A Toyota hybrid will never let the battery be totally depleted and loose 219 combined system net hp from its DC motor. Even if thats the case, the Dynamic Force 2.5L HV version still has 175 hp available for use.⋯
CX5 is better than Rav4 Hybrid on all metrics - including top speed. I cant imagine what CX5 turbo would do to a hybrid Rav4 on a track specially when the hybrid battery is depleted and your power numbers drop. Rav4 hybrid is good as a commuter when you coast and drive hard in intervals, if you always have pedal to the metal, the Hybrid will often be depleted or near depleted and your max power will drop from 219 horses to around 150ish.
What do you expect when someone makes absurd claims like...
- The Cherokee "blows away" the CX-5 in acceleration
- The Rav4 was "similar in power" to the CX-5
Those statements simply defy physics, logic, and the immense amount of testing/data available.
I could "share my experience" that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean you should just go along with what I'm saying.
You post facts that show why this is not the case. Which is what is happening here. Isn't that the point of an internet forum?
Quite possible he drove the Cylinder deactivated 2.5 NA.Dude shares his experience and a bunch of butt-hurts come out of nowhere.
To be fair, when the Gen 2 CX-5 came out in 2017, everybody was talking about how it "felt" faster, or at least equal to the Gen 1. I think the word "refined" kept getting used.
Meanwhile, I grab a 2019 GT loaner and it was significantly and noticeably worse than my 2014 in acceleration.
That said, the data I think lines up with that perception of the Gen 1 NA 2.5L vs. Gen 2 NA 2.5L. I can't speak for the RAV4 vs turbo CX-5. Too many variables not accounted for here when it comes to fuel type (dealer likely using 87), tire pressure, temperature, etc. That said, if the cold is breaking the turbo, I don't want it either, but now I am getting off topic.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a27548756/2019-mazda-cx-5-vs-2019-toyota-rav4/
Take it with a grain of salt if you want, but here's instrumented testing and commentary from Car and Driver:
This is a 2019 model they are reviewing. Besides a little extra sound insulation, the 2020 model is unchanged except for another trim level.
To be fair, when the Gen 2 CX-5 came out in 2017, everybody was talking about how it "felt" faster, or at least equal to the Gen 1. I think the word "refined" kept getting used.
Meanwhile, I grab a 2019 GT loaner and it was significantly and noticeably worse than my 2014 in acceleration.
That said, the data I think lines up with that perception of the Gen 1 NA 2.5L vs. Gen 2 NA 2.5L. I can't speak for the RAV4 vs turbo CX-5. Too many variables not accounted for here when it comes to fuel type (dealer likely using 87), tire pressure, temperature, etc. That said, if the cold is breaking the turbo, I don't want it either, but now I am getting off topic.
OP has to be OK with the Rav4's boring looks and cheap interior fittings.
It does look okay in dark colors which hides all the cheap black plastic Toyota uses.
The base Rav4 is a paragon of cost cutting. Toyota really likes to hold out until you pay for more expensive trim levels.
#steeliesstyle
Mid level hybrid:
Finally, once you pay 34,000 or more, you get a decent looking one:
I hope Mazda will continue to provide value at base to mid level trims and not go down the path of cheapening with the Toyota-Mazda partnership, or it will be my last Mazda.
That's kindof how most car forums are.
Which means that most advice needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
And that's not judging anyone, that's pure fact on human nature.
Absolutely! however, some forums are just a dumpster fire of "My such and such broke..." and you know right away that isn't the vehicle for you.
I have to change my oil every 1,000 miles!!!!
The cabin always smells like gas!!!
My dealer says that frequent oil changes are a feature, not a defect.
C/D TEST RESULTS for CX-5
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.4 sec
Rolling start, 5*60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30*50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50*70 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing -mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70*0 mph: 173 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.79 g
C/D TEST RESULTS Rav4 Hybrid
Zero to 60 mph: 7.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 19.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 24.3 sec
Rolling start, 5*60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30*50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50*70 mph: 5.1 sec
Standing -mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 117 mph
Braking, 70*0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g
CX5 is better than Rav4 Hybrid on all metrics - including top speed. I cant imagine what CX5 turbo would do to a hybrid Rav4 on a track specially when the hybrid battery is depleted and your power numbers drop. Rav4 hybrid is good as a commuter when you coast and drive hard in intervals, if you always have pedal to the metal, the Hybrid will often be depleted or near depleted and your max power will drop from 219 horses to around 150ish.
If I knew a certain vehicle (Car A) is factually regarded as the fastest and quietest in its class, yet another car (Car B) drove faster and ran quieter in real life then I would probably test another of Car A just to make sure.
Quite possible he drove the Cylinder deactivated 2.5 NA.
LOL how many people are seriously going to take these vehicles out to a track? I'm not even sure why people bring this stuff up in arguments. Iv'e driven a CX-5(2018) and a CRV. Technically the CRV is faster but due to its turbo lag and the CX-5 being naturally aspirated, the CX-5 felt faster to me on normal everyday streets. It's possible the OP might have said it felt just as fast as the CX-5 for the same reason. CX-5 has a turbo(I havent driven one) and the RAV-4 Hybrid generates instant torque from it's electric motors, no turbo to spool up.
And I'm not sure why people are surprised he is complaining about the interior space. The reality is when you get into an SUV, you expect the interior to be nice and roomy. The CX-5 interior feels like a slightly bigger interior of a Mazda3. Perfect for me since I have no kids, but if I had a family I would take a hard pass on the CX-5 and get a RAV4 Hybrid. Slightly slower but vastly better fuel economy and likely better long term reliability.
Cmon Mazda, do something big for the 2021 CX5. Keep the turbo, develop an 8 speed transmission(or buy the 8 speed from ZF) update that god awful infotainment, give it the LED turn signal treatment of the Mazda, and update those god awful 240p resolution cameras. I don't even care about the crappy lane assist or blind spot monitoring. Just do everything else and I will get a Sig in a heartbeat. Adding some useless paddle shifters, fake engine noise and new font logo in the rear hatch isn't going to cut it.
LOL how many people are seriously going to take these vehicles out to a track? I'm not even sure why people bring this stuff up in arguments. Iv'e driven a CX-5(2018) and a CRV. Technically the CRV is faster but due to its turbo lag and the CX-5 being naturally aspirated, the CX-5 felt faster to me on normal everyday streets. It's possible the OP might have said it felt just as fast as the CX-5 for the same reason. CX-5 has a turbo(I havent driven one) and the RAV-4 Hybrid generates instant torque from it's electric motors, no turbo to spool up.
And I'm not sure why people are surprised he is complaining about the interior space. The reality is when you get into an SUV, you expect the interior to be nice and roomy. The CX-5 interior feels like a slightly bigger interior of a Mazda3. Perfect for me since I have no kids, but if I had a family I would take a hard pass on the CX-5 and get a RAV4 Hybrid. Slightly slower but vastly better fuel economy and likely better long term reliability.
Cmon Mazda, do something big for the 2021 CX5. Keep the turbo, develop an 8 speed transmission(or buy the 8 speed from ZF) update that god awful infotainment, give it the LED turn signal treatment of the Mazda, and update those god awful 240p resolution cameras. I don't even care about the crappy lane assist or blind spot monitoring. Just do everything else and I will get a Sig in a heartbeat. Adding some useless paddle shifters, fake engine noise and new font logo in the rear hatch isn't going to cut it.
LOL how many people are seriously going to take these vehicles out to a track? I'm not even sure why people bring this stuff up in arguments.
Why they put a frown on that car's face is a mystery.
You apparently missed that the CX-5 outperforms the other vehicles in ALL performance metrics, including the tests meaningful for real-world driving...
Rolling start, 5*60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30*50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50*70 mph: 4.6 sec
You don't need to track your vehicle to see benefits when going from 30-50 MPH or 50-70 MPH.