Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out

Kaps said:
I think i disagree with you - I feel he believes what he writes.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell if a person is trolling, but given how easy it is to look things up these days, I'd call them trolling if they're too lazy to bring facts to a discussion. If you're not sure about something, look it up, verify before saying it.

For the records, I have nothing against Honda. I grew up in Vietnam, riding a Honda Cub 50 and a Dream II through my younger years. I love Honda quality, they just can't break, the hotter/harder you drive on the freeway, the more efficient they're (unlike Chinese-made motorcycles). Heck, even my lawn mower is a Honda and it's so durable and easy to maintain. My previous cars were all Accords and Civic, my wife is driving an Accord, my relatives mostly have Pilot, CR-V, Odyssey, Acura.

I love it when we compare the CR-V and CX-5 with facts, bring things into perspective. But when someone just stating things out of thin air without anything to back it up, or stating the opposite of what's been out there, it's not productive/constructive. They should just go tweet for the President instead.
 
Last edited:
banjos-n-beer said:
CX5 AWD > CRV AWD.

Its not even close. There have been times when our CRV has struggled backing up in 4" of snow. That's ridiculous. Sad even. You can feel the car struggling, and its even worse when there is an incline involved. Eventually you basically have to floor it to get it moving.

The CX5 grins, laughs, and takes off with ease.

With the 2017 CX5 now being ~1" lower, I'll bet you'll see the skid-pad numbers go up, and once again be above the new 2107 CRV.

Lastly- to say the CX5 redesign ignored the interior is asinine. The new interior has been rated miles above the first gen CX5, which had already made the previous gen CRV look chintzy at best.
Click to expand...

So you have a 2017 CR-V to compare the AWD systems?
 
Glad everyone sees how much of a troll/fool some of these guys are here who continue to rant on and on about the CRV. It has gone wayy too far. I can't wait to see how this new 17 CX5 performs. I know it will continue to deliver what we love about Mazda.
 
Kaps said:
What is funny is folks on this forum will say the Rogue is better than CX-5 because of sales.
Consider the size of Nissan - Renault, consider the size of Mazda - guess who gets better pricing from their vendors due to bulk buying - even after all this a Nissan brings in less profit per car than Mazda. They are just stinking up the place atm.
Click to expand...

The Ford Mustang killed the F-body in the late 90's for sales. The F-body SLAUGHTERED the mustang in handling, acceleration, and braking. People didn't care, though. They liked the smoother ride of the Mustang, the sound, and so forth. Sales don't tell you what's good...but they do tell you what's POPULAR.
 
Unobtanium said:
The Ford Mustang killed the F-body in the late 90's for sales. The F-body SLAUGHTERED the mustang in handling, acceleration, and braking. People didn't care, though. They liked the smoother ride of the Mustang, the sound, and so forth. Sales don't tell you what's good...but they do tell you what's POPULAR.
Click to expand...

Well I'm ok only seeing maybe only 1-5 other CX-5s in a day, as opposed to the 20+ CR-Vs, 10-20+ RAV4s, 10-20+ Hyundai Tuscans and Santa Fes, and a million Subaru Outbacks, Foresters, and Crossteks.
 
ColoradoDriver said:
Of course they compare as vehicle in the same segments.

And that fake wood panel stripe in the interior? What the hell is this, the 1990's still?

Pass.
Click to expand...


Oh no! There's fake wood in the CRV! That must mean it's a vehicle from the 1990s. Does the new CX-5 use real wood or does it use plastic like the CRV? OK then. And let's ignore the fact that it has the new engine, transmission, and platform not to mention loads of tech. The new CX-5 on the other hand has a 5 year old platform, engine and transmission and somehow gets WORSE gas mileage. Now which vehicle is stuck in the past? BTW the fake wood trim is easily replaceable, the faux stitching you see inside the CX-5 is not.
 
Last edited:
mangoconchile said:
Oh no! There's fake wood in the CRV! That must mean it's a vehicle from the 1990s. Does the new CX-5 use real wood or does it use plastic like the CRV? OK then. And let's ignore the fact that it has the new engine, transmission, and platform not to mention loads of tech. The new CX-5 on the other hand has a 5 year old platform, engine and transmission and somehow gets WORSE gas mileage. Now which vehicle is stuck in the past? BTW the fake wood trim is easily replaceable, the faux stitching you see inside the CX-5 is not.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to accomplish by being here and bashing the CX5? Do you secretly love the CX5? Are you jealous of us CX5 owners? Are you trying to justify your CRV purchase? I really don't see your end game here.
 
mangoconchile said:
Oh no! There's fake wood in the CRV! That must mean it's a vehicle from the 1990s. Does the new CX-5 use real wood or does it use plastic like the CRV? OK then. And let's ignore the fact that it has the new engine, transmission, and platform not to mention loads of tech. The new CX-5 on the other hand has a 5 year old platform, engine and transmission and somehow gets WORSE gas mileage. Now which vehicle is stuck in the past? BTW the fake wood trim is easily replaceable, the faux stitching you see inside the CX-5 is not.
Click to expand...

The style is from the 1990's. I mean the last time I had a fake wood strip in the interior was a 1998 Grand Cherokee.

So how does it get worse gas mileage if it's the same platform? There's no logic in that and it's more likely they just changed out they are measuring it.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about all the little gadgets and tech you CR-V people have been spouting on and on about. CX-5 has loads of tech too (you are acting like it doesn't).

I just want to drive and I definitely want to have fun while doing it. I'll take the CX-5, thanks.
 
Last edited:
ColoradoDriver said:
So how does it get worse gas mileage if it's the same platform? There's no logic in that and it's more likely they just changed out they are measuring it.
Click to expand...

The 2017 is likely heavier, and I bet the FWD no longer gets the tall final drive ratio that the 2016 got.
 
ColoradoDriver said:
The style is from the 1990's. I mean the last time I had a fake wood strip in the interior was a 1998 Grand Cherokee.

So how does it get worse gas mileage if it's the same platform? There's no logic in that and it's more likely they just changed out they are measuring it.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about all the little gadgets and tech you CR-V people have been spouting on and on about. CX-5 has loads of tech too (you are acting like it doesn't).

I just want to drive and I definitely want to have fun while doing it. I'll take the CX-5, thanks.
Click to expand...


Style is subjective, so it's pointless to talk about it. Who cares of it's fake? Would it make a difference if it was real wood? People don't get in my car and point it out or even care about it, much like people are not going to point out the fake leather stitching on your dash. If it were so ugly, it wouldn't be the #1 selling SUV in the country.

It gets worse gas milage because it is a heavier vehicle due to the extra sound deadening they added and increasing the HP by a whole 2HP. Regarding tech, when is Mazda planning on adding CarPlay or Android Auto? Pretty big features that many people want in their vehicles. No one wants to be stuck with a crappy OEM Nav system for the duration of their time owning the vehicle.
 
Last edited:
mangoconchile said:
It gets worse gas milage because it is a heavier vehicle due to the extra sound deadening they added and increasing the HP by a whole 2HP. Regarding tech, when is Mazda planning on adding CarPlay or Android Auto? Pretty big features that many people want in their vehicles. No one wants to be stuck with a crappy OEM Nav system for the duration of their time owning the vehicle.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
mangoconchile said:
Style is subjective, so it's pointless to talk about it. Who cares of it's fake? Would it make a difference if it was real wood? People don't get in my car and point it out or even care about it, much like people are not going to point out the fake leather stitching on your dash. If it were so ugly, it wouldn't be the #1 selling SUV in the country.
Click to expand...
If it were real wood it would still look s***. Think about this - take a hippopotamus and give it the crown of a peacock - it will still look ugly.
 
 
Last edited:
Unobtanium said:
So you have a 2017 CR-V to compare the AWD systems?
Click to expand...

I was comparing our 2015 CRV with our 2016 CX5.

I've yet to come across anything stating Honda reworked their AWD system for the new 2017 model. New engine, but nothing about improving AWD software/hardware. If there is such literature, then I will be happy to read it.

Until then, I will go by my real world experience using my 500 ft driveway in multiple snow/ice storms.
 
mangoconchile said:
Style is subjective, so it's pointless to talk about it. Who cares of it's fake? Would it make a difference if it was real wood? People don't get in my car and point it out or even care about it, much like people are not going to point out the fake leather stitching on your dash. If it were so ugly, it wouldn't be the #1 selling SUV in the country.

It gets worse gas milage because it is a heavier vehicle due to the extra sound deadening they added and increasing the HP by a whole 2HP. Regarding tech, when is Mazda planning on adding CarPlay or Android Auto? Pretty big features that many people want in their vehicles. No one wants to be stuck with a crappy OEM Nav system for the duration of their time owning the vehicle.
Click to expand...

I haven't figured out why you are on a CX-5 forum yet.

You're focusing on the word fake which was not the emphasis of my point. The fact it's a wood trim (real or fake) makes it pretty ugly in my opinion. And I revise my last statement. The last time I saw wood design on a car was a PT-cruiser. It was ugly then (early 2000's), it's ugly now.

CR-V still looks like a dwarf mini-van. The rear profile is hideous. Side profile = dwarf mini-van, front profile, meh. Interior? Cluttered and ugly.

Hey I don't disagree that for some people, CarPlay or Android Auto is a feature they want. I'm not one of them, so your point fails to sway me. Just like styling, I'm of the opinion that this is subjective too.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

New Posts and Comments

Z
2014~2018 Engine mount inquiry
Replies
0
Views
1
ZDA3
Z
scaleautoworks
I'm done, Lemon Law awaits
Replies
2
Views
60
scaleautoworks
scaleautoworks
N
AC Cutting Out
Replies
4
Views
184
Silentnoise713
S
S
EBrake light flashing
Replies
10
Views
452
S-Works
S
Z
Is a transmission service necessary?
Replies
4
Views
170
sm1ke
sm1ke
K
    • Like
  • Sticky
What have you done to your CX-5 today?
475 476 477
Replies
10K
Views
2M
yieldchase
Y
View more…

New Threads and Articles

Back