OK feel like this thread has left the rails a bit but...I recently drove the new CR-V (owned an 07 before the CX-5) and here's what I think. Its a lot (like a real lot) better than the outgoing model in many ways..interior is very nice (save the fake wood) definitely of good quality- didn't really pay attention to infotainment but it does have Android auto so it probably wins there over current CX5 (which it should honestly.) Brakes- yeah those things bite- hard maybe a bit too hard per psi for my liking but they do work very well when asked. Acceleration- fine but the CVT (any CVT and this one isn't bad) turns potential fun into a yawnful experience for me and (I manually downshift my car all time.) Nice set of features on the EX awd for ~28k without having to go all in like built in remote start- mazda should do this..Overall the drive was nice, capable, placid, efficient- ie it answers a hell of lot of questions for an awful lot of people but despite all the improvements- many of them as good or better than CX-5 particularly on paper, Mazda is still the better more engaging vehicle to drive for me but the new CR-V makes a very strong case and is certainly the more pragmatic (if still boring) choice for most people. I'm not most people so I'll wait for 2017s to show face and make a decision to hold out for an 18 or maybe jump in a 16.5 on sale..
I hope Mazda did some real good stuff for 2017...
- Thread starter Unobtanium
- Start date
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
You do realize what a 3mph trap speed translates into on the freeway, yes? I mean, have you ever raced a car that traps several mph slower from a roll? It's fugly
Mainly, I think you refuse to respond because I pointed out a drastic difference between the two datasets and got the question you asked correct. Sorry?
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Well, the Honda only has a few hp (like 6...) more than the CX-5, and it uses a CVT, and it also happens to weigh almost exactly what the CX5 weighs, and it's faster than the CX-5, so a CVT mustn't be TOO bad for performance.
Look at the Honda's final drive, though. Freaking 5.05, baby! The CVT has a broad range though, going as low as 0.405, for an even "taller" final gear than the Forester! WOOT! Honda nails that gearing thing...
Anyway, check out the results of Forester's gearing...not so hot. And we know their CVT is just fine, because the Forester 2.0XT is just as quick as its 250hp and weight suggest it should be. It's gearing is also improved from the 2.5 Forester.
It's a gearing issue all around, here, as you can see above, I think.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
That's kindof what I figured it would be. Like a ZR1 compared to a Z06. Much less drama and twitch, better actual performance. Not as fun, just faster and more capable and more suave about it.
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Stop drinking the kool aid! Have you seen the numbers? The CX5 cannot be better. It's simple numbers!
Obtanium, you are opinionated, I have an opinion. There's a difference. I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong. I'm not acting as if my opinion is fact. That's kind of what opinionated is. Telling people "you must be drinking the kool aid" if I prefer one car over another. Especially concerning a car you haven't driven. I was thinking about this thread when I parked next to a Rav4 this morning. I can't believe they are same generation. They can't be... right? Looking at this I can't believe anyone buys that ugly Toyota over the Mazda.
That Toyota could get DOUBLE the MPG of the Mazda...I'm not buying it.
I'm reading your posts now in comedian Brian Regan's voice. Know him?
"But look at da numbers! It's better. It's better on pa-per. It is. Just look. It's better on pa-per".
If you think numbers on paper matter, that's fine. They don't to me. Do I smile when my right foot depresses the accelerator? Do I like to look at it?
Maybe I'm shallow, or superficial...but I'm a car guy. Not a "get me from A to B as cheaply as I can" guy. Not a "but it's .1 better on da skid pad" guy. And I'm ok with that.
I'll stick with ZOOM - ZOOM or DRIVING MATTERS over... what the hell is their slogan now? THE POWER OF DREAMS. Seriously? This is your super bowl commercial?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f06ng5cII8o
Cute as hell, sure, but.... I'm sorry Honda... you're just not selling me a car in that ad. It's like we're speaking different languages.
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
This gave me a chuckle. You can't believe people think how they do when it differs from your taste...but you're not opinionated.
Look. I know I am opinionated. I know I share my opinions, and I know I openly disagree with people. I make no pretenses about it. I'm as subtle and direct as a sledgehammer, and I know this.
You walk like an elephant while thinking you move like a mouse.
Ultimately though, any performance attributes in a CUV are secondary to comfort, safety, mileage, and all the boring reasons people buy boring vehicles like CUV's. That's why I bought mine. I plan on living a considerable distance from work soon. That means gas burned, and time behind the wheel (safety matters), and low maintenance is a huge bonus.
Drove my CX-5 this morning, conservatively with so many red lights managed an avg. of ... wait for it 34! I can borrow someones CRV and do that similar drive - I dont think it will beat that number by much - it may still beat it but not by much.
34 combined when driving through 15 lights
1 school zone
2 congested state highways
1 toddler school drop!
for a total of 28 miles
That is good. Only downside is this becomes serious business to keep mpgs up - I dont talk or sing with my lil girl much. Final light before office had to take a quick start to change lanes - otherwise avg. mpg would be 34.4!!! crickey that is seriously good.
Avg. speed was 38mph.
2016.5! ftw!
34 combined when driving through 15 lights
1 school zone
2 congested state highways
1 toddler school drop!
for a total of 28 miles
That is good. Only downside is this becomes serious business to keep mpgs up - I dont talk or sing with my lil girl much. Final light before office had to take a quick start to change lanes - otherwise avg. mpg would be 34.4!!! crickey that is seriously good.
Avg. speed was 38mph.
2016.5! ftw!
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I have found low-speed mileage of the CX-5 to be stellar. It's the freeway that drags my average mpg through the dirt.
I agree. these were my rules for conservative driving
1. No speed above 65 unless you are with going downwards.
2. RPMs at 1600-2100 with a 5th gear or so (assuming it was 5th could be 4)
3. When going up slight incline let the speed drop by 5 mph ! big boost to mpg.
4. If I had a bad situation - light and an incline to climb - I suck it up and push mildly hard that seemed better than struggling for long at 16 mpg.
5. Not much chance for hypermiling since it downshifts after you take your foot off for better control.
6. Use brakes minimum
End result is 34 mpg and a Mitsubishi Outlander sport overtaking you! you cant have all good things can you!!!
I will try to use manual mode more often to see if i can find a good pattern or overcome point 5. But I like it - I wasnt being a huge hazard as well.
I have read of a guy on ecomodder that hit 47 mpg on the 2.0 - some modifications that make the car dont look good.
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Are you actually reading my replies? Show me where I said "I can't believe anyone would buy that 2017 CRV?" Show me where I said "I can't believe MPG is important to anyone".
I never said or implied that. Ok I DID say why would anyone buy that Rav4... and I stick to that one. That thing is hideous.
I KNOW people buy cars for different reasons. And that's AWESOME! It's great we have choice. I also don't judge people for WHY they buy cars. I don't accuse anyone of DRINKING THE KOOL AID because they may have different reasons for buying a car.
OK, that made me laugh.
some
Peace, brother.
Mazda repeatedly clarify their goal recently, make me feel like you're not really their target
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/295007/mazda-aims-to-convey-its-maturity-quality.html
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Mazda repeatedly clarify their goal recently, make me feel like you're not really their target
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/295007/mazda-aims-to-convey-its-maturity-quality.html
I respect that. I guess I bought what I viewed as a cheap, super-efficient (this latter is my only disappointment, it's not very efficient at highway speeds. I think a Honda Pilot may have been a better move, here, as it would have given me much more space with similar economy) vehicle, and I found a forum full of wonderful people who are bent on turning it into a race-car, and I've just been "WTF is this mess!?" ever since, lol. It would have been like buying my Z06 and reading post after post about how to tape up the front end to get 0.25mpg more on road trips or something.
CRV would be cheaper to own, offers more usable space, is quieter on the highway and it actually looks halfway decent now but the Mazda is the one I want to spend my time with, period. If all I did was highway and/or predominantly straight line driving it would be tough to choose the Mazda over it but I don't, so its not. If maximizing my CUV bang for the buck was a top 1 or 2 concern it would also be tough not to choose the Honda. For me driving is part of my entertainment- even though I have an additional vehicle to better (in some ways) serve that need (fine want)- the Mazda really does punch above its class on that front. Is the CRV capable- yes... is it willing well, kinda but it would rather you just take your time and don't do anything abrupt while the Mazda just seems more eager to please when the driver wants a little more..
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
That's one thing that shocked me, the dB meter test says they both put out about the same dB on the freeway, unless I'm misremembering it.
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Well said. Like my favorite reviewer said describing the CX-5, Micah Muzio:
"The Mazda CX-5 isn't just willing to turn, it's kind of eager at the prospect"
and on its looks:
"In fact, in a comparatively safe crowd, the CX-5 exterior looks kind of risky...like a sushi buffet in Kansas"
I like all the KBB reviews. And no ads in the beginning of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grOjfMd2EOY
"The Mazda CX-5 isn't just willing to turn, it's kind of eager at the prospect"
and on its looks:
"In fact, in a comparatively safe crowd, the CX-5 exterior looks kind of risky...like a sushi buffet in Kansas"
I like all the KBB reviews. And no ads in the beginning of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grOjfMd2EOY
Last edited:
So what mpg are you getting? How fast do you drive? Stock wheels/tires?
In summer on stock Toyos I can and sometimes do get 30, but 28-29 and change is avg- and that's clocked miles/gallons filled btw..not just looking at the car's computed mpg..
In winter on 235/65-17 Dunlop Wintersports I get 25-26. This is probably 70% highway driving modestly aggressive (oxymoron?)
Last edited:
congrats on your new car, I never really likes the old CRV
but the 2017 CRV is on my short list to replace my wife's car,
this new CRV looks really good,
I like the handsfree foot activated trunklid and the new GPS is Garmin based...
man, mainstream cars have really caught up to the luxury segment
Last edited:
He drives 85-90 mph. Where he gets 17 mpg.
My car computer understated the mpg. Is that what you all are observing?
Last edited:
