CX-5 vs CRV vs VW JSW TDI

[dad of jon]

I've driven diesel models of crv (two test drives), and cx5 3 test drives both 150ps and 175ps versions.

Both are good cars, the crv is better quality but only if you value such things as galvanised nuts and bolts, mainly out of sight under the bonnet etc.
The crv is also much quieter on the road.

So really its only the engine torque that sells the cx5 to me, i don't particularly like the looks as i prefer cars with good all round vision.
But its a gem to drive, you can only buy whats on sale, and the new Xtrail looks like its set to go 7 seat, with the same curvy looks as the rest.

VW have very patchy reliability and don't really appeal to me, to be honest i cant understand why they are so highly rated in the UK.
This time round i haven't bothered to test drive the tig, as it dated, and lacks torque in diesel form.

I love the style of the kuga but it's smaller the cx-5 has the same dimensions as my old kia 10mm difference in height length and width. Wheelbase the same. Didn't need 7 seats anyone (kids grown up) So I only test drove the cx-5. I just love the torque on the engine. Rear visibility is pants, high waistlines are the fashion thesedays. crv was bigger with less performance and mpg. I looked at the outgoing Mitsubishi outlander that looks quite smart.

 

[CX-SV]

ugh, I think that makes the crv look handsome. I wouldn't be able to look at it long enough to take a photo (wink). How did you manage?

In the interest of science... (or something like that)

What did look good was the new Santa Fe.

 

[pt00323i]

yes, Santa Fe is probably the best looking and has the most room inside and the hatch space is huge and 10yr drivetrain warranty, too bad they offer no manual and from car mags, it just handles ok, not great.

 

[CX-SV]

yes, Santa Fe is probably the best looking and has the most room inside and the hatch space is huge and 10yr drivetrain warranty, too bad they offer no manual and from car mags, it just handles ok, not great.

Yes, (not that I need anything that big), certainly the best looking SUV in that class. MPG is considerably lower than CX-5.

 

[dad of jon]

Yes, (not that I need anything that big), certainly the best looking SUV in that class. MPG is considerably lower than CX-5.

Yup, I agree entirely. Saw one outside my office and thought that is a good looking set of wheels. A big too big for where I live though.

 

[CX-SV]

Yup, I agree entirely. Saw one outside my office and thought that is a good looking set of wheels. A big too big for where I live though.

The main difference is the width (both f&r track dimensions and body dimension), that's why Santa Fe stance looks aggressive.

CX-5 and Sportage have the widest track dimensions of the compact SUVs so they tend to look more aggressive than CRV's and Rav4's.

 

[xtrailman]

yes, Santa Fe is probably the best looking and has the most room inside and the hatch space is huge and 10yr drivetrain warranty, too bad they offer no manual and from car mags, it just handles ok, not great.

I've driven the Santa Fe, it looks good inside and out.

But i cut the test drive short very quickly, i just didn't like the way it drove. Shame as it comes with a 5 year warranty in the UK.

 

[STE92VE]

Funny you should post that...I came across the new Rav4 today for the first time and thought that it was going to be something else to consider besides the 2.5L CX-5 since they're coming out around the same time. After just taking a closer look, I almost (blarf) Don't have a clue what their design team was trying to accomplish but the current gen just became more desirable, similar to what Honda did with the CRV. The only benefit I can fathom from the new Rav4 is that I might use it as tool in negotiating a better deal for the CX-5 as I'm sure the new Rav4 lovers will be doing with the CX-5.

Just saw one in person and have to retract my comments. It's not as bad as it appeared in the photos. May take a closer look.

 

[plemieux]

(...as a side note...if you can handle the looks and somewhat limited passenger space, you might want to look at the Nissan Juke. While I would have preferred the 2.5L Cx5, we ended up in a situation where I couldn't wait indefinitely for its release. We paid about $5k less than what we would have paid for a comparably equipped 2013 Cx5...and it's a very fun car to drive...not taking anything away from the Cx5).

I test drove a Juke as well. It was real fun to drive. That turbo and cvt transmission gets you going quick and you're doing 50 before you know it.

It posted similar EPA mpg numbers but mated to a turbo I was afraid it would be hard to ever see those numbers plus the premium gas cost.

I'm curious if your real world mpg is close, spot on, or better than what Nissan claims for the Juke.

 

[Bombadil]

I am going through this decision process right now. Seriously considering the new 2014 (ahem) CX-5 with 2.5L. I have test driven VW Golf 2.5L & TDI, Jetta Sportwagen TDI, Mazda 3 2.0L, Ford Focus hatchback, Hyundai Elantra GT hatchback, Toyota RAV4, Honda Fit, Honda CR-V.

The VW TDI's were my favorite drives. I loved the torque when driving around twisty corners and hills. Loved the mpg. But the more I looked into them, the more I found that those nice big mpg numbers did not mean they were an economical vehicle. First diesel is 20-25% more expensive than gas, so you have equate those numbers on a cost per mile. Then I found that those engine require a timing belt change at 120K miles. The DSG automatic transmissions need serviced every 40K miles. And, as mentioned by a previous poster, they are having a severe reliability issue with their high pressure fuel pump (HPFP). Seems that they used a Bosch CP4 pump which was spec'ed for European diesel fuel but not American diesel. So far at the TDICLUB on-line forum, there have been 242 HPFP failures reported by owners of TDI vehicles.

The Focus is a nice drive and a fun vehicle, but is also having reliability problems. Consumer Reports rated it dead last amongst all cars sold in the USA in 2012.

I've been frustrated by my search. I really wanted something like a small wagon which was reliable and fun to drive. There are many of these in Europe. The Mazda 3 comes close, although the 2.0L Skyactiv engine falls a bit short on performance IMHO. Also I just can't love the styling. What I've seen of the 2014 Mazda 3 looks great. Especially if they make the new 2.5L engine an option, but I haven't seen any reports on that.

The Honda Fit is a great car for the money and the performance is surprisingly good for a 1.5L when equipped with a stick. But it is a bit too small and a bit too slow. The CR-V is nice but the handling just isn't there. Honda is looking at building a new small crossover based on the Fit, which could be very good. Honda will be releasing the first of their new engines, somewhat like the Skyactiv, soon.

The Subaru Impreza hatch looks nice, but it isn't getting the gas mileage advertised (27/36). Consumer Reports got only 19/32 in their testing and the average on Fuelly is 27. This is also a bit underpowered at 148 hp in an all wheel drive.

So I'm considering the CX-5 w/2.5L. The gas mileage is a bit lower than I wanted but it is more spacious, looks nice, and all reports are that it is fun to drive. Don't know how it's going to compare to a little hatch like a Golf when going around twisty corners. Not getting my hopes too high on that.

 

[sxa]

I too have been doing a little bit of cross-shopping. After deciding that my next vehicle is going to be a CUV (whenever that happens) I started looking at the competition. Mind you that I am completely biased as I discovered the CX-5 in my interest with the Mazda3.

I started by looking at a number of CUV's. I did not find the CRV, Ford Escape or Toyota Rav4 to be visually appealing. The Tiguan has a nice luxury car look, I spoke with a guy whose father owns one and they said that the repair costs are very high. I know German cars are going to be very expensive to repair and I wasn't even considering the BMW because of this, even those the X1 is a nice vehicle.

My dad was a big fan of GM, he owned several Chevrolet's over the years and my stepbrother has a new Chevy Cruze. Honestly I like the looks and the features of the Chevy Equinox and I do want to go drive one at some point. From a power perspective though the 4-cylinder has just as much power as the new 2.5L without the fuel economy of the CX-5. One nice thing about the CX-5 is I can get a bigger vehicle and still have the same fuel economy that I have in my current car and it would be more fun to drive than the Equinox.

I haven't looked at the Nissan Juke very closely, not a fan of the looks and I am not a huge fan of Nissan.

 

[paris1]

I haven't looked at the Nissan Juke very closely, not a fan of the looks and I am not a huge fan of Nissan.

Nothing wrong w/Nissan. I've had several and can attest to that. However the Juke is not in the same class as the CX-5. It will run circles around the Mazda, but it is based on a B class chassis (Versa) and the CX-5 is a C class chassis. Interior volumes are worlds apart, particularly rear carge and ppassenger room. A more apples-to-apples comparison would be with the Rogue; not a bad crossover, but a bit long in the tooth and hard to get excited about.

 

[Bombadil]

Honestly I like the looks and the features of the Chevy Equinox and I do want to go drive one at some point. From a power perspective though the 4-cylinder has just as much power as the new 2.5L without the fuel economy of the CX-5. One nice thing about the CX-5 is I can get a bigger vehicle and still have the same fuel economy that I have in my current car and it would be more fun to drive than the Equinox.

I haven't looked at the Nissan Juke very closely, not a fan of the looks and I am not a huge fan of Nissan.

I was interested in the Equinox when it first came out, but I don't feel it has lived up to promises. Owners report an overall average mpg of 24. Consumer Reports got a combined mileage of just 21, with the 4 cyl. Reliability has been average, I wouldn't be surprised to see it drop to below average over time.

As to the Juke, I love that performance. 0-60 in 7.3. But don't like its looks at all and it has much less cargo space than a CX-5. Wouldn't fault anyone for going in that direction. It would be fun to drive.

 

[plemieux]

The Honda Fit is a great car for the money and the performance is surprisingly good for a 1.5L when equipped with a stick. But it is a bit too small and a bit too slow. Honda is looking at building a new small crossover based on the Fit, which could be very good. Honda will be releasing the first of their new engines, somewhat like the Skyactiv, soon.

Had a 2010 Fit and my view is somewhat similar. The value was unbeatable and I never wished for more power. Cargo space is best in class for that segment but legroom up front was tight. Plus not enough tech options. Can add Nav but not much else. MPG was just ok. You would think it would get better then 27/32 for such a small car and engine. 11 gallon tank didn't help either.

 

[plemieux]

Honda is looking at building a new small crossover based on the Fit, which could be very good. Honda will be releasing the first of their new engines, somewhat like the Skyactiv, soon.

From the Detroit Auto Show

Okay Honda i'll nibble. Show me more.

 

[CX-SV]

Nice "concept" car ^. If and when that became a production model Honda could easily make a mess of it.