2017 CX-5 Line-up Dealer info

[piotrek91]

That is continuously the argument here. Now that there is another CUV in the same class that outhandles what the CX5 has always had the crown for, it's as if they feel threatened.

Honestly I'm the target audience. I always known of the Cx5s great handling reputation but I didn't care for that. I care more for the total package. I have a damn car if I wanted great handling. Ultimately that is why I waited a few years because the Ford Escape had all these cool new tech features but i didnt want a Ford. the first gen cx5 I could tell was aging when I saw it didnt even have a power lift gate or vents in the back. This was a few years ago. I was counting on the upcoming cx5 and crv for better features, and indeed the crv came up big. I really would have liked the cx5 to have similar matching features but it doesnt.

My wife test drove the 17 crv touring and the cvt didnt bother her nor myself. i mean for the most part it didnt even bother the many professional reviewers that have reviewed the crv. so i guess thats a great thing. As for handling again, shes coming from a 20 year old suv, even the worse handling cuv in this current class would have been better. its just a bonus to officially know the crv now handles just as great if not outhandles the CX5, but again not something we really cared for. We're not going to be pushing the limits of a winding road to even notice. We're not at Laguna Seca trying to shave off .08 seconds on the S Curve. The cvt argument again is one that the cx5 community will throw in to justify how it is inferior. But it did not bother myself or my wife--nor will it bother anay other soccer mom. Car and Driver calls it on of the only acceptable CVTs out there, other reviews indicated the same if not even noticing the difference. So its even hard to use the CVT as a negative unless one is being anal and simply prefers a standard no matter what...... (blondes despite the burnette looking just as good or better just because i prefer blondes)

Now you have the current cx5 owners in a rut. They dont know if they should continue to be against the 2nd gen 2017 cx5 or rally behind it against the crv, or if they should continue to try and find reasoning that the cx5 is still both superior than the new crv and the new cx5.

Since when does a .01G on a skidpad in cars equipped with stability control equal better handling?

I've never driven a 2017 CR-V, but every other CVT that i've driven has been inferior because it does not have a fully locked up direct connection to the wheels.
Even in "fixed gear" mode, there was always a significant delay between the throttle and power at the wheels.
Not that you, or your wife would notice such things.

 

[Kaps]

The target audience of these cars are young families. I highly doubt a family of 4 cares about 'good handling' or an 'automatic transmission'. They care more about cargo space, MPG, reliability, comfort, safety and features. The only people that care about 'good handling' and 'automatic transmission' are enthusiasts who are a very small percentage of customers.

No body denies this. That is why there are choices. I am a family of 3, I care about a fun to drive car - does not mean i will push it to the max everytime i corner, in the same way that you wont stuff your CRV to 76 cu. ft of stuff every time you drive.

And yeah you may not get a full LED package CRV under 30k but at least it is offered as an option. Much like the 2.5T found in the CX-9 should have been offered as an option.

And it's funny how people talk about 'handling' so much, you'd think these people take their CX-5s out to the track every week. And BTW I drive my CRV everyday in the city and guess what? It drives like any other car on the road. You make it sound like the CVT somehow handicaps it. This is my first CVT transmission vehicle and I don't really see a difference in driving between this car and any other car Iv'e owned with a standard transmission.

Its funny how people talk about CRV being the cargo winner - even i dont see them chopping down whole forests and carrying the logs in their CRV. Or funny how people see that CRV is mpg winner but I dont see how that 1.5 mpg is a make or break or will pay them back the Honda premium they pay.

 

[Jmaz]

Comparisons are a b****.Buy what you like and be happy with it.Next the debate will turn to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

 

[yrwei52]

The only thing that Mazda really stands out on the Mazda is good handling (and MPG with the 2.0L)

Can't even say that now, can we? Mazda has dropped 2.0L manual for 2017 CX-5!

Good thing you bought a CR-V. All the good qualities of the Mazda would be wasted on you.

The problem for me is "all the good qualities" of the Mazda is getting less and less comparing to its competitors!

 

[piotrek91]

Can't even say that now, can we? Mazda has dropped 2.0L manual for 2017 CX-5!

The problem for me is "all the good qualities" of the Mazda is getting less and less comparing to its competitors!

Yeah.. but the 2017 should be really quiet inside. Isn't that what you and Uno always wanted?

 

[Kaps]

CVT top trim starts about $4k more (than the 2016.5 I think?) That's not a small chunk of change.

If you pull up feature for feature I think that 4K gap will get wider. For e.g. 2016 XLE (without power seats, BSM, RCTA - three very useful features) was 29K MSRP, Touring is 26K MSRP - even if you consider the discounts Toyota gives that is still a gap of 1.5K with few important extra features as well.
And consider this - Honda always has a slight price bump compared to Toyota.

 

[7eregrine]

I test drove a Subraru Crosstrek...because I like the way it looks. It was too small. Off my short list.
I test drove a 2017 CRV because it's so highly rated. Dealer told me it had just arrived literally that week. I didn't mind the CVT at all. It was on my short list. Sort of. Was not in love with the idea of Honda period. Never been a fan.
I test drove a CX5 because I like the way it looks. CRV fell off my short list. That quickly.
I test drove a Jeep Cherokee because I like the way it looks. Made the short list. I thought both the CX5...the 16.5 mind... drove better then the 17 CRV. The Jeep, also, was more fun to drive. Felt faster then the CRV even though it was almost 1,000 pounds heavier and the same HP. 9 speed tranny vs CVT maybe? I don't know.

I don't recall anyone SLAMMING the 17 CX5. I heard a few people saying they didn't like this or that. Including me. Don't like power liftgate. Preferred the looks of the 16.5 but also said that could change as I see more of them. And it has.
And isn't it human nature to not want to regret a purchase? Cut us some slack, we bought a car that was upgraded (in nearly every way) months after we bought ours? Of course we are going to look for reasons to say we made the right choice. hahaha Human nature. But THAT'S your reason to continue to slam our sweet little CX5? Grow up and cut us some slack. Jeez.

I'm done debating the merits of these 2 vehicles People DO buy cars based solely on looks. Every day.
"Styling is undeniably important to new car buyers, with 45 percent claiming that it is one of the key reasons they’re driving what they own today. To many people, what you choose to drive reflects your sense of style, your personality, your personal values, or all three of these things."

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/bu...ns-people-buy-specific-cars-article-1.2552707

Yea, and me driving a Mazda says "I'm not a sheep that buys what everyone else drives". At least to me.

Does that CRV have a HUD? How about a remote start option that lets you control the AC and heat and rear defroster? Hell, the 16.5 had that.
O wait! Sorry... I won't compare anymore. Starting now.

Peace.

 

[shaendra]

If you pull up feature for feature I think that 4K gap will get wider. For e.g. 2016 XLE (without power seats, BSM, RCTA - three very useful features) was 29K MSRP, Touring is 26K MSRP - even if you consider the discounts Toyota gives that is still a gap of 1.5K with few important extra features as well.
And consider this - Honda always has a slight price bump compared to Toyota.

Toyota? I'm looking at Honda's CRV [edited: sorry, I typed "CVT", initially] Touring which starts at $32,395 vs the CX-5 GT (2016.5 model) which starts at $28,570. Haven't gone through and added all like features, but from a starting point, that's a slightly off-putting beginning for me (for a CRV).

 

[Kaps]

Now that i think of it, CX5 will face stiff competition from QX30 and Lincoln 2 row SUV. The discount lincoln gives is staggering. It looks nice, two new Lincolns in my office.

 

[shaendra]

Now that i think of it, CX5 will face stiff competition from QX30 and Lincoln 2 row SUV. The discount lincoln gives is staggering. It looks nice, two new Lincolns in my office.

Oh great, one more for me to look at. LOL. Lincoln = urpy overly-smooth boat ride. Same for their suv-body vehicles?

 

[Kaps]

Oh great, one more for me to look at. LOL. Lincoln = urpy overly-smooth boat ride. Same for their suv-body vehicles?

I wondered off to Lincoln forums once to see their hybrid sedan - a lot of posts said for the price i paid - so hoping just like Ford they knock a lot off their price. If you are GT customer then maybe you need to evaluate it and see.

 

[shaendra]

I wondered off to Lincoln forums once to see their hybrid sedan - a lot of posts said for the price i paid - so hoping just like Ford they knock a lot off their price. If you are GT customer then maybe you need to evaluate it and see.

I am a GT customer but am in no way interested in a sedan. And I would have considered the Hybrid RAV4 (since I'm coming from a hybrid now), but the price increase was way too much for me.

Thanks.

 

[yrwei52]

Yeah.. but the 2017 should be really quiet inside. Isn't that what you and Uno always wanted?

No I'd never complained noisy interior of our CX-5, so as Unobtanium I believe because he thinks CX-5 is a "cheap" daily driver and it's supposed to be noisy. But I agree with his opinion that he's amazed on how many people who were defending the Mazda not making the CX-5 quieter believe adding 50 pounds of sound deadening material would hurt the "performance" and handling of the CX-5!

 

[mangoconchile]

Toyota? I'm looking at Honda's CRV [edited: sorry, I typed "CVT", initially] Touring which starts at $32,395 vs the CX-5 GT (2016.5 model) which starts at $28,570. Haven't gone through and added all like features, but from a starting point, that's a slightly off-putting beginning for me (for a CRV).

Well maybe you should go thru and add all the features and price it out. I just did and noticed a couple of VERY interesting things:

A 2016.5 Grand Touring CX-5 starts at $29,770 for a FWD/Auto configuration. When you add i-Active Sensing Package(equivalent to Honda Sensing) Grand Touring Tech package(fancy lighting already included in in CRV), it bumps it to $32,425...

A 2017 CRV EX-L(not even Touring) starts at $29,195 and included Honda Sensing and LED lighting all throughout. So which one is the better value again? BTW, the CRV Touring includes all features mentioned plus some additional ones not found in the Mazda like full LED headlamps, hands-free Power tailgate, and Garmin-based NAV system.

Oh yeah CarPlay/Android Auto support as well. You get more value for the money buying a CRV clearly. Not to mention were comparing this to the 2016.5 model. The 2017 CX-5 is almost certain to see a price increase too.

 

[shaendra]

Well maybe you should go thru and add all the features and price it out. I just did and noticed a couple of VERY interesting things:

A 2016.5 Grand Touring CX-5 starts at $29,770 for a FWD/Auto configuration. When you add i-Active Sensing Package(equivalent to Honda Sensing) Grand Touring Tech package(fancy lighting already included in in CRV), it bumps it to $32,425...

A 2017 CRV EX-L(not even Touring) starts at $29,195 and included Honda Sensing and LED lighting all throughout. So which one is the better value again? BTW, the CRV Touring includes all features mentioned plus some additional ones not found in the Mazda like full LED headlamps, hands-free Power tailgate, and Garmin-based NAV system.

Oh yeah CarPlay/Android Auto support as well.

I will get it all lined up for a side-by-side, as an exercise, but only on features I care about (which do not include CarPlay/AA/Apple whatever). I'm peppering in here from work right now (shhhh). I say "exercise" because I want to see what the 2017 comes out with, for pricing as well. There are a couple things on the GT trim that make me want it over a 2016.5 (on paper) very much so. Dunno how much more that'll cost right now, however.

 

[7eregrine]

Pricing was released for Japan: no change.
Also for AUS: cheaper
and Canada: cheaper.

Who would have thought that?

 

[yrwei52]

Toyota? I'm looking at Honda's CRV [edited: sorry, I typed "CVT", initially] Touring which starts at $32,395 vs the CX-5 GT (2016.5 model) which starts at $28,570. Haven't gone through and added all like features, but from a starting point, that's a slightly off-putting beginning for me (for a CRV).

For those who said CX-5 has $4,000 price advantage than CR-V which simply is not true! Above example also gives wrong impression too. Remember 2016.5 CX-5 GT has 2 expensive options, Tech Package and i-ActivSense Package, to add, but top-of-line CR-V Touring has all factory options including cargo cover except AWD. If you compare a 2017 Honda CR-V Touring AWD and 2016.5 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD with Tech and i-ActivSense Packages, CR-V is $33,695 MSRP and CX-5 is $32,525 MSRP. Remember Mazda charges additional $300 or $200 for Soul Red or Crystal White Pearl colors. Also remember price structure would be changed due to different packaging for 2017 CX-5. We don't know how much Mazda would charge for new "Premium Package" on GT.

And I haven't taken account of much higher resell value of the CR-V. That would make CR-V looks cheaper! There're people stopping by and asking me to sell our 1998 CR-V with 175+K miles for their high school kid. That speaks how well the Honda CR-V fared in the used car market!

 

[shaendra]

For those who said CX-5 has $4,000 price advantage than CR-V which simply is not true! Above example also gives wrong impression too. Remember 2016.5 CX-5 GT has 2 expensive options, Tech Package and i-ActivSense Package, to add, but top-of-line CR-V Touring has all factory options including cargo cover except AWD. If you compare a 2017 Honda CR-V Touring AWD and 2016.5 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD with Tech and i-ActivSense Packages, CR-V is $33,695 MSRP and CX-5 is $32,525 MSRP. Remember Mazda charges additional $300 or $200 for Soul Red or Crystal White Pearl colors. Also remember price structure would be changed due to different packaging for 2017 CX-5. We don't know how much Mazda would charge for new "Premium Package" on GT.

And I haven't taken account of much higher resell value of the CR-V. That would make CR-V looks cheaper! There're people stopping by and asking me to sell our 1998 CR-V with 175+K miles for their high school kid. That speaks how well the Honda CR-V fared in the used car market!

Oh I'm well aware of this. Just said their STARTING point is a bigger spread than I expected. Not everything in the add-on packages will appeal to everyone, and I haven't looked through all the details yet, so the gap may remain or shrink. I'm not one who chooses cars for resale value, as I hang onto them for 10 years, on average.

 

[shaendra]

Pricing was released for Japan: no change.
Also for AUS: cheaper
and Canada: cheaper.

Who would have thought that?

As I wrote elsewhere... what are they waiting for? LOL. Potential US customers wanna know!

 

[Ricsta]

2017 CX-5 U.S. price isn't available yet, so I compared 2016.5 CX-5 GT with the tech and i-active pacakges to the 2017 CR-V and here are the results (including destination):

CX-5 $33,425
CR-V $34,635

CR-V costs 1,210 more.

I didn't dig into the available features on each... however, as I was looking at available packages and noticed that Honda offers 19 inch wheels for an additional $2,265.