Clash of the Crossovers: 2016 Honda CR-V vs. Mazda CX-5 vs. Jeep Cherokee

[CX-5um]

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?

Proof that Honda underrates their engines: I would love to have my Mazda6 put down 179whp as the honda accord does.


The new Civic 1.5T is published at 174 hp and 162 lb-ft. Dyno tested to 177 hp and 190 lb-ft of torque at the axles. Not the crank.

http://www.carscoops.com/2016/02/2016-honda-civic-15l-turbo-dynod.html


2013 Accord EX with Earth dreams engine published at 185 hp. Dyno tested at 179whp which would equate to greater than 185hp at the crank.

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=1109224


9th gen Accord underrated by about 12hp and 15lb tq from published numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BbaemNr9Vc

 

[MikeM.]

That doesn't fly with me for two very good reasons:

1) You didn't provide comparable evidence that the CX-5 isn't similarly "under-rated."
2) The CX-5 accelerates faster than the CR-V at all different speeds. And the ONLY purpose of HP. is to accelerate.

So why do you like the Honda engine better again?

 

[Unobtanium]

Proof that Honda underrates their engines: I would love to have my Mazda6 put down 179whp as the honda accord does.


The new Civic 1.5T is published at 174 hp and 162 lb-ft. Dyno tested to 177 hp and 190 lb-ft of torque at the axles. Not the crank.

http://www.carscoops.com/2016/02/2016-honda-civic-15l-turbo-dynod.html


2013 Accord EX with Earth dreams engine published at 185 hp. Dyno tested at 179whp which would equate to greater than 185hp at the crank.

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=1109224


9th gen Accord underrated by about 12hp and 15lb tq from published numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BbaemNr9Vc

Who cares? GM underrated the LS1. Doesn't mean they underrated the 3800 V6. You can't just say Honda under-rates all their engines because they underrated a couple of them. They certainly didn't underrate the S2000. It dyno's exactly what it should. But you know what? A dyno never won a race. So lets go off of actual performance instead of paper.

 

[RG_Flyer]

Both manufacturers have good engines, but one doesn't require magic moly Sky oil.

 

[Tccox]

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.

BMW publishes crank HP, not wheel HP. At least that was true for my 128 and 228.

 

[Unobtanium]

Both manufacturers have good engines, but one doesn't require magic moly Sky oil.

Neither do.

 

[Unobtanium]

BMW publishes crank HP, not wheel HP. At least that was true for my 128 and 228.

Same for the M3's

 

[Tccox]

Hondas HP ratings are sae net , on a test stand just like Mazda

For that reason, the SAE and similar bodies have also established standards for measuring net output. Net ratings, such as the ones defined by SAE standards J1349 and J2723, are still taken with the engine on a test stand, but reflect stock ignition timing, carburetion/fuel delivery, exhaust systems, and accessories. The specific methodology varies depending on the standard applied, but the gist is that a net rating is a closer approximation of an engine’s output as actually installed in a car.

 

[Fass Eddie]

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.

I test drove one before I bought my 5. While it felt tight, had reasonable pick up, and a somewhat more interesting dashboard, I just couldn't get past the ass on it. Shoes come in better looking boxes.

 

[silvercoat]

The CX5 is the smexyest of the current CUV's, the Hyundai/Kia comes close. The others look like curved boxes.

 

[Unobtanium]

The CX5 is the smexyest of the current CUV's, the Hyundai/Kia comes close. The others look like curved boxes.

I like the GLK350, myself. I tend to prefer more angular, masculine SUV's. However, my D/I ratio is ambivalent to my preferences.