front windows have about an inch of play when down (you car move them fore and aft in the window tracks). Oh, and they rattle when down an inch or so too.

All in all, the CX5 is much more engaging to drive, but if the dealer wasn't on my way into work I'd be seriously more annoyed with the inconveniences of all the visits.

I bought the CX5 because our 2005 Mazda 6 lasted 10 years with zero problems (and that's when it was quasi-ford). I have little faith the CX5 will last as long, and has already far surpassed the 6 in terms of required maintenance.
 
This a million times over. CX5 does not even need to exist, its a stupid idea - its an unnecessary car - what is the point of it.
If i wanted utility and good handling car - I will buy a BMW 3 seriers or a Porsche and a reliable Rav4 - why would I buy a CX5.
Have you ever heard someone buy a Gray crayon! hell no - they just buy black and white crayons and mix them.

I find this post very very offensive. Grey crayons have rights!!!
 
I drove the CR-V and man for most CUV shoppers it is pretty damn compelling...if I needed the extra space, if I didn't value engaging dynamics quite as much, if I didn't loathe CVTs...it would be tough not to chose it- its that much better (than outgoing)
 
Who was saying that the new CRV handles better than the current CX-5? Is there a link to a comparo video or review?

Unobtanium. In the very first post. And again and again....

@Banjos n Beer. Yea, I'm new here, but I'm not new to being an enthusiast. Nice to hear your perspective. I do recall seeing the "handles like a bathtub" comment somewhere. lol
- I don't hold recalls against any brand (unless they try to get out of them or cover them up like). Your CRV may not have had any, but Honda has had PLENTY on other cars.
- I actually DIDN'T hate the CVT. Didn't love it, but I could live with it if I had to. And probably be happy with it. lol

-
 
CR-V handles better than cx5. It has more handles in the interior.

LMAO +1

I did back-to-back test drives the CR-V and the CX-5 (the two dealers are next to each other). After driving the CX-5 for 15 minutes, then the CR-V on the exact same route, I walked out of the CR-V to get back to the Mazda dealer to initiate the paperwork.

I've done my homework and research beforehand so I was sitting on the fence, but the obvious differences between the two test drives was the final confirmation. I was a long time Honda driver (two Accords, one Civic), but the CX-5 totally convinced me.

I drove my brothers' CR-V, Pilot, and Venza a few times, they drive like SUV/CUV. The CX-5, I drive it like my old Civic, taking corners and curves like nothing, except that I can't drift in the snow anymore without a manual handbrake.
 
I think the handles like a bathtub was a (rather amusing) reference to the previous generation CR-V...to which I fully concur.
Can't drift an AWD CX-5 in the snow without a manual handbrake? Turn off TCS, cut the wheel, hit the gas, enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Can't drift an AWD CX-5 in the snow without a manual handbrake? Turn off TCS, cut the wheel, hit the gas, enjoy!

Might do that sometime early winter next year, too lazy to take the DM-V2 tires off although it was still snowing yesterday. Part of me don't want to rev up my precious baby, the 1999 Civic was good for bashing around.
 
Back