Help Me Decide: CX-5 vs. CR-V

[NelsonLewis]

If I were forced to buy a new CUV (which I never would), I'd buy the CR-V. Similar cost. Better performance. Much better mpg. All of this equals more money left over (which is why you would even consider a vehicle like this to BEGIN with), and it's much more popular...which means that once it's out of warranty, 3rd party repair will be much easier, as more parts from low-mile vehicles will be available from salvage yards.

I had to replace the transmission in an Infiniti G20 once. $650 for the box, $650 for the work. You know what that woulda cost at a dealer?! Def. get the more popular option since it's so close in every other area. You will be glad 5-8 years later.

I fully agree. And, nice price on that tranny, it would probably be triple that at a dealer, if not way more...and you're right, if this CX-5 doesn't live up to the hype, then it will be sold to buy a CR-V. I'm not scared to work on this Mazda, but I love working on my old Honda, it's a breeze, and can be taken apart almost entirely with a simple 10mm socket, and very rarely needs worked on, it's more or less tinkering around. Hoping the CX-5 serves us well, I believe it will, but I'm no fanboy to anything, so I won't hesitate to jump to something else if needed...

 

[Unobtanium]

I fully agree. And, nice price on that tranny, it would probably be triple that at a dealer, if not way more...and you're right, if this CX-5 doesn't live up to the hype, then it will be sold to buy a CR-V. I'm not scared to work on this Mazda, but I love working on my old Honda, it's a breeze, and can be taken apart almost entirely with a simple 10mm socket, and very rarely needs worked on, it's more or less tinkering around. Hoping the CX-5 serves us well, I believe it will, but I'm no fanboy to anything, so I won't hesitate to jump to something else if needed...

Even if you paid cash, the depreciation will sicken you. The cx5 is a leap you don't come back from, not with financial prudence in mind. They are super popular here, so parts shouldn't be an issue in the years to come, and I'm hoping to keep mine for 10-15 at least. It serves it's purpose well.

Part of why I bought mine was I got 2k over kbb in my jeep...and 4 to 5k more than any other dealer offered! I also got the lightly used 2015 awd 2.5 touring for 21.9k. Kbb Pp retail. This was in 2015. Jeep pissed me off for the last time that am...traded it.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Even if you paid cash, the depreciation will sicken you. The cx5 is a leap you don't come back from, not with financial prudence in mind. They are super popular here, so parts shouldn't be an issue in the years to come, and I'm hoping to keep mine for 10-15 at least. It serves it's purpose well.

Part of why I bought mine was I got 2k over kbb in my jeep...and 4 to 5k more than any other dealer offered! I also got the lightly used 2015 awd 2.5 touring for 21.9k. Kbb Pp retail. This was in 2015. Jeep pissed me off for the last time that am...traded it.

If this thing doesn't last 10-15 years, ole girl is gonna be pissed! She keeps her cars for that long. The depreciation does suck. Idk why folks tried to act like its no biggie, the Honda rules in that dept, I bought a 00 Civic Si for 17,600, drove it hard for 3 years and 40k miles, and sold it for 14500. Works for me. No way I can expect that with the Mazda. All good though. Could've paid cash, but secured a 1.74% loan, and I can kill that rate of return keeping my cash. I will pay it off early though, just haven't decided when. Let's just hope it stays trouble free that long...

 

[banjos-n-beer]

That's why my GF went with a new 2015 CRV instead of used.... a new one can be had for ~$2-3k above the used prices.... and by used I mean ~3 years old with ~ 35k miles. She only leased because after coming from a manual, she had no idea if she would like the CVT.

 

[Unobtanium]

That's why my GF went with a new 2015 CRV instead of used.... a new one can be had for ~$2-3k above the used prices.... and by used I mean ~3 years old with ~ 35k miles. She only leased because after coming from a manual, she had no idea if she would like the CVT.

See, I got a 2015 CX5 IN 2015, and saved about $5K over new on it. THAT is what I meant by CX5 residual value...

 

[Unobtanium]

If this thing doesn't last 10-15 years, ole girl is gonna be pissed! She keeps her cars for that long. The depreciation does suck. Idk why folks tried to act like its no biggie, the Honda rules in that dept, I bought a 00 Civic Si for 17,600, drove it hard for 3 years and 40k miles, and sold it for 14500. Works for me. No way I can expect that with the Mazda. All good though. Could've paid cash, but secured a 1.74% loan, and I can kill that rate of return keeping my cash. I will pay it off early though, just haven't decided when. Let's just hope it stays trouble free that long...

I get GAP insurance, and finance as long and low as possible, and I only would consider making extra payments once trade-in first offer eclipses dollar amount owed. Otherwise, if a wreck occurs, I pissed away MY money, and not my bank's money, and screw that...

 

[banjos-n-beer]

See, I got a 2015 CX5 IN 2015, and saved about $5K over new on it. THAT is what I meant by CX5 residual value...

yup, I was agreeing with you, and sharing her example/experience.

 

[Unobtanium]

yup, I was agreeing with you, and sharing her example/experience.

The one that really blows my mind is the Toyota FJ Cruiser.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

The one that really blows my mind is the Toyota FJ Cruiser.

I noticed that as well. couldn't sell them when they were in production... and now... yowsa. almost an investment at this point.

 

[Kaps]

See, I got a 2015 CX5 IN 2015, and saved about $5K over new on it. THAT is what I meant by CX5 residual value...

You are comparing your price to a sticker MSRP. I know you got a base Touring with AWD. So no one pays sticker first of all. In reality - you got a rental car (Minus 1 Grand - its almost a rule - rentals dont sell as well as lease or single owned cars), 2nd you would have gotten 1K off sticker for new (low expectation). If you were a true deal guy - you would get 2~2.5K off sticker. So in reality, you got 1.5K less than a new car not 5k.

 

[Unobtanium]

You are comparing your price to a sticker MSRP. I know you got a base Touring with AWD. So no one pays sticker first of all. In reality - you got a rental car (Minus 1 Grand - its almost a rule - rentals dont sell as well as lease or single owned cars), 2nd you would have gotten 1K off sticker for new (low expectation). If you were a true deal guy - you would get 2~2.5K off sticker. So in reality, you got 1.5K less than a new car not 5k.

Call it how you want, trade in is currently about $13k.

 

[Kaps]

Call it how you want, trade in is currently about $13k.

Sometimes I feel a bit of your bitterness about CX-5 is that you paid 22k for yours. I was reading your bought it thread and went - no god he paid that for a used rental.
For someone who just looks at this as cheap toaster and wants a low cost reliable car - you would have loved it more if you had paid a grand less, which is what you should have.

 

[Unobtanium]

Sometimes I feel a bit of your bitterness about CX-5 is that you paid 22k for yours. I was reading your bought it thread and went - no god he paid that for a used rental.
For someone who just looks at this as cheap toaster and wants a low cost reliable car - you would have loved it more if you had paid a grand less, which is what you should have.

I honestly don't think $1K matters either here or there. My note is $417 a month, and that includes a 7/100 bumper to bumper warranty, GAP, etc. I am not concerned with $100/mo either way really, but more annoyed at the negative equity, as it prevents a fluid lateral transfer. Let's say I decide I want a Civic SI because stoopid mileage, and I end up living off a paved road? Well screw me. Can't do it. Too much negative equity for a lateral move without investing serious cash, which negates 35mpg vs. 22mpg. $1K off the purchase price would NOT have combated that. My Jeep was a rental, and it was at 93k miles, out of warranty, with a busted sunroof and leaking transmission...and I got $2K over KBB trade-in. I got a damn steal!

 

[bigtex]

I just test drove a CRV this past weekend.
Compared with CX5 driving test this is what I noticed.

-The rear AC/heat air vents are adjustable in terms of direction (I believe it is fixed on the cx5?)

There are 2 separate vents side-by-side. You can adjust them up/down and left/right.
You can also adjust the air flow or shut it off completely or just use the rear seat heaters if it gets too cold.
Not sure if it is like this on the '16, my 2014 did not have rear ac.

 

[mangoconchile]

Motor Trend just compared the new CRV and CX5. In addition to the summary below, the CRV has better brakes and faster 0-60 times. 7.5 vs 8.4.

Motor Trend article summary:
"This time, though, we don't necessarily have to couch it that way. Yes, the Mazda CX-5 is prettier, more luxurious, and a little more fun to drive, but the Honda CR-V is just damn good. If you want to be coldly rational, the CR-V has more space, gets better fuel economy, has more-advanced technology, and is cheaper to own. It's also very good to drive. In the past, we lead-footed sports car lovers might have excused the Mazda's deficiencies in exchange for its lusty driving experience. But this time, we have no hesitation in recommending the CR-V to enthusiasts as well as our automotively apathetic friends and family. It's a narrow margin of victory, but whether your other car is a Camaro or a Corolla, if you want a compact crossover, you'll be slightly better served by the new Honda CR-V."

2017 Honda CR-V vs. 2017 Mazda CX-5: Head vs. Heart - Motor Trend
https://apple.news/A5qgU0d8ySu-vRVIovAGSfg

And there you have it folks. Nothing else needs to be said, does it? Not only did Motor Trend(the biggest car publication out there) pick the CRV, they picked it without even knowing the downgraded safety/crash ratings for the CX-5. Had they of known it performed worse then the previous generation, this comparison wouldn't have been as close as it was. It would have been a unanimous decision for them considering how important safety is to families that buy these vehicles.

Good to know this debate has finally been settled.

 

[joe6864]

the downgraded safety/crash ratings for the CX-5. Had they of known it performed worse then the previous generation

Correction... the 2017 safety ratings are not downgraded on the 2017 compared to 2016. They're worse than the CR-V, but not against the previous CX-5.

2017 vs. 2016:
Overall = same (4/5 vs. 4/5)
Side = worse (4/5 vs. 5/5)
Front = better (5/5 vs. 4/5)

Edit: Have the CX-5 results changed for the better? Looking again I see overall side & overall front are both 5 star now... I thought the overall side was only 4 star yesterday?

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2017/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-side

Given this, it looks like the 2017 CX-5 has an improved safety rating compared to the 2016 if I'm reading it correctly. Overall hasn't changed, but the front/side are both 5 star now.

 

[Unobtanium]

Correction... the 2017 safety ratings are not downgraded on the 2017 compared to 2016. They're worse than the CR-V, but not against the previous CX-5.

2017 vs. 2016:
Overall = same (4/5 vs. 4/5)
Side = worse (4/5 vs. 5/5)
Front = better (5/5 vs. 4/5)

Edit: Have the CX-5 results changed for the better? Looking again I see overall side & overall front are both 5 star now... I thought the overall side was only 4 star yesterday?

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2017/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-side

Given this, it looks like the 2017 CX-5 has an improved safety rating compared to the 2016 if I'm reading it correctly. Overall hasn't changed, but the front/side are both 5 star now.

Nope.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2017/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-side
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2016/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-side

However, the front...

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2016/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-frontal
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2017/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-frontal

Which is why I am so stoked about my 2015. Not only is it the fastest and best handling of the CX5's, (along with the 2014's, which is the only other year to get 5 stars on everything but roll-over), but it's also the safest. Achieving 5 starts in EVERYTHING except for 4/5 on "roll-over".

 

[paging_drburgos]

And there you have it folks. Nothing else needs to be said, does it? Not only did Motor Trend(the biggest car publication out there) pick the CRV, they picked it without even knowing the downgraded safety/crash ratings for the CX-5. Had they of known it performed worse then the previous generation, this comparison wouldn't have been as close as it was. It would have been a unanimous decision for them considering how important safety is to families that buy these vehicles.

Good to know this debate has finally been settled.

Yes finally. Mango will sleep much better tonight.

 

[Unobtanium]

And there you have it folks. Nothing else needs to be said, does it? Not only did Motor Trend(the biggest car publication out there) pick the CRV, they picked it without even knowing the downgraded safety/crash ratings for the CX-5. Had they of known it performed worse then the previous generation, this comparison wouldn't have been as close as it was. It would have been a unanimous decision for them considering how important safety is to families that buy these vehicles.

Good to know this debate has finally been settled.

Nah bro, people want that little "jerk" as their vehicle interrupts power application to the pavement and then violently continues it, while their transmission shifts, "because it feels good" and they trust it as a more durable solution. Never mind the violent "bang" that people report when it happens sometimes 2 gears at a time. It totally offers that over the CR-V. Totally.

 

[Unobtanium]

Yes finally. Mango will sleep much better tonight.

Dunno about that, but Mango and I will certainly commute much safer day OR night than you 2017 owners in your less sporty and more unsafe but "seems more mature" vehicles