- :
- 2016 CX-5 GT AWD Sonic Silver Tech & i-ActiveSense
Clash of the Crossovers: 2016 Honda CR-V vs. Mazda CX-5 vs. Jeep Cherokee
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/la...-v-mazda-cx-5-jeep-cherokee-article-1.2542190
Guess who won? (whistle)
Clash of the Crossovers: 2016 Honda CR-V vs. Mazda CX-5 vs. Jeep Cherokee
- Thread starter doopie
- Start date
Clash of the Crossovers: 2016 Honda CR-V vs. Mazda CX-5 vs. Jeep Cherokee
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/la...-v-mazda-cx-5-jeep-cherokee-article-1.2542190
Guess who won? (whistle)
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
What about the RAV4? The Forester? The Hyundai's? The Escape?
They really did pick the crappiest cross-overs to compare the CX-5 to. It's like a "sporty car under $60K" comparison involving a Mustang, Challenger, Camaro, and oh...a Corvette, lol
They really did pick the crappiest cross-overs to compare the CX-5 to. It's like a "sporty car under $60K" comparison involving a Mustang, Challenger, Camaro, and oh...a Corvette, lol
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Really? "rather ugly"? It makes it look like a miniature of the godawful casket that the shriveled corpse of your child-free single life is entombed in, called the Odyssey. It's like a monument in miniature to bad life choices. I really can't express how disgusting the CRV looks to me.
Chris_Top_Her
Contributor
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
The cx-5 has more after market support than all of those. That means vendors see potential, and are willing to invest into the platform. Suspension, Turbocharging, Engine tuning and engine mods. The others do not compare.
I don't expect any TRD offerings for the Rav4 soon.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I think they just know CRV/RAV owners just have zero desire to mod a vehicle, while "Zoom Zoom" owners are more inclined. Also, the Forester 2.0XT has plenty of aftermarket for as short a time as it's been out.
silvercoat
Member
- :
- Chevy
Yeh lets look at the comparison..
CX-5: Sporty modern styling, sportier driving dynamics, comparable engines, normal transmissions, good reliability
CR-V: More conservative styling, normal CUV driving dyanmics, comparable engines, CVTs........., good reliability
RAV4: Conservative styling, normal CUV driving dynamics, comparable engines, normal transmission, good reliability
Forrester: More conservative Style, normal CUV driving dynamics, comprabale engines, CVTs...., good reliability
I have not really looked into the Ford or the Hyundai
How most seem to compare the Mazda to the others
CX-5: Looks sharp, drives like a sedan, zoom-zoom
CR-V: Its a small Honda SUV, nothing new or exciting here, it looks less sporty
RAV4: Same as the Honda really, and WTH did they do with the interior?!
Forrester: Great for kids and groceries.......
Ford: Nah I am good thanks
Hyundai: Aren't they made by Kia?
CX-5: Sporty modern styling, sportier driving dynamics, comparable engines, normal transmissions, good reliability
CR-V: More conservative styling, normal CUV driving dyanmics, comparable engines, CVTs........., good reliability
RAV4: Conservative styling, normal CUV driving dynamics, comparable engines, normal transmission, good reliability
Forrester: More conservative Style, normal CUV driving dynamics, comprabale engines, CVTs...., good reliability
I have not really looked into the Ford or the Hyundai
How most seem to compare the Mazda to the others
CX-5: Looks sharp, drives like a sedan, zoom-zoom
CR-V: Its a small Honda SUV, nothing new or exciting here, it looks less sporty
RAV4: Same as the Honda really, and WTH did they do with the interior?!
Forrester: Great for kids and groceries.......
Ford: Nah I am good thanks
Hyundai: Aren't they made by Kia?
And the automatic offered in the CX-5 outclasses all the automatics in the other offerings.
What do you like better about the Honda engine? If you could hook it up to the Mazda 6 speed automatic Skyactiv it would need different gear ratios to compensate for the lack of torque in the lower rpm range. The Mazda has a more advanced engine that costs more to manufacture.
I'm a fan of both engines. Where I see as Mazda holding the advantage of engineering a class leading suspension I see Honda countering with a slightly more powerful engine. I guess if I said better I really mean I like Honda's more powerful engine. The Accord has been known to have its engine put down whp noticeably higher than the Mazda6 but the Mazda6 automatic is faster or as fast as the accord automatic. The accord manual is faster to 60 than the mazda6 manual mainly due to shorter gearing. Had the gearing been the same they would put down more similar numbers.
Long story short a honda engine has more hp than a comparable skyactiv engine. Had mazda bump up the skyactiv engine to match the whp as a honda engine then the mazda would clearly be better in terms of handling and acceleration. Right now I see it as mazda being better in handling while also being right there in acceleration. (.2 sec difference to 60) Hence just a few reasons why I've got two mazdas in my stable as opposed to two hondas.
Last edited:
You've got to be kidding me!
You like the Honda engine because it's rated at 185 HP. vs. Mazda's 184 HP? (drunk)
It's true that it get's to 60 mph quicker by two deciseconds (about the length of time it takes you to clap your two hands together). The CX-5 is exactly the same length as the CR-V but it has a wheelbase that is over 3 inches longer and weighs about 100 lbs. more. The CX-5 is also an inch wider and an inch taller. Since you are splitting seconds I thought I would start talking about inches.
Perhaps a more telling metric is Car and Driver found the CX-5 goes from 0-30 mph, 0-40 mph and 0-50 mph quicker than the CR-V. And this is with heavier 19" wheels vs the CR-V's 17" rims.
[TABLE="width: 500"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]CR-V
[/TD]
[TD]CX-5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]0-30 mph
[/TD]
[TD]3.1 sec.
[/TD]
[TD]2.5 sec.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]0-40 mph
[/TD]
[TD]4.3 sec.
[/TD]
[TD]4.0 sec.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]0-50 mph
[/TD]
[TD]5.7 sec.
[/TD]
[TD]5.6 sec.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]0-60 mph
[/TD]
[TD]7.5 sec.
[/TD]
[TD]7.7 sec.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
What we can deduce from these measurements is that both vehicles accelerate 0-57 mph in exactly the same amount of time (even though it's not a fair comparison because the Mazda had the 19" wheels with more rotational inertia while the CR-V had lighter 17" rims). The Mazda is significantly quicker to 30 mph which is going to make it feel much sportier when the light turns green. But why focus on stop watch metrics when nobody really races CUV's?
Your claim is the CR-V has the more powerful engine but actually the CX-5 is just a wider and taller body with more frontal area and it weighs 100 lbs. more and was shod with heavier wheels. I think for all practical purposes, neither engine is more powerful, in fact the extra torque of the CX-5 in the rpm range that most drivers care about will make the CX-5 seem more powerful. To say you like the Honda engine better for it's higher power is nonsensical.
looks like you're comparing a FWD CR-V to an AWD CX-5?? That explains the faster 0-30 times you're seeing.
The AWD CX-5 both lighter and quicker than the CRV to any speed.
The AWD CR-V takes 8.2s 0 to 60 vs 7.7 for the AWD CX-5
Last edited:
Those are the published HP numbers given by each company. Not all companies publish HP ratings the same. BMW, VW, and Honda to name a few use whp as their published HP for some of their models. Other compnies like Mazda use the crank HP as published HP numbers.
The Honda earth dreams motor in the 2013 accord was dyno tested by Motor Trend to show its putting down around 189 whp which equates to around 200hp/tq at the crank.
In the end kudos to Honda for offering the most hp for n/a 4 cylinder cars. Kudos for Mazda in creating the best handling n/a 4 cylinder cars that can actually keep up with Hondas despite being down roughly 15-20hp. Now imagin if Mazdas were putting up 200hp to the crank? That was my point.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
We have one of each. As stated the 0-60 mph difference is negligible. But the driving dynamics are not.
Ha! You're right, I was comparing the AWD CX-5 to FWD CR-V! When comparing AWD to AWD the CX-5 is faster by an even larger margin and at all speeds.
So, the claim that the Honda engine is better because it's "more powerful" is only based on manufacturers claims of 185 HP. vs. 184 HP? (piss)
No, your point was you liked the CR-V engine better than the CX-5 engine because it was more the powerful engine. But you have failed to provide any evidence that it's more powerful.
How exactly is the Honda engine better?
