Hey Everybody...New guy here considering a CX-5

[Dave T]

Hey everybody,

New guy here. Been shopping around for a new CUV. Initially I was only considering the new CRV, RAV4 or Forester... drove a couple of all of them. However, buy chance I took a 2015 CX-5 GT for a ride yesterday. Went right home and got the wife and took her to drive the car. We both really like the car and the salesman was not pushy.

Glad I came to this forum and did some research. I found the article on the 2016 CX-5 and really like some of the changes. We are probably going to wait for the 2016 to come out, and the salesman had no problem with that.

Looking forward to hanging around, learning all I can about the CX-5, and hopefully becoming an owner.

Dave

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

No regrets purchasing mine!

 

[joe427]

Good idea waiting for the '16.

 

[paris1]

What took you so long to put CX-5 on your short list? It's not like it's the auto world's best kept secret!

 

[Dave T]

What took you so long to put CX-5 on your short list? It's not like it's the auto world's best kept secret!

Well, I read a bunch of reviews and watched several videos (Consumer Reports, Edmunds and others) that said it was a very good car, but the excessive cabin noise, wind noise, ride and "jittery" road feel was holding the vehicle back. A couple of videos on YouTube kind of disagreed with that, so I figured I would give it a try.

I found that with the exception of a bit more engine "growl", it is at least as good as my 2011 CRV and close to my wife's 2012 CRV when it comes to cabin noise and "jittery" ride and all of them are acceptable to me. Plus, the CX-5 handled much better and definitely has more "grunt"! (naughty) Considering the 2016 is supposed to have even less highway noise and other NVH tuning... I'll be more than satisfied with those concerns.

Dave

 

[joe427]

Well, I read a bunch of reviews and watched several videos (Consumer Reports, Edmunds and others) that said it was a very good car, but the excessive cabin noise, wind noise, ride and "jittery" road feel was holding the vehicle back. A couple of videos on YouTube kind of disagreed with that, so I figured I would give it a try.

I found that with the exception of a bit more engine "growl", it is at least as good as my 2011 CRV and close to my wife's 2012 CRV when it comes to cabin noise and "jittery" ride and all of them are acceptable to me. Plus, the CX-5 handled much better and definitely has more "grunt"! (naughty) Considering the 2016 is supposed to have even less highway noise and other NVH tuning... I'll be more than satisfied with those concerns.

Dave

We're coming out of a '13 CR-V EX-L w/nav and the CX really isn't any worse in ride quality or noise.
Ok,maybe a bit rougher on certain bumps due to the great looking 19" wheels/tires.
Of course the CR-V's infotainment and resale value are better but that's about it.Many more pluses over the CR-V to me.
I would say reliability too but it seems the CX-5 is up there too.

 

[Dave T]

We're coming out of a '13 CR-V EX-L w/nav and the CX really isn't any worse in ride quality or noise.
Ok,maybe a bit rougher on certain bumps due to the great looking 19" wheels/tires.
Of course the CR-V's infotainment and resale value are better but that's about it.Many more pluses over the CR-V to me.
I would say reliability too but it seems the CX-5 is up there too.

I agree, but I plan on keeping my next vehicle a long time, so hopefully, resale value will not be much of an issue. The infotainment I could care less about. I planned on getting the EX-L without that stuff. If I get the CX it will be the base GT without the tech package.

I would probably have purchased a new CRV, but the "rubber band" trani really turned me off. Ride quality and cabin noise on the new CRV might be slightly better, but that trani does not cut it for me. A "dog" off the line and annoying shift points (if that's what you call them)

I'm still considering a RAV4, but they don't seem to make a base Limited model. Toyota likes throwing in a bunch of stuff on the limiteds to jack up the price.

 

[xtrailman]

Are you aware that the CRV is about to get a new gear box?
I know the north American box is different to the UK version we get a 9 speed ZF box next year.

There's little to chose between the CRV and the CX-5 for me, but engine wise in the UK the CX-5 leaves the CRV diesel for dead.

Which was really the deciding factor for me.
IMO next years CX-5 will be a huge step forward.

One negative for me is the exhaust system on the Mazda appears to be corroding rather quickly, and I rarely drive on salted roads, usually modern exhausts look like new for years now.

I agree, but I plan on keeping my next vehicle a long time, so hopefully, resale value will not be much of an issue. The infotainment I could care less about. I planned on getting the EX-L without that stuff. If I get the CX it will be the base GT without the tech package.

I would probably have purchased a new CRV, but the "rubber band" trani really turned me off. Ride quality and cabin noise on the new CRV might be slightly better, but that trani does not cut it for me. A "dog" off the line and annoying shift points (if that's what you call them)

I'm still considering a RAV4, but they don't seem to make a base Limited model. Toyota likes throwing in a bunch of stuff on the limiteds to jack up the price.

 

[Dave T]

Are you aware that the CRV is about to get a new gear box?

Are you talking about the new CVT?

 

[xtrailman]

It does look like that's what you get, hard luck.

I agree I wouldn't have a cvt box myself.
As I said we get a nine speed ZF auto in the UK and Europe, I did think you got a 8 speed Aisin box but apparently not.

 

[joe427]

Honda's CVT is a very good one.I drove a Accord with a CVT and it's ok and wouldn't stop me from buying a Honda with one.
Nissan's CVT scares me.

 

[ALafya]

I recently test drove a 2014 Civic with CVT and it was very decent and much better than other CVTs I drove in the past.
In particular, it pretty much instantly downshifts when you press the throttle more then lightly, unlike other CVTs which has mushy, delayed sensation. I would not discount the CR-V over that without a test drive. The CR-V now also gets 33/26 MPG with AWD and similar power to the CX-5 2.5L, better torque than the 2014 CR-V model.

Handling quality will be better in the CX-5, so will the exterior looks. The wait for 2016 model is certainly worth it for the especially for the better navigation.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

The CR-V now also gets 33/26 MPG with AWD and similar power to the CX-5 2.5L, better torque than the 2014 CR-V model..

I assume testers are being harder on the car than most but have read several reviews now showing low 20's for the city MPG.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Not tomention the aftermarket is growing.

 

[ALafya]

I assume testers are being harder on the car than most but have read several reviews now showing low 20's for the city MPG.

Most testers don't do their measurement properly.
The most reliable data is from Fuelly. Obviously, this vehicle is too new to tell. However, the older model gets 26.5 avg for 2014, 2013 with the old engine and transmission (I believe a mix of AWD + FWD, mostly the latter), which is already pretty good. Looking carefully at Fuelly data for the Accord 2012 vs. 2014 (only 4cyl, 2.4L) shows ~27 for 2012 and 29~30 for 2014 2.4L. Since they share the engine and probably transmission, that should give a good indication of what to expect.

 

[MikeM.]

I assume testers are being harder on the car than most but have read several reviews now showing low 20's for the city MPG.

I agree. The 2015 CR-V is unlikely to get anywhere near the new overly optimistic EPA figures. Early Fully.com results show most drivers struggling to get 26 mpg even when they report 80% highway miles. And it's not even clear these are AWD models. Granted, it's a small sample size but not one of them is reporting anything I would call good.

A CVT transmission offers the most economy savings with a light load but the SUV aerodynamics of the CR-V mean the load will only be light at speeds under 40 mph when it's not accelerating. So I wouldn't expect it to follow in the footsteps of smaller Honda's that have a similar transmission (the programming is different too).

On the other hand, my experience has been that it's easy to better the CX-5's EPA numbers, both in city and highway driving modes.

 

[Dave T]

I recently test drove a 2014 Civic with CVT and it was very decent and much better than other CVTs I drove in the past.
In particular, it pretty much instantly downshifts when you press the throttle more then lightly, unlike other CVTs which has mushy, delayed sensation. I would not discount the CR-V over that without a test drive. The CR-V now also gets 33/26 MPG with AWD and similar power to the CX-5 2.5L, better torque than the 2014 CR-V model.

Yep, I've taken all of them (Honda, Subaru, Nissan) for a ride. The Honda is the best of that bunch as far as CVT's go... but it's still a "belt driven automobile". Yea, they put Kevlar in the belt just like the one in my ATV, but no one can convince me that it will hold up as long as a well built (Honda, Toyota, Mazda), regular automotive stye transmission. Heck, even the old clunky 4 speed auto in the Subaru would run forever.

Besides the longevity and durability side, I still much prefer the crisp shifts of the CX-5 and RAV4. Even though we've owned 5 CRV's, I've never really liked the shifting of the auto in the them, but at least they were pretty much bullet proof.

 

[Oldengineer]

I agree. The 2015 CR-V is unlikely to get anywhere near the new overly optimistic EPA figures. Early Fully.com results show most drivers struggling to get 26 mpg even when they report 80% highway miles. And it's not even clear these are AWD models. Granted, it's a small sample size but not one of them is reporting anything I would call good.

A CVT transmission offers the most economy savings with a light load but the SUV aerodynamics of the CR-V mean the load will only be light at speeds under 40 mph when it's not accelerating. So I wouldn't expect it to follow in the footsteps of smaller Honda's that have a similar transmission (the programming is different too).

On the other hand, my experience has been that it's easy to better the CX-5's EPA numbers, both in city and highway driving modes.

MikeM:

I agree with you. I replaced a 2010 CR-V LX 2WD with a Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD. Driving the same business trips as I did in the Honda, the Mazda, even with AWD, is delivering 3 - 4 more mpg than the Honda was capable of. I have no confidence in Honda's EPA numbers based on my experience. In addition, running the hilly interstates at 70 - 75 MPH where I live, is much more enjoyable in the Mazda. It doesn't have to downshift to 3rd and spool up to 4000 RPM to climb hills like the Honda did.

Regards:
Oldengineer

 

[ALafya]

Yep, I've taken all of them (Honda, Subaru, Nissan) for a ride. The Honda is the best of that bunch as far as CVT's go... but it's still a "belt driven automobile". Yea, they put Kevlar in the belt just like the one in my ATV, but no one can convince me that it will hold up as long as a well built (Honda, Toyota, Mazda), regular automotive stye transmission. Heck, even the old clunky 4 speed auto in the Subaru would run forever.

Besides the longevity and durability side, I still much prefer the crisp shifts of the CX-5 and RAV4. Even though we've owned 5 CRV's, I've never really liked the shifting of the auto in the them, but at least they were pretty much bullet proof.

The "belt" is actually a chain made out of steel.
I agree that since it is new to Honda, it would be best to give it a few years to gain maturity and prove its reliability. For me it was a concern when we looked at potentially getting a Civic.
Otherwise, I believe that once it does prove itself, it should have similar longevity as traditional transmissions. Subaru's CVTs are pretty reliable and also drive pretty good.
In the past, Honda did have some (traditional) transmissions with issues, hardly bulletproof. Every system can fail, traditional ATs are not immune.

I personally owned 2 Accords in the past, both of which got exactly 'as advertised' MPG for my daily commute and road trips. Consumer reports testing and older model year CR-Vs, Accords on Fuelly show this. Stats for 2015 are too early to tell or draw conclusions from. Like I noted above, the engine is significantly better and CVT is better for efficiency, so I believe there will be an improvement.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

I wonder what the service life of these auto CVTs are?

I have 4 snowmobiles and 2 ATVs that use CVTs and they have required some maintenance throughout the years.