Reviews Monday for 2017s?

[Monterra]

Keep in mind the CR-V has a CVT while the CX-5 has the 6-speed auto.

I've never personally found a CVT enjoyable to drive. But YMMV.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Mongo actually made a few valid (some questionable/negligable) points but this one ^^^ affects waaay more change to the overall driving experience along with steering where Mazda nails it. The Honda seems want to please the epa and nieve ppl rather than the driver-who think they can wring this 1.5Ls neck (and they'll need to) and still get 30mpg...not happening, be lucky to match the Mazda when driven swiftly..ie even if I cared about getting an optimistic 5-7% better fe- its not worth the penalty CVTs (even good ones) levy on the driver who likes driving.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

 

[Monterra]

I liked mine but that's the post of the week, name officially changed!

 

[7eregrine]

Resale is NOT better on the CRV. According to Consumer Reports and my own lazy "research". One thing that hurts CRV resale is one of the things it has going for it: they are everywhere. Don't like the price on that used CRV? There's 10 more right down the street.

Let's not all overlook:
Top of the line CR-V: $37K
Top of the line CX-5: $32K

The CRV doesn't have heated seats? Is that true? I can't believe that's true....

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Resale is NOT better on the CRV. According to Consumer Reports and my own lazy "research". One thing that hurts CRV resale is one of the things it has going for it: they are everywhere. Don't like the price on that used CRV? There's 10 more right down the street.

Let's not all overlook:
Top of the line CR-V: $37K
Top of the line CX-5: $32K

The CRV doesn't have heated seats? Is that true? I can't believe that's true....

Yeah...I'm pretty sure it has heated seats.

That price though...(rlaugh)

 

[Pipemajor]

Resale is NOT better on the CRV. According to Consumer Reports and my own lazy "research". One thing that hurts CRV resale is one of the things it has going for it: they are everywhere. Don't like the price on that used CRV? There's 10 more right down the street.

Let's not all overlook:
Top of the line CR-V: $37K
Top of the line CX-5: $32K

The CRV doesn't have heated seats? Is that true? I can't believe that's true....

Heated steering wheel and rear seats available only in Canada. I heard you can get the heated steering wheel installed as a dealer option here in the US?

 

[yrwei52]

⋯ There isn't "worse mpg", it's literally new EPA methods of setting the numbers (which dropped them on paper).

EPA fuel economy ratings showed at fueleconomy.gov have been adjusted for older model-years to match the revised 2017 calculation. The results for 2016 CX-5's are the highway estimate for AWD downgraded from 30 to 29 mpg. The rest of estimates including FWD didn't change.

EPA is updating its method for calculating the fuel economy shown on new-car window stickers starting with the 2017 model year.

EPA periodically updates its methodology to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving conditions. The 2008 changes (see below) were broad revisions to the entire methodology that affected every vehicle.

The 2017 change updates some of the calculations used to estimate fuel economy. The new calculations are based on test data from model year 20112016 vehicles. So, they better reflect today's vehicle fleet of more fuel-efficient vehicles and advanced technologies such as hybrids and turbocharged engines.

Most vehicles are not affected by the new calculations. Some fuel economy estimates will decrease by 1 mpg, and a small number may be 2 mpg lower.

View old/new MPG ratings for a specific vehicle.

Visit EPA's website for more detailed information.

Comparing New Vehicles to Older Ones

During the next year, you may see 2016 vehicles with the old fuel economy estimates on the window sticker along side 2017 vehicles with estimates based on the new calculations. To help you compare vehicles with new and older ratings more easily, the estimates in Find and Compare Cars have been adjusted:

The original estimates for model year 20112016 vehicles have been adjusted to match the revised 2017 calculations.
The ratings for most vehicles will be unchanged.
Ratings changes will be small for affected vehicles. Some will go down by 1 to 2 mpg.
Ratings for 20082010 model year vehicles are still based on the 2008 methodology.
Estimates for model years 19842007 have been adjusted to be consistent with the 2008 methodology.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

EPA fuel economy ratings showed at fueleconomy.gov have been adjusted for older model-years to match the revised 2017 calculation. The results for 2016 CX-5's are the highway estimate for AWD downgraded from 30 to 29 mpg. The rest of estimates including FWD didn't change.

And yet we can all get 30s MPG on our CX-5s??? (Except Uno for some reason)

This makes no sense.

 

[CX-5um]

Yeah...I'm pretty sure it has heated seats.

That price though...(rlaugh)

Appliance spec'd CVT's found in cars costing 35k+?

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Appliance spec'd CVT's found in cars costing 35k+?

Yeah, go to Honda's site and price out a Touring CR-V. It's comical.

 

[jasong7131]

Keep in mind the CR-V has a CVT while the CX-5 has the 6-speed auto.

I've never personally found a CVT enjoyable to drive. But YMMV.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Yeah I left those intangible characteristics like steering feel, suspension setup and shifting quality out because none of that means better or worse but each individual's personal preferences.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[Kaps]

And yet we can all get 30s MPG on our CX-5s??? (Except Uno for some reason)

This makes no sense.

Absolutely. If you call yourself and 3 others as "ALL" - all CX-5 AWD drivers get 30 mpg.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Absolutely. If you call yourself and 3 others as "ALL" - all CX-5 AWD drivers get 30 mpg.

Maybe I haven't been reading every single post in the MPG threads, so maybe I have the wrong impression, but I thought it was like "3 others" that didn't get 30s highway MPG?

 

[7eregrine]

If I can get 29 barely trying, I certainly expect to not be the only one. Maybe the air is more conducive here at 625 feet above sea level? Yes, that's a joke.
What are you at, C-D? 9,000 feet? (Sorry, OT)

 

[ColoradoDriver]

If I can get 29 barely trying, I certainly expect to not be the only one. Maybe the air is more conducive here at 625 feet above sea level? Yes, that's a joke.
What are you at, C-D? 9,000 feet? (Sorry, OT)

LOL! Used to live at 9000 ft in the mountains. Now I'm at about 5600 ft.

And agreed. I don't really need to try and I'll hit 30+ on the freeways.

 

[piotrek91]

EPA fuel economy ratings showed at fueleconomy.gov have been adjusted for older model-years to match the revised 2017 calculation. The results for 2016 CX-5's are the highway estimate for AWD downgraded from 30 to 29 mpg. The rest of estimates including FWD didn't change.

I read up on this adjustment a little bit more.

My current understanding of ratings is this:

For 2007 ratings manufacturers only had to run the city and slow highway test.

In 2008 a new high speed highway test was introduced.

For 2008-2016 manufacturers could still only run the city and slow highway test and "calculate" how the car would perform in the high speed test and use that number for the ratings.

The EPA finally realized that the "calculations" were incorrect, so they tried to adjust them. This is the "adjustment" that the EPA did to pre 2017 models.

In 2017 the EPA actually requires all manufacturers to run the high speed highway test (the test can still be "ran" on a computer, but it does now have to be ran).
The results are often even lower than the adjusted EPA calculation, so you sometimes get ratings that are lower than the adjusted 2016 figures even if the car did not change.

 

[Monterra]

I routinely get 29-30 in the warmer months- not caning it but not grannying either...

 

[clads01]

Consumer Reports "Quick Drive" review:

 

[dougal]

Absolutely. If you call yourself and 3 others as "ALL" - all CX-5 AWD drivers get 30 mpg.

If you keep it below 75-80, 30 MPG on the highway is doable. Heck, on Fuelly, for the 2014 CX-5, ~23% of the fill-ups are for 30 MPG or higher.

Lots of people are getting great mileage with the CX-5.

 

[redturboeclipse]

top trim CRV Touring AWD is $34.5K IIRC.

comes with roof rails too. dont you have to pay accessory for that on the 17 cx5?

also capless gas filler. very cool and convenient.

android auto and apple car play in place. no speculating or praying that maybe in the year 2025 it will have it.

handsfree power lift gate. the lower trims come with power lift gate standard. its an option for most of the 17 cx5s

remote start on the keyfob standard on all but the base model. on the 17 cx5. nope. very cool to show off to others that you can start your car remotely. heat it up or cool it down too.

better mpg.

there are many canadians im sure here. in canada it comes with panoramic roof, and heated rear seats. the 17 cx5 has heated rear seats, but panoramic roof? hah! never. so much for mazda's approach on luxury right, no pano roof is a huge part of being in the luxury market

resale, brand recognition, reliability not just in truth but also reputation, all honda. mazda isnt bad but honda is fact better and superior.

the reviews have been positive for the 17 cx5 so far, but pay close attention to those reviews or any reviews forth coming.. none praise it for being a good "family" vehicle. its praised for its refinement, handling, and how it improved on the 16 cx5. where when you see crv reviews, many praises on its features, mpg, and a very great family vehicle. for looks and refinement in a cuv in this price range there is no denying the 17 cx5 takes that, but for grocery getters, soccer moms, and families of 4, the crv wins.

both fruit, but apples and oranges. someone made a comment above "Don't like the price on that used CRV? There's 10 more right down the street." well goes to show how popular a vehicle it is.