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

[Kaps]

Probably so. Not a big fan of the CC either. Kinda sucks, and definitely sucks for highway miles with hilly terrain. It can't Mimic pulling the hills like I can manually, it's way late to engage and revs way harder than it needs too, hence killing MPG.

This was my assumption - I was wrong. Although manually you can still beat the CC, it is pretty good. It downshifts when you want to slow down. Thus being more efficient. And like rest of the traits it is good - if you set at 60. It will be +/- 2 mph at max.

This is interesting. I assume you are referring to the 2017 model CX-5?

Can you and others chime in a bit more on this issue? Do you find the CC to be worse than other similar vehicles?

CC is good. Its true to Mazda driving traits. In a Toyota the CC will let you go +/- 6 mph or more before it decides to do something. In Mazda its much tighter.

 

[shaendra]

Average speed was calculated out at 68mph not counting the idling time, which dropped it to mid 60's. I ran 70-85 mostly, minus a few small towns.

I've been using MRCC the past week or so, though it pretty short distances. On the interstate, for a 10-mile drive, it got me mid 30s, ranging from 65 down to about 25 in a congested spot.

Surface roads with longer stretches between lights are clocking in around 30mpg.

I'm impressed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monterra]

Good is subjective here as it really depends what you're going for consistency or efficiency...Me? 95% of the time..lock it in 6th manual mode and let the torque pull me up my Taconic hills while gradually slowing from ~75 to maybe 70 or gasp..65- Sure I'll bang it into 5th here and there but never a need for 4th on hwy. 100% of time no CC

 

[murky]

I've been using MRCC the past week or so, though it pretty short distances. On the interstate, for a 10-mile drive, it got me mid 30s, ranging from 65 down to about 25 in a congested spot.

Surface roads with longer stretches between lights are clocking in around 30mpg.

I'm impressed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very lame that there are no ticks on the vertical axis. Its hard to tell the difference between 32 and 36. There should be ticks at least every 5 units, and a line at the "average" value.

 

[shaendra]

Very lame that there are no ticks on the vertical axis. Its hard to tell the difference between 32 and 36. There should be ticks at least every 5 units, and a line at the "average" value.

Agreed. It's not the easiest to read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[timberstx]

I find the cc on the CX-5 to work very well. It works exactly the same as my old 626. Other cars I have driven have lost more than 2mph before they react.
But as stated before using cc in hilly areas can kill your mpg. I don't know of any CC out there that will see the hill and react before you get there. I learned a long time ago in drivers ed classl, that accelerating on inclines will decrease your mpg drastically.
If you want better mpg while using the cc you have to be proactive. When using the cc I press the accelerator pedal just before reaching the hill, to compensate for it before the car reacts to it and tries to get that one mph back. Or I just turn it off until I reach the top.

 

[7eregrine]

Couple of Edmunds reviews I found to give this thread a little bump..

My wife and I test drove the 2017 CRV EXL, which has wonderful reviews, and the car felt "ok" to us. There was nothing really exciting about the CRV, except for the cargo space and remote starter. One week later, we test drove the 2017 CX-5 GT, and we were both very impressed. The interior is gorgeous, doors thump just like a German car, and the car feels substantial on the road. My wife made a comment how she felt tuned and "one" with the car while driving it.

I could have written this. I drove the CRV first. Thought that it wasn't bad. Then drove the CX-5. The CRV was immediately off my list. Drove a Jeep Cherokee...that was better then the CRV. It was between those 2 cars for me. I think the reason the CRV sells so well is Honda fan bois, plain and simple. Let's face it,. yea Honda and Toyota had this reputation (rightfully earned) of being super reliable when Detroit was putting out s*** in the 80's. But those days are long over. Detroit is making cars every bit as good as Japan today... but people brought up with mom and dad driving those "Honda's that never die" just keep on buying them.

I came from a Saab and I truly believe that Mazda could use a Saab slogan from the 80's: Most people who test drive a Mazda...buy a Mazda...

 

[7eregrine]

Agreed. It's not the easiest to read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll freely admit I don't understand it at all. LOL

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[ColoradoDriver]

I could have written this. I drove the CRV first. Thought that it wasn't bad. Then drove the CX-5. The CRV was immediately off my list. Drove a Jeep Cherokee...that was better then the CRV. It was between those 2 cars for me. I think the reason the CRV sells so well is Honda fan bois, plain and simple. Let's face it,. yea Honda and Toyota had this reputation (rightfully earned) of being super reliable when Detroit was putting out s*** in the 80's. But those days are long over. Detroit is making cars every bit as good as Japan today... but people brought up with mom and dad driving those "Honda's that never die" just keep on buying them.

I came from a Saab and I truly believe that Mazda could use a Saab slogan from the 80's: Most people who test drive a Mazda...buy a Mazda...

Eh. I don't trust Detroit still. Just too many people I know with relatively new Fords and others with fit/finish quality issues and other issues. By comparison, my Mazda is holding up quite well.

And I grew up with Jeeps. At this point, I would never buy another one. Build quality is dubious at best.

 

[Unobtanium]

This was my assumption - I was wrong. Although manually you can still beat the CC, it is pretty good. It downshifts when you want to slow down. Thus being more efficient. And like rest of the traits it is good - if you set at 60. It will be +/- 2 mph at max.




CC is good. Its true to Mazda driving traits. In a Toyota the CC will let you go +/- 6 mph or more before it decides to do something. In Mazda its much tighter.

Nah man, it was driving super aggressive on those perfectly flat Texas roads...

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Just drove down to Boston and back. Must have seen about 100 new CRVs on the road. Probably 20-25 Porsches, 10 Corvettes, 1 Maserati, 1 Ferrari, and zero new CX5s.

 

[Monterra]

CR-V has been on the market 3x as long and sells 4x as much..besides gen 1 CX5s are better everyone knows that

 

[banjos-n-beer]

so then, lets add at least 300 older CRVs and 50 1st gen CX5s. (drive)

 

[Xeler8ing]

Very lame that there are no ticks on the vertical axis. Its hard to tell the difference between 32 and 36. There should be ticks at least every 5 units, and a line at the "average" value.

Just take photos of this screen with your smartphone of the current reading before you reset and then you can compare later on (wink)

 

[brillo54]

Its inappropriate to attack Unob on this. Reason i say that - he brings a data point to the discussion. The datapoint looks outlandish but is a data point none the less.
I have had some unpopular opinions on highway mpg too for FWD 16 - assuming me or unob are not lying, these are real world mpg #s we see.
More data points are good for potential owners.

I totally agree that the more data points the better, so allow me to add my data point: '16 FWD GT, 21,970.6 miles traveled, 662.27 gallons of gas used, so 33.17 mpg @ 41 mph average speed over the life of my CX-5. Different circumstances, different methodologies, different results. To me, it's not about right or wrong and I don't think you or anyone else is lying about their numbers. But good numbers can be reported as well as bad numbers.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Just drove down to Boston and back. Must have seen about 100 new CRVs on the road. Probably 20-25 Porsches, 10 Corvettes, 1 Maserati, 1 Ferrari, and zero new CX5s.

People just don't get the new CX-5

 

[Red MC]

Just drove down to Boston and back. Must have seen about 100 new CRVs on the road. Probably 20-25 Porsches, 10 Corvettes, 1 Maserati, 1 Ferrari, and zero new CX5s.

I'm in the general area and don't see that many 2017 CR-Vs, but I do see at least one of the new ones on every commute now. Whereas aside from the dealer, I've seen maybe one 2017 CX-5 total. I've only seen the latest Rogue once or twice too.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

I couldn't believe how many I saw.

 

[dseag2]

I don't commute, but in the times I have been driving I've seen two new CX-5s... a SRC one driven by a guy probably in his 30's and a white one driven by a woman of a similar age. I notice them mostly because the front end with the squinty headlights and big Kodo grill stands out (in a good way).

 

[7eregrine]

Still have yet to see a 17 in Mazda heavy Cleveland. There are (counting mine) 3 CX-5s and 1 6 at my daily parking lot of probably 50 cars. Not one CR-V or Rogue. 2 Equinox. One Escape. The rest are mere cars.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk