Seriously, if these are supposed to be hitting the dealer lots by the end of the month I'm sure the dealers must have received info on them already, unless they are allocating the initial shipments totally without dealer input....
2017 CX-5 Line-up Dealer info
- Thread starter Ride92
- Start date
Seriously, if these are supposed to be hitting the dealer lots by the end of the month I'm sure the dealers must have received info on them already, unless they are allocating the initial shipments totally without dealer input....
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Well the reason I was looking for pricing was I heard from the beginning end of March and I heard last week pricing was due today for the US. There was an event this weekend in San Diego.
BTW, sources:
AUS PRICING
Canada
BTW, sources:
AUS PRICING
Canada
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Why did you compare the CX-5 with the tech and i-Active packages to the CRV Touring? All of the extra features you get in the CRV Touring are not even available as an option on the CX-5. A better comparison would be the CX-5 GT with tech and i-Active packages and the CRV EX-L which comes with the equivalent of Mazda's i-Active packages which comes just under 30k, a little over 2k cheaper than the CX-5 GT.
You breaking my dreams Ricsta, what about the Jacuzzi and the Latte maker? are they extra options? Turning Headlights? What about HUD display?
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
You have to add more to the CR-V for the 19" wheels. And the touring is where you get the LDW and FCW. And please go drive your CR-V to the CR-V forum.
A family of four [TM] does not care about 19s in USA. ***
***May include family of 3 or 2.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
Gotta disagree on his one. That's why you see F150s on 22" rims and Escalades on 24"s.
I know it will move at least 1.
So small story. I picked up a 2016 Mazda3 S Grand touring end of last April. Had 5 miles on it. Drove it 8 months and 20K miles before some dip **** in the opposing lane turned at an intersection in front of me thinking he could make the turn before I reached the intersection, and promptly hit ice stoppng smack infront of me. I slammed the brakes, tried to swerve, and got down to around 13 MPH but.....long story short they totaled my baby.
After that I started doing some research on cars and what can survive low impact collisions. Obvious research was obvious in that a larger vehicle is more likely to survive then a smaller one. I found this nice collection of info here http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/insurance-loss-information
Suffice it to say I decided to get something larger. But with the goal of fuel economy around 26MPG or better. Looks like the CX-5 can do that http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5 I really want the diesel but I'm not sure I can wait around until an Octoberish timeframe. Right now I'm running an Enterprise Rent a car since December and it's burning a hole in a wallet. I can do another month and may pull the trigger on the 2017 2.5L CX-5
I drove a 2017 CR-V a few weeks back. It's not bad but that transmission. I went from a Toyota Prius to a Mazda3 2.5L. The CR-V felt "off", when it came to the shifting / acceleration. And not in a good way.
I get where mangoconchile is coming from when it comes to the CRV's interior. If you are into tech, the VRV does feel more tech oriented that is presented to the driver. It's the little stuff. CRV shows you the actual tire PSI for each tire....Mazda, at least my Mazda3, had a light. So when that s*** came on traveling I had to go around to all the tires.
CRV shows you the AWD power distribution onscreen. Again it a minor thing but Mazda is trying to go for a premium feel right? Small details are a part of that premium feel.
CRV has Android auto. And while it can be argued all day long if that is a useful feature, the simple fact is I mounted a 7" Nexus6 tablet under the display on my Mazda3. All because Google Maps kicked the ever living snot out of the maps integrated into the car. Real time traffic from hundreds or thousands of Waze users in the area on Google Maps makes estimates way more accurate with congestion, and accidents. My one way trip into work is 25 miles. 3 possible routes in. and real time traffic tells me which one to avoid at the split location between those 3 routes.
I drove from Minneapolis up to Edmonton twice last year. Google maps was accurate within 20 minutes. Mazda's? 2 hours. POI's on Mazda's maps are a joke as well. I don't know who they are getting their dataset from. But it's bad. Completely out of date even with currently downloaded mapping details. Meanwhile. Google maps is the gold standard for POI. Always up to date. Always being reviewed by people.
The short of it: It's not a minor thing for many people who do a lot of driving. And it has been a heavily weighted consideration as I figure out what I want next.
However.....getting back on topic...MY Mazda3 had that wanna be HUD with the plastic screen. It was stupidly useful when it came to keeping my eyes on the road, and a major selling point IMHO. With a true HUD coming to the 2017's https://youtu.be/i9SYIrapepA?t=9m11s (Japanese 2017 CX-5) It's gone from a plastic joke to full on real HUD.
IMHO that is a worthy tradeoff for Android Auto as I can still get it by slapping my tablet back up on the vents. (Only issue is AA uses the built in GPS radio on the car for more accurate tracking. Most tablet's GPS radios are a joke)
Look. I love what Mazda is doing with their cars. But the infotainment system is a sore spot IMHO. They do all kinds of refinements. To the cabin, to deadening the road noise, to tweaking the overall design. But as far as I can tell infotainment hasn't been touched in years. And I've started to call Mazda like I see it: When it comes to tech in the cabin they are a conservative company. And while that might mean greater reliability long term. It also means that you don't get wow moments from the cabin.
But that is somewhat balanced out by wow moments while driving. YMMV on which is more important.
I just wish I could get both.
Sorry for the TL;DR post.
Like I said, I didn't dig into the features, just thought I'd look at the top of the line for both model.
Mamame la verga, Mangochile!
Final verdict vs CX5:
CR-V negative
Costs 3750 more
CVT
No adaptive headlights
No HUD
New drivetrain
Looks
Positives
More cargo
AA.
1.5 mpg better
More tech.
For me its a no brainier - crv all the way. Specially if you are a mutated family with someone like Wolverine who can use the wood trim to sharpen their claws during long road trips.
Although I would wait for 2018, Honda are rumored to be considering full chrome doors. That would be neat.
CR-V negative
Costs 3750 more
CVT
No adaptive headlights
No HUD
New drivetrain
Looks
Positives
More cargo
AA.
1.5 mpg better
More tech.
For me its a no brainier - crv all the way. Specially if you are a mutated family with someone like Wolverine who can use the wood trim to sharpen their claws during long road trips.
Although I would wait for 2018, Honda are rumored to be considering full chrome doors. That would be neat.
As much as I hate to get involved in this debate, a look at the Honda website shows that you NEED the Touring to get such "extra features" as LED headlights, rain-sensing wipers, and a premium audio system (though it may or may not be better tan the Bose) - all of which are available on the CX-5. The Honda does have some features not available in the Mazda, but the LED lights is a pretty big deal imo.
- :
- 2016.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech Package
I'm also hesitant to join this debate (where are the mods, this has gotten so off-track from the start)....
Anyway, I was on the verge of buying a 2016.5 CX-5 Touring AWD (no packages) but I saw that Consumer Reports had the new CR-V on the cover and figured I should check it out. I had not seen a single review of the CR-V or anything, just went down the dealership "blind" to any reviewer comments. Note: I've been researching small SUVs for a few years now (for reasons I won't get in to). Anyway, walking away from the CR-V (I drove a LX because they didn't have an EX on the lot)....
CR-V seemed nice. I didn't care for the gauge cluster and the vehicle seemed really wide to me (perhaps because of the hood styling is raised on the ends?). On the plus side it was quiet and had a smooth ride. My only real gripe with the car was where my right knee rested on the hard plastic. It was painful and I would have to alter my driving position to avoid this area. I'm also not a fan of turbos or CVTs.
Is the CR-V a contender for my dollar....yes. With that said, I'm not a typical CUV buyer. I'm single, 34, no kids, but I want a car that can handle a very large dog (and yes the CX-5 has plenty of room for that) and high ground clearance for going down dirt roads in the mountains. Beyond that, I want something reliable that will last a long time. Finally, I hate most of the new "tech" in cars. I hate having a car beep at me and I've actively looked for cars that let a driver be a driver (hence not wanting the tech packages on the CX-5). I would like Android Auto though, I can see the benefit with having that over the CX-5 navigation. I don't need/want a moonroof, fancy headlights, etc....all things to just fail later, just a simple quality car.
With all that said, looking at a new 2017 CR-V EX AWD, I'm looking at a sticker price of about $28,000 and being new, I doubt there are deals to be had, plus whatever I'll pay on the 3% or so interest on a loan. Looking at a 2016.5 CX-5 Touring AWD, I could probably pick one up on "closeout" for $25,000 and I would qualify for 0% financing.
So it comes down to this for me....is $3,000+ worth the price of what the CR-V has to offer? Honestly, I don't know yet, but I'm leaning towards "no". The 2017 CX-5 doesn't really do anything for me, the deletion of fog lights is a huge downside for me as I live were we have intense tule fog. No manual in the Touring and no Android Auto were the final nails in the coffin for me on the 2017 CX-5.
At the end of the day, all of the cars in this class are really similar, it's just some brands focus on tech, others the drive, others safety, etc, and it's great that some people are CX-5 people and some people are CR-V people....and that's totally fine!
Now, can we all just get along?
Anyway, I was on the verge of buying a 2016.5 CX-5 Touring AWD (no packages) but I saw that Consumer Reports had the new CR-V on the cover and figured I should check it out. I had not seen a single review of the CR-V or anything, just went down the dealership "blind" to any reviewer comments. Note: I've been researching small SUVs for a few years now (for reasons I won't get in to). Anyway, walking away from the CR-V (I drove a LX because they didn't have an EX on the lot)....
CR-V seemed nice. I didn't care for the gauge cluster and the vehicle seemed really wide to me (perhaps because of the hood styling is raised on the ends?). On the plus side it was quiet and had a smooth ride. My only real gripe with the car was where my right knee rested on the hard plastic. It was painful and I would have to alter my driving position to avoid this area. I'm also not a fan of turbos or CVTs.
Is the CR-V a contender for my dollar....yes. With that said, I'm not a typical CUV buyer. I'm single, 34, no kids, but I want a car that can handle a very large dog (and yes the CX-5 has plenty of room for that) and high ground clearance for going down dirt roads in the mountains. Beyond that, I want something reliable that will last a long time. Finally, I hate most of the new "tech" in cars. I hate having a car beep at me and I've actively looked for cars that let a driver be a driver (hence not wanting the tech packages on the CX-5). I would like Android Auto though, I can see the benefit with having that over the CX-5 navigation. I don't need/want a moonroof, fancy headlights, etc....all things to just fail later, just a simple quality car.
With all that said, looking at a new 2017 CR-V EX AWD, I'm looking at a sticker price of about $28,000 and being new, I doubt there are deals to be had, plus whatever I'll pay on the 3% or so interest on a loan. Looking at a 2016.5 CX-5 Touring AWD, I could probably pick one up on "closeout" for $25,000 and I would qualify for 0% financing.
So it comes down to this for me....is $3,000+ worth the price of what the CR-V has to offer? Honestly, I don't know yet, but I'm leaning towards "no". The 2017 CX-5 doesn't really do anything for me, the deletion of fog lights is a huge downside for me as I live were we have intense tule fog. No manual in the Touring and no Android Auto were the final nails in the coffin for me on the 2017 CX-5.
At the end of the day, all of the cars in this class are really similar, it's just some brands focus on tech, others the drive, others safety, etc, and it's great that some people are CX-5 people and some people are CR-V people....and that's totally fine!
Now, can we all just get along?
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Be a responsible poster and please don't keep trying to spread false information about this $4K price advantage on CX-5.
For $1,070 more on Honda CR-V Touring AWD, you also get factory cargo cover and roof rails, whereas you have to pay extra for them on CX-5. In the end when you trade in your car, CR-V will have higher trade-in value than CX-5, which makes CR-V actually a cheaper buy!
Other than those 18 features I listed earlier, here are more. Direct-read tire pressure monitor and AWD power distribution screen were mentioned by Kellic earlier. I also noticed CR-V has "one-touch" power moonroof in addition to both front one-touch power windows. All switches are illuminated! You can also open the liftgate with key fob and a switch near driver too.
Actually for 26,695 MSRP the CR-V EX FWD is the best value with many features such as HondaSensing TM、Blind Spot Information system (BSI) with cross traffic monitor、18" alloy wheels、12-way power driver's seat including 4-way lumbar support、remote engine start、and many more which is as cheap as CX-5 Touring with Bose moonroof Package.
Even more ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ(deadhorse
I'm waiting to find out what the UK specification is.
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
Well said, but really, for all the people pushing the CR-V on people on a Mazda forum, can they just find another forum? Every post they make does not have to be about how much better the CR-V is than the CX-5.
Be a responsible poster and please don't keep trying to spread false information about this $4K price advantage on CX-5.
For $1,070 more on Honda CR-V Touring AWD, you also get factory cargo cover and roof rails, whereas you have to pay extra for them on CX-5. In the end when you trade in your car, CR-V will have higher trade-in value than CX-5, which makes CR-V actually a cheaper buy!
Other than those 18 features I listed earlier, here are more. Direct-read tire pressure monitor and AWD power distribution screen were mentioned by Kellic earlier. I also noticed CR-V has "one-touch" power moonroof in addition to both front one-touch power windows. All switches are illuminated! You can also open the liftgate with key fob and a switch near driver too.
Actually for 26,695 MSRP the CR-V EX FWD is the best value with many features such as HondaSensing TM、Blind Spot Information system (BSI) with cross traffic monitor、18" alloy wheels、12-way power driver's seat including 4-way lumbar support、remote engine start、and many more which is as cheap as CX-5 Touring with Bose moonroof Package.
A lot of your list of 18 features were not actually features remember? If you cared to read the disputed replies to your list earlier in the thread. And are we still comparing a brand new 2017 CR-V to a 2016.5 CX-5?
A lot of these so called technology you mention of are borderline gimmicks such as one touch moon roof switch and illuminated window switches which you seem to be quite obsessed with. Just a little insight, here in the land down under we see technology more so in the sense of safety and performance, such as low speed/high speed, front and reverse AEB, Adaptive LED Headlights, High Beam Assist, Stop / Start Engine technology just to name a few which the current CR-V (Australia) does not have (not sure about upcoming new CR-V) coupled with the fact that the CX-5 has better official and real world fuel consumption figures and it's extensive safety tech and not to mention better ride and handling through it's chassis and transmission makes it such a success here in Australia.
