LMAO
Did you actually read that article, Mango? I did. That is the least convincing "win" I've
ever seen.
Although Mazda has begun to dabble in turbocharging, the CX-5’s four-cylinder is naturally aspirated and paired with a conventional six-speed automatic, delivering a quick jump thanks to an eager throttle. Power builds smoothly, but it’s a bit loud if you really push it,
though it’s nowhere near as unpleasant as the CR-V.
This car just begs to be kept in Econ mode, lazily accelerating at the pace of traffic, letting the CVT maximize efficiency, which has been stellar throughout this long term test. The CX-5 is always tempting you to flick the sport switch and push it, though it gets a little too aggressive and wears thin after a while, holding gears just a bit too long.
(That's clearly a win for the CX5 in my book...enjoy your Econ mode....)
Although its fuel efficiency is no longer a class leader. The CX-5 lives up to Mazda’s reputation as a driver’s car, delivering the best
overall driving experience in the segment, carefully balancing fun character and a comfortable ride.
The Honda’s front row is just as spacious as anything in the segment and the seats are comfortable, even for long hauls.
It’s only next to the CX-5 that the quality lags behind.
Where the CX-5 will struggle to win over compact crossover shoppers is in the practicality department.
(I didn't buy my car for practicality. Differnet strokes. I'm happy that it's the practical car for you)
Like the CR-V, it has release handles in the side of the trunk that allow you to drop the rear seat from the back of the vehicle. However, the CX-5’s rear seats are split 40/20/40, meaning you can drop all of it, either side, or even just the middle section so you can haul long objects like skis or two-by-fours while still able to accommodate two rear passengers or without having to remove child seats
(CX5 win)
The seats themselves are comfortable, and headroom is actually better than the CR-V, but legroom isn’t great,
(CRV win legroom, CX5 win headroom))
The CX-5 sets a new standard for interior quality
These updates came just in time, because the CR-V has all these helpful driving aids too, but the CX-5 has one feature that is nowhere to be seen on the CR-V – head-up display.
Still, a fully loaded CR-V has all the gizmos you’re likely to be looking for, and the touchscreen setup is easy to use, with great route guidance that and can even take traffic into account and help you avoid major delays.
(CRV win, no one denies this not to mention AA, ACP)
The CX-5 and CR-V start at an identical $24,895 (including equal $940 destination charges, too), and these fully loaded models both come in under $35,000 with the CX-5 about a grand cheaper.
(Also never disputed , the Mazda can be had cheaper)
In summation:
They both have all the latest features and impressive quality throughout, and
the CX-5 takes it to another level with its gorgeous looks, luxury materials and nifty head-up display. However, the CR-V is the more spacious, efficient and practical, and just as easy to drive and park, without feeling cumbersome or sloppy.
(again, NONE of the reason I bought my CX-5. This is what you cannot seem to grasp, Mango... there is more then one type of buyer out there. Mangos, 7eregrine's, Young Colordians, Banjos, and MazdaGYalls'. )
In this pairing,
the CX-5 might be the better car, but the CR-V is a better utility vehicle, so it wins this comparison by the slimmest of margins and remains our compact crossover champ.
EXACTLY why I bought. I wanted a better, roomier, just as fun to drive car, with a slightly bigger hatch then my last car. That's what I got...