Is it me it do the New hondas look like they're trying to copy the mazda ? Not doing a good job of it but definitely copying the slimmer lights, mesh grill, etc.Just came out (first reported here Auto Navigator with Capital One ) that they are going to have a new, lower priced trim of the CR-V. It isn't on the build configurator yet. The FWD CR-V is still more expensive than a AWD CX-5.
Not a fan of the styling. I think it looks boring and generic (click for full resolution).
In the states they start with the EX trim now instead of LX, so assume they’d either bring back the LX or maybe have a special edition, but Honda special editions usually don’t come out until the 3rd year of a body style. The EX is pretty well spec’d for a base trim model, but they also have cut some “classic” EX features like they did with the Civic and probably other models. I personally wouldn’t want anything less than an EX, if not EX-L…Just came out (first reported here Auto Navigator with Capital One ) that they are going to have a new, lower priced trim of the CR-V. It isn't on the build configurator yet. The FWD CR-V is still more expensive than a AWD CX-5.
Not a fan of the styling. I think it looks boring and generic (click for full resolution).
Yeah, I can see it. Even the red looks like it’s trying to get closer to our world famous Mazda red.
i had a '16 forester xt with the turbo engine. it definitely is more powerful and fun, but the gas mileage was pretty bad. even driving conservatively, the thing drank like buzz aldrin, and it took premium fuel (i used midgrade most of the time; running regular fuel was ill-advised - gas mileage w/ premium was not better than w/ midgrade in my experience). the whole time i had the car (well after the first couple of months), i was wishing i had gotten a non-turbo model.
Where are you? Here in the US the forester only comes with a 2.5 liter engine.
oooops. Yes, you are right 2.5l lol
I think that every brand is copying each other with the aggressive mesh grille and thin headlights. Acura, lexus, jeep etc (more the headlights than the grille, but still) Also, I also didn't find the cx-50 seats uncomfortable at all when I test drove it twice. In regards to the forester, I drove a friends current-gen one in colorado, and getting on the highway (with less power at altitude) the CVT was droning pretty annoyingly, but otherwise it drove really well on and off road. The power was plenty for anything other than merging though. Much less engaging than the cx-5, but still enjoyable and simple to drive.
Me included, there’re a lot of people who used to be the die-hard Honda fan.
I did not find that to be the case. I test drove a CX50 and CX5 both turbos (and also a non turbo cx5) back to back and did not think it was stiffer or sportier in fact might have been softer then the CX5. I liked how the CX50 looked but liked how the CX5 felt. I chose the CX5 turbo. It is my wife's vehicle and she agreed the CX5 turbo was the right pick. I personally tried to sway her towards a Bronco (not the sport) or Rubicon (I have had 4 rubicons all built for crawling) she said no lol. I have to say I like driving the CX5 so far.
The tires make a difference too. On my CX-50, I ripped both nearside tires on a protruding curb (ugh) and changed them all to Continental DWS UHP all seasons. Even though the originals were touring tires, the DWS's are smoother and quieter. Just drove 1000 miles to Florida and the only time the tires were noisy was when riding on that rough tarmac that has a rolled-in stone surface (Georgia). That was pretty loud!
as has been alluded to, it's good to get insight from us members, but everyone (including the people who review cars) has their own biased opinion on things, including suspension feel, seat comfort, brand image, etc. back when i had a (very pre-owned) '13 lexus es350, i got a loaner '18 rx350 for a couple of weeks while they were fixing something on the es. i did not want to return the rx, it was such a nice ride. very quiet and comfortable, nice supple ride, nice engine sound, amazing stereo system, tons of room for me (note i've never had a midsized suv before). the only things that could be knocked about it, in my opinion, are that it's not exciting to drive, and it's not the best on gas (though decent for a midsized suv of its era). the V6 in that rx was nice, probably slightly slower than my es, but not by much. i'm not sure if it's too much money for that car, but i wasn't paying for it. i later looked high and low for used '16 and newer rx350s and the other rx models (hybrid etc.), but they were priced too high for me. i even considered the older models, though i didn't care for the looks of them, other than maybe the f-sport models. if i could afford a lightly used newer one for ~$30k, i'd highly consider it.
