CX-5/ForXT/XV/X1? Others considered?

[Monterra]

New here and I'd like to applaud members here for providing good information and useful, non-personal or attack based discussion for the most part, its refreshing and helped inspire me to sign up. Ok enough with the butt kissing and straight into the fire

Now that we have pricing for the '14 Forester and CX-5 (its on Edmunds- not sure how accurate it is but it seems reasonable) I think its coming down to the those two- CX-5 Touring with bose/tech or Forester XT premium. MSRPs will be very close- CX-5 with B&T and roof rails is 29,525, MT has the XT premium starting 28,660- have to add nav and would still be short a few features and have to live with a CVT.
Goals for this CR-V replacement vehicle are (in no particular order): low cost to own, good mileage, fun to drive yet comfortable on long commute/trips, good in bad weather, decent cargo capacity, reliable.

Pluses for CX-5 is I see it:
+Stereo
+gas mileage on regular
+probably better dynamics, more agile, better steering feel
+better looking both inside and out
but:
-could still use a bit more power (we'll see)
-dealer network kinda scares me
-bothered by mirrors fluttering at highway speed
-transmission seemed slow to react
-weak looking 17s and don't want the 19s due to lack of tire choice and cost (someone was mentioning that on here- I feel exact same way)

XT:
+Power
+Paddle shifters
+feel a bit better about owning long term- owned an 06XT 5MT and other than getting new brakes for free @20k no issues whatsoever
+nice looking 18s(sweet spot Mazda) with plenty of tire options
but
-gas mileage on recommended (not required) premium- 23/27-28 is really not bad but recent DI turbos have been over promising from what I've seen
-Interior- yeah its not exactly cutting edge or "premium" is it?
-heated seats N/A on a Subaru? Even though N/A on the Touring this was a major disappointment to see.
-CVT drone

Thoughts? Missing anything?

Loaded XV Crosstrek and a stripped X135i are my outliers at opposite ends of the spectrum

 

[Mithan]

Well not sure I can answer your question, but I can tell you why I am going to buy the 2014 CX-5 GT w/Tech Package:

Here is what I want:
I want something that is AWD and has good gas mileage.
I want something that looks great inside and outside.
I want something that has modern technology in it.
I want good quality, as I will probably keep this for 8-12 years.

-My CX-5 test drive on 5" of fresh snow showed it had excellent AWD, which is great for Saskatchewan since I refuse to ever buy another 2wd vehicle.
-The Gas Mileage is also amazing, which is great. I suspect that Oil will drop to $50-60 in price over the next 2 or 3 years, but long term, oil is going to be expensive and I want my gas consumption to be as cheap as possible going into the future.
-The outside is awesome looking. It is both aggressive looking and sexy IMO. More importantly, it is not a look that is going to look dated in 2 or 3 years, I think it will remain good looking and relevant, unlike other vehicles that tend to look dated even when they are brand new.
-The interior on the GT version is just beautiful to me. It remains "simple" while offering a tonne of technical features. The 2013 Ford Escape has more features, but if you have test drove a Escape, you quickly realize a lot of their tech is useless crap and cluttered.
-I want to keep the vehicle for 8-12 years, and while I am not a Mazda Expert, from everything I have heard from friends who own them, they are pretty solid vehicles. I am a huge fan of Toyota since they build amazing vehicles quality wise (a few issues in the last decade doesn't change the fact they blow most other companies out of the water). I am hoping if I buy a CX-5, mazda is good enough that the engine wont fall out in 5 years or the car rust away.


Those are my thoughts.

 

[HandA]

-weak looking 17s and don't want the 19s due to lack of tire choice and cost (someone was mentioning that on here- I feel exact same way)

you could always go with aftermarket 18s or there are already 3 different tire choices in the stock tire size and if you don't mind playing with the dimensions of the tires you can do something like a 235/50-19 and get a bunch more choices. Your speedo will be 1 mph off at 60 with that size tire and I'm not sure if it will clear everything (it really should) but there are always other options.

and the oe tires have actually dropped in price already.

The X1 would be fun to look at the reliability and long term costs scare me but I put a lot of miles on my cars.

The XV wasn't out when I bought mine but the regular Impreza just felt too basic inside for the money. Getting back in our 10 year old Mazda at the time I thought it was nicer than the new Impreza.

I haven't even seen anything on the 14 Forester so I can't comment.

-The outside is awesome looking. It is both aggressive looking and sexy IMO. More importantly, it is not a look that is going to look dated in 2 or 3 years, I think it will remain good looking and relevant, unlike other vehicles that tend to look dated even when they are brand new.

Exactly, it is good looking without anything being over the top. Too many cars really do look dated after a year or so.

Trevor
HandA.com

 

[Monterra]

Thanks HandA, yeah I've already looked into 18s for the CX-5 (got some good info here) and would probably go 235/60- a bit tall but acceptable I believe...its just nice not to want to do that first thing after dropping 20k (after trade in) and I'd want remote start and rails/bars, mats etc. it adds up. Yet I'm considering an X135? Yeah it would have to be a smokin deal to get me to bite but it is a rip to drive and fuel economy on my long-ish test drive was a wash with the X128i that I had to push quite a bit more to match my drive in the 35. N20 4cyl is not getting it done from a consumption or refinement standpoint- EPA is woefully optimistic at 33 hwy.

 

[CX-SV]

For me CX-5/new Escape/Sportage were main ones on my spring 2012 list for compact crossover SUV's (no Subies, no Hondas, no Toyotas).

 

[GAXIBM]

Comparing a DI turbo with a natural DI engine like the CX-5, the turbo is more complicated and more prone to early failure and will likely add to long term ownership cost.

 

[GAXIBM]

I think CVT has a belt in it which can add to maintenance cost...

 

[CX-SV]

Comparing a DI turbo with a natural DI engine like the CX-5, the turbo is more complicated and more prone to early failure and will likely add to long term ownership cost.

Yes, certainly likely that any turbo engine will have higher cost of ownership than NA. Not that it's a deal killer, plenty of normally aspirated vehicles have even higher cost of ownership too.

Power loss of NA versus turbo for high altitude drivers (such as winter sport participants and those living in Rockies for example) is not even close.

For me (personally) CVT is a deal-killer, I will not risk the higher cost of ownership for the marginal driving experience.

 

[paris1]

I think CVT has a belt in it which can add to maintenance cost...

Current generation Subaru CVT is chain driven.

 

[Monterra]

For me CX-5/new Escape/Sportage were main ones on my spring 2012 list for compact crossover SUV's (no Subies, no Hondas, no Toyotas).

Well we know what you chose, reasons? Reasons not to consider Sub/Honda/Toy?

 

[CX-SV]

Well we know what you chose, reasons? Reasons not to consider Sub/Honda/Toy?

1. Reasons for CX-5: fuel economy, style (exterior and interior), size (including widest track), ride/handling combo, premium car features

2. Reasons not to consider Sub/Honda/Toy: (not that I haven't owned and driven several of these before), did not want CVT, wanted minimum of a modern 6 speed modern auto tranny, did not want a droning flat 4, did not want substandard styling in this class, most cannot match CX-5 fuel economy and/or handling,

 

[Monterra]

flat 4s- I guess you either love em or hate em. I liked the grumble- our old XT ran like a clock but it was getting up there and wife needed a bigger back seat so it was time to say goodbye. Mazda got my attention immediately with this car but I found it needed too much prodding for my taste nor was I blown away by the handling- not to say it was bad at all but I didn't find it notably superior to my CR-V after an admittedly short drive (maybe that was the reason). Don't like the new CR-V inside or out so its off the table, same for RAV- hideous styling, no more V6 and not even an upgrade to the 4 so that's out. So I'm looking forward to driving the CX-5 with the added displacement and how could I ignore the XT- both of them should offer manuals in models most ppl buy because they love to drive and interact with the vehicle not just save $.

 

[Bmiddy]

X1 - I assume you are referring to the BMW X1?

Based on that supposition, if you can afford the extra $10k (or whatever your calculation ends up being) it's no contest in my book...buy the X1. Things that were important to me in purchasing a crossover were:

#1 - AWD - wanted it for improved winter driving conditions
#2 - Rear seating that can manage small children easily
#3 - Driving dynamics - just spent the last 3 years driving a Hundai Accent hatchback (gag)
#4 - Reliability/dependability
#5 - Fuel economy

I test drove the following cars in my search for an AWD crossover, and would rank them as follows...

BMW X1
-huge gap-
Mini Countryman
Mazda Cx5
Nissan Juke (what we ended up buying)
-smaller gap-
Honda CRV
Hundai Santa Fe
Nissan Rogue
Kia Sportage

-

I might jump the Mini with the Cx5 once the 2.5L engine is released...not sure.

When it comes to the X1...I drove the xDrive28i. Not sure about the 35i...but the 8 speed auto in the 28i was quick and far more compelling than anything else in the crossover segment. Plus it is by far the best looking.

I disagree with some comments on long term cost of ownership as well. Yes, repairs will cost more, but it is no less reliable than other vehicles in the segment (outside of Honda). Resale value might pinch you a little more, as depreciation typically is a factor of the initial cost...but again, no more than any other car in the segment.

For example...Intellichoice says the 5 year cost of ownership on an X1 xDrive28i is $46.5k. A Cx5 Grand Touring is $40k. Assuming you paid $10k up front more, it doesn't seem like that much of a gap to me.

I think the 2014 Cx5 2.5L would be a nice blend of lower initial cost, long term cost of ownership, and driving enjoyment...but if you can afford it, and don't intend on keeping it much past 100k miles, get the X1...it's what I would have done if my budget would have allowed.

 

[GAXIBM]

Current generation Subaru CVT is chain driven.

I have not looked at the design but it is hard to add teeth to a chain drive sprocket to change ratios on the fly. More likely the chain is the backbone but there is still a friction element running against V pulleys that allows the sides of the pulleys to move in and out thus changing the ratios between the pulleys. Friction element vs solid gear drive = more power loss and more wear IMO.

 

[Monterra]

Yes the X1, but for me the 35i standard with wood, bigger brakes, 18s, xenons, pano roof and an awesome powerplant makes more sense if I go the way of not so frugal. If it was my one car to live with and love I could justify it more easily but I've got the 1er for 9mos of driving enjoyment (not that I don't always want to enjoy) but for this one I think some restraint makes sense but I'd like to retain the fun to drive character and don't need to get to 60 in under 6 seconds- the 35i is honestly overpowered almost to a fault which unfortunatley makes it oddly desireable. Best looking? I don't know, not really IMHO but it drives well and I feel right at home inside. Tempting but probably not the best choice- its kinda like the devil on my shoulder from Bachelor Party. And not for nothing but 2 bimmers albeit low level ones, and I ain't no badge ho, but an X1 along with a 128 just seems kinda douchy that way- like for me its BMW or nothing and that's just not the case I'm actually very unhappy with their latest products (X1 has been out for years elsewhere and is more E90 than Fwhatever). Diesel was the coup de grace for me but despite all the optimism, as with the CX-5 it didn't happen and isn't in the immediate cards from what I understand. Generally I wouldn't even think about a GLK Mercedes but dammit 190hp and 369lb-ft with high 30s mpg almost demands a look- but that car's arrival has also gone strangely silent.

 

[CX-SV]

IMho, X3 35i is not overpowered (just over-priced at roughly 2x CX-5 pricing), the performance and fuel efficiency of the 300HP 6 is blunted by the SUV weight and drag compared to the sedan/coupe.

 

[Monterra]

X1, not X3 and my build would be very basic- heated seats and paddles in jet black. CR says I get it for 37,365 after ~7% discount which represents about an 8k premium to my CX-5 build with a 1k discount (maybe optimistic on a '14) Not chump change but not close to double. Still much less practical and I'm not factoring in the cost of the tickets I'd likely accrue, also insurance, gas, long term upkeep all more but if it keeps me happy for 8-10 years vs. 4-6 the added costs are mitigated big time.

 

[ALafya]

IMO the price premium for an X1 is not justified. It is heavy and driving dynamics not so good.
Also it has questionable reliability. I'd much rather use the extra $$$ for something else.
The Forester is out of the question for me, with its tendency for oil consumption due to thin piston rings Subaru chose to use for reduced friction and increased fuel economy. It is also a tad too big with the new 2014 model and will not likely get its promised fuel economy in real life (see the Impreza for comparison).
The CR-V is hard to look at, especially from behind and I always have the feeling like Honda is going to replace it engine with the one from the Accord along with the transmission to a much more appealing package at the next model year. Despite all this, the 2.4L CR-V is only 1MPG behind the 2L CX-5 in real world MPG and both vehicles weigh the same.
The new RAV-4 styling is OK for me and their carry-over engine is tried and true and sufficiently peppy. It has interesting AWD features, similar to Acura's. I think it would be a reliable 'fall-back' choice.

The CX-5 2.5L seems close to optimal; it has great driving dynamics, looks great, good fuel-economy, not too big and with good power. If only I could get it in Sport trim and with Honda reliability / resale, it would be ideal.

 

[Lil' Hiroshima]

Before I decided on my CX-5, I had narrowed it down to 2 models (the other being a 2013 Forester 2.5X base). I took each on the same 50-mile nighttime test drive route which included a short highway stint.

Before I even knew the CX-5 existed, I was 95% positive I was going to get the Forester. My first car, which I owned 17 years, was a 1980 Subaru DL (like Jackie Chan's in the Cannonball Run, except no 4WD). I loved that car!

After test-driving both, the only advantage the Forester had over the CX-5 was it's body styling (unlike most people I prefer a boring boxy shape) and better all-around visibility.

Fuel consumption was abysmal -- we watched in disbelief as the fuel gauge went from 3/4 at the start of our test drive to just a hair above 1/2 when we returned it. (Bear in mind, the 2013 has the outdated 4-speed AT.) Compared to the CX-5 it felt top-heavy during moderate cornering, less responsive, clunkier, and decidedly less nimble. My hubby also complained about less passenger room and more wind noise than the CX-5 and he didn't like the way the seat's height adjustment pitched him forward as the seat got higher.

I'd stopped by the Subaru dealership 3-4 times to test other Subarus, and with each visit my salesman became increasingly desperate to sell this model, which started raising red flags. He must've had 2 dozen on the lot, and they clearly weren't selling. Now I'm seeing TV commercials with 63 months 0% financing and 2 years complimentary maintenance. Hmmmm... as a long-time Subaru owner, I am SOOO glad I got the CX-5!

 

[Monterra]

Thanks for the comments and I hope the fortified cx5 will strike the right balance. X1 is tough to justify price wise and I'd be much less tempted had I not tried the 35-it just felt special with all that effortless and sweet sounding motor.