I hope Mazda did some real good stuff for 2017...

[Guest2019C20]

The CX-9 didn't 'fail'. This 'test' isn't anywhere near real-world off-roading.

Something else I noticed in Car Question 'tests', when they tested a subaru forester, they left BOTH rear wheels on flat ground. Even so, it took many seconds for the subie to crawl up.

(The reason this is significant is because none of these AWD vehicles have an LSD (read Limited Slip Differential. The vehicles are literally 2WD when 1 tire at the front and 1 tire at the rear have traction. That means the other tires will spin freely, until the ABS is used to send power to the other wheel. If the test places 1 front tire and 1 rear tire at the 'peak/edge' of the ramp, then the other two tires have very low traction. When they 'test' outside of that setup, the test is bogus.)

ALL the cute-utes (even the new jeep compass!) use part-time clutches to feed power to the rear wheels. It's down to the programming to differentiate how the vehicles perform. For almost every buyer, there's no difference.

 

[jhu8]

These cars are designed for grocery getting/running errands/the occasional road trip.

See, that's why I chose the CX5. It is designed for the same functions that a CRV or Rav4 would be used for, but here's the main difference. With the CX5, I don't feel like I am driving a grocery getting/running errands/occasional road trip/soccer mom kid transportation device lol And for that, the CX5 just trumps all those offer vehicles IMO.

 

[CX-5um]

See, that's why I chose the CX5. It is designed for the same functions that a CRV or Rav4 would be used for, but here's the main difference. With the CX5, I don't feel like I am driving a grocery getting/running errands/occasional road trip/soccer mom kid transportation device lol And for that, the CX5 just trumps all those offer vehicles IMO.

If the Miata were to morph into a small car, midsize car, small cuv, small suv, midsize suv you'll end up with Mazda's current lineup.

 

[Monterra]

See, that's why I chose the CX5. It is designed for the same functions that a CRV or Rav4 would be used for, but here's the main difference. With the CX5, I don't feel like I am driving a grocery getting/running errands/occasional road trip/soccer mom kid transportation device lol And for that, the CX5 just trumps all those other vehicles IMO.

Exactly, well said.

 

[Kaps]

See, that's why I chose the CX5. It is designed for the same functions that a CRV or Rav4 would be used for, but here's the main difference. With the CX5, I don't feel like I am driving a grocery getting/running errands/occasional road trip/soccer mom kid transportation device lol And for that, the CX5 just trumps all those offer vehicles IMO.

The new CRV will trump that now buddy. 0-60 in 5.8 secs with the 1.5 turbo. It will corner almost like a Miata. Add to that the 76 cubic ft, CX5 is about 69 cu ft. of cargo when seats are folded.
Add to that it will be 3-5K cheaper than CX5 for similar trim and will be about 2.5~3 mpg better in gas mileage. Also Honda quality >> CX5. And that wood on the dash - damn nothing screams I am a rich guy than wood on your dash.

 

[RDK006]

The new CRV will trump that now buddy. 0-60 in 5.8 secs with the 1.5 turbo. It will corner almost like a Miata. Add to that the 76 cubic ft, CX5 is about 69 cu ft. of cargo when seats are folded.
Add to that it will be 3-5K cheaper than CX5 for similar trim and will be about 2.5~3 mpg better in gas mileage. Also Honda quality >> CX5. And that wood on the dash - damn nothing screams I am a rich guy than wood on your dash.

Price is debatable. If you want LED lights on the CRV, you need to get the top trim at $33K. I got LEDs on my CX-5 for $27K. I'm not saying the 2017 CRV isn't a good deal or maybe even "better" than the CX-5, but there are a lot of factors that go into the comparison. It's subjective, I know, but I like the LOOK of the CX-5 - both interior and exterior - much more than the Honda.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

The new CRV will trump that now buddy. 0-60 in 5.8 secs with the 1.5 turbo. It will corner almost like a Miata. Add to that the 76 cubic ft, CX5 is about 69 cu ft. of cargo when seats are folded.
Add to that it will be 3-5K cheaper than CX5 for similar trim and will be about 2.5~3 mpg better in gas mileage. Also Honda quality >> CX5. And that wood on the dash - damn nothing screams I am a rich guy than wood on your dash.

0-60 in 5.8?

(rlaugh)

Everything I've seen for the USA 2017 CRV has a 0-60 time around 7.5 - 7.6 seconds.

I think you mixed up some numbers on that one....

 

[Kaps]

0-60 in 5.8?

(rlaugh)

Everything I've seen for the USA 2017 CRV has a 0-60 time around 7.5 - 7.6 seconds.

I think you mixed up some numbers on that one....

I forgot to add downhill.

 

[ALafya]

The CX-9 didn't 'fail'. This 'test' isn't anywhere near real-world off-roading.

Something else I noticed in Car Question 'tests', when they tested a subaru forester, they left BOTH rear wheels on flat ground. Even so, it took many seconds for the subie to crawl up.

(The reason this is significant is because none of these AWD vehicles have an LSD (read Limited Slip Differential. The vehicles are literally 2WD when 1 tire at the front and 1 tire at the rear have traction. That means the other tires will spin freely, until the ABS is used to send power to the other wheel. If the test places 1 front tire and 1 rear tire at the 'peak/edge' of the ramp, then the other two tires have very low traction. When they 'test' outside of that setup, the test is bogus.)

ALL the cute-utes (even the new jeep compass!) use part-time clutches to feed power to the rear wheels. It's down to the programming to differentiate how the vehicles perform. For almost every buyer, there's no difference.

The CX-5's AWD system is best for SNOW, not for any real off-roading, where LSD/lockers and low range are most useful.
See this lengthy YouTube video (in Russian) how many AWD systems fail with different configurations of the roller tests.

 

[7eregrine]

Ugh... I wasn't even going to reply, but here goes.

I spent months researching the various vehicles. MONTHS. You all know what it came down to for me: Mazda CX5 vs. Jeep Cherokee Latitude.
The CRV and Subaru didn't make my final 2. You know one stat I never even looked at when comparing them? 0-60. Both the Jeep and Mazda have plenty of power for me.
If that was my issue, I would have bought a X3. For most people in this market, I doubt 0-60 is a deciding factor.

 

[dougal]

Ugh... I wasn't even going to reply, but here goes.

I spent months researching the various vehicles. MONTHS. You all know what it came down to for me: Mazda CX5 vs. Jeep Cherokee Latitude.
The CRV and Subaru didn't make my final 2. You know one stat I never even looked at when comparing them? 0-60. Both the Jeep and Mazda have plenty of power for me.
If that was my issue, I would have bought a X3. For most people in this market, I doubt 0-60 is a deciding factor.

And you aren't bothered by getting less than 30 MPG when traveling 95 MPG into the wind? How can you be happy when you bought a lie.

 

[Kaps]

And you aren't bothered by getting less than 30 MPG when traveling 95 MPG into the wind? How can you be happy when you bought a lie.

dougal - dont drink and drive stay safe!
I just got 28.5 mpg. lots of small errands and moving heavy stuff. Very sad - need to get above 30 mpg now.

 

[Monterra]

0-60 was an issue for me, one that prevented me from saving a chunk of change on a Crosstrek. For a daily beater i liked that i could choose a manual and still get awd and heated seats. But even with the stick, painfully if not dangerously slow...idk like when getting onto any highway ever

 

[7eregrine]

lol Dougal.
All I had to do was drive them Monterra. I drove that Xtrek too. I didn't need to know how many seconds it takes to go from 0-60. My right foot told me: not the car for me... Even if you did look up those numbers....I promise you are in the minority.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Monterra]

Same here..but in driving all these some on multiple occasions i came to the conclusion that 0-60 north of 8 second range ie 9+ becomes a real liability imo

 

[Unobtanium]

Ugh... I wasn't even going to reply, but here goes.

I spent months researching the various vehicles. MONTHS. You all know what it came down to for me: Mazda CX5 vs. Jeep Cherokee Latitude.
The CRV and Subaru didn't make my final 2. You know one stat I never even looked at when comparing them? 0-60. Both the Jeep and Mazda have plenty of power for me.
If that was my issue, I would have bought a X3. For most people in this market, I doubt 0-60 is a deciding factor.

Mazda sure was quick to get a 2.5L option and doesn't even give you a choice of a 2.0L unless you want a base CX-5, so that tends to argue otherwise.

 

[Unobtanium]

0-60 was an issue for me, one that prevented me from saving a chunk of change on a Crosstrek. For a daily beater i liked that i could choose a manual and still get awd and heated seats. But even with the stick, painfully if not dangerously slow...idk like when getting onto any highway ever

Agreed 100%. I heavily considered the cheap little toaster, but I just couldn't deal with that sluggishness.

 

[7eregrine]

Mazda sure was quick to get a 2.5L option and doesn't even give you a choice of a 2.0L unless you want a base CX-5, so that tends to argue otherwise.

Sigh again. You are seriously going to argue that? People shopping CX5's are seriously looking at 0-60? Come on man. People IN GENERAL don't look up 0-60 times. You think the CUV market is pouring over 0-60 numbers? That's laughable. No. They are test driving.
If yoU ASKED 100 PEOPLE ON THE STREET WHAT THE 0-60 TIME WAS OF THEIR VEHICLE, i BET LESS THEN 5 WOULD KNOW. (sIGH... accidental caps. Not fixing that).

If only we knew what was really important to new cars buys....
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/bu...ns-people-buy-specific-cars-article-1.2552707

1.) Expected Reliability
2.) Exterior Styling
Shut up!
"J.D. Power data shows that a third of new car buyers won’t even consider a specific model if they don’t like the exterior styling, whereas just 18 percent say the same thing about the interior."
Let's skip to 5:
5.) Ride and Handling
Not 0-60. Ride and Handling. Do I like how it goes on my test drive? Period. Not "It's not as fast on paper as a CRV"...
All the way down at 8 is MPG. Because gas is cheap. 3 years ago when gas was expensive, MPG was #2. That's how America rolls. We are finicky.

Seriously, you wonder why we are getting annoyed? We hang out here because we love our cars. You, a fellow owner, hop on and tell us "Well, the CRV cleaned your clocks, nobody will be buying these anymore...". Because a few numbers have changed on paper? Seriously? And our 2017 hasn't even been released. It's still a Honda. Which I am not a fan of. Never have been.

I'm done with this thread. The CRV is nice. I think it pales next to the 2016.5 Let alone the 2017.
I'm not bashing the CRV anymore nor will I defend my Mazda. I love it. I'm sorry Unobtanium regrets his purchase. Maybe you should buy cars like I do... more with your heart, then the cheapest you can get.
Don't try to tell me I made the wrong choice (effectively what you are doing) because you did.

Peace.

 

[Monterra]

Whoa dude I think your hostility is somewhat misguided here. I think we can and likely do agree that the average buyer doesn't put much if any stock in printed 0-60 times in this class but buyers (that do a proper test drive(s)) will acknowledge and appreciate if the car can move when asked or just slow as molasses in winter time. If Mazda didn't roll in the significantly more robust 2.5L engine would you still have chosen it? I drove the 2.0L shortly after the CX-5 dropped and I can say it was deal breaker slow for me- enter the 2014 w/2.5L, and it righted a major wrong imo. Did it become a sports car? Absolutely not, but not being painfully slow is definitely a virtue.

 

[jhu8]

They did not do that because of 0-60 times. They did it because overall, the 2.0 was just too sluggish. You can hop in a car and feel if its too sluggish. That's what happened with the 2.0. It was just reported that it was under-powered over and over. So, Mazda put out the bigger engine. But it was not because of 0-60 times.