Impressions and comparison after a week with my rav4.

[Nodnerb]

So I traded in my 2013 cx-5 gt last week for a 2014 rav4 xle(middle of the road rav). My main concern was the stalling issue that mazda wouldn't help me with. But on top of that, I've just never gotten to like the throttle response of the cx-5. IMO, it had none. It seemed to either lug along in 6th gear, when you gave it enough gas to finally do something it would downshift 2-3 gears and roar ahead. It was almost impossible to find the sweet spot for just mild acceleration to lane change into a hole etc. It seemed to change from day to day. It frustrated me to no end.
This comparison pretty much sums up my feeling of the two in driving dynamics as well. Read on from the "Driving the RAV4 and CX-5 Back to Back" header. And this review is for the cx-5 with the 2.5, not the 2.0 as I had.

http://www.torquenews.com/1083/upda...ving-report-changes-our-view-these-crossovers


My thoughts:

- the throttle response of the rav is waaaaaay better. It has a very predictable and peppy throttle response and feels quite a bit faster. A world of difference actually.
-The engine runs smoother, you can hardly tell its running. When you give it gas it has a very nice sound inside the cabin. It almost sounds like a v6 and has a bit of throatiness to it.
-the car warms up MUCH faster and blows much hotter air, which is very welcome in Winnipeg weather.
- so far fuel economy is about 1-2 mpg worse than the cx-5. But it only has 200kms on it.
_ I like the sport, normal and eco modes. I doubt I will use them much though. BUt I did find that in eco mode, the rav was still more responsive than the cx-5. If the cx-5 has a normal and sport mode, (and of course my mechanical problems Mazda didn;t care about) it would probably still be in the driveway.

-hard to compare handling in winter, just staying on the road is a good goal for winnipeg winter driving. So far so good. I do expect it to be a bit less "sporty" in its handling. But probably better than 90% of small suvs
-the AWD system is apparently more sophisticated and can provide power to the rear on accelleration and cornering BEFORE slip is detected, while the cx-5 requires slip to engage. It also has a 50/50 lock button that will lock the front/rear distribution up to 40km/h. Nice for big snow falls.

-the interior is nice. I really liked hte guage cluster in the cx-5. It was much nicer. THe rav guage cluster looks like an 80s luxury vehicle. The rav has a fair amount more room than the cx-5, the back seats fold totally flat and the headrests tilt forward so they don't' have to be removed for folding flat. But it does not have any means to fold them from the tailgate. I really like the dash. It had to grow on me but now I love it. All the controls, including the clock and climate controls are as nigh up as possible and I can still see the road while adjusting things. The A-pillars are narrower which is something I didn't really think about until I drove the rav and found how much easier it is to see pedestrians that would have been obscured by the cx-5. the fake carbon fibre in the rav is kind of goofy. Not sure what they were thinking, but it doesn't look too bad in the all black interior which is what I have. Any other interior and it looks very disjointed.
The stereo is quite good for the mid grade stereo with 6 speakers. Not as good as the bose cx-5, but I expected worse.
The infotainment and navigation seems to have more features and a better gui but I'm still getting into that. It is a lot to get used to and it's too cold to sit outside and play with it right now. One thing it doesnt have is a dedicated Navigation button, which I miss. Over all, I think the cx-5 had a nicer put together interior as well, that just "flowed".

-pushbutton start. Oh Golly I miss it. lol I didn't realize how nice it was to just hit a button on the door and then hop in and hit another button. Especially in winter with gloves on etc. The limited has PBS and passive entry but I didn't want the limited. Oh well. Can't ahve it all on a middle of the road car.

-The cx-5 is a beautiful looking car. THe rav is maybe a few notches below the cx-5 in the over all exterior look but still one of the best looking (affordable) cuvs out there IMO. I'd say the rav looks a bit more agressive than the cx-5. THe cx-5 has this beautiful flow to it though from front to back that is hard to match.

I guess that's about it for now. This turned out to be just a lot of random thoughts though instead of a real comparison. If there is anything anyone wants to know, I'll try answer.

I did love my cx-5, but mechanical issues and the lack of throttle response spoiled this car for me. So far loving my new rav.

 

[CodyZoom]

Thank you for the comparison. I certainly love my CX-5 and bought it before I knew about a Rav4 regen. I VERY much agree with you about the throttle response. Every other vehicle I drive, I notice how finicky the CX-5's throttle is. My wife's Elantra is much better, as is my brother's 2014 Wrangler. I've gotten used to it, and often resort to manual mode to cure the problem. I just wanted you to know that I think your dissapointment is complete justified. Yes I understand the transmission is designed this way to provide optimum fuel economy, but I would have gladly sacrificed a 1mpg overall drop for a normal throttle response. Now, where is that "wolf/dog" guy to tell me how much of an idiot I am?

 

[Nodnerb]

Thank you for the comparison. I certainly love my CX-5 and bought it before I knew about a Rav4 regen. I VERY much agree with you about the throttle response. Every other vehicle I drive, I notice how finicky the CX-5's throttle is. My wife's Elantra is much better, as is my brother's 2014 Wrangler. I've gotten used to it, and often resort to manual mode to cure the problem. I just wanted you to know that I think your dissapointment is complete justified. Yes I understand the transmission is designed this way to provide optimum fuel economy, but I would have gladly sacrificed a 1mpg overall drop for a normal throttle response. Now, where is that "wolf/dog" guy to tell me how much of an idiot I am?

Thanks. Yeah, I fully expect some un happy people about my experience and others who say I just don't know how to drive. But, I've driven thousands of cars in my days(worked at a car dealership for 5 years) and have owned 8 cars myself and have never experienced a car that responds(or doesn't respond) like the cx-5. Fine, yeah, I got used to it, but I still never liked it. When I press the ravs accellerator 25% of the way it responds accordingly and quickly. If I pressed the cx-5 25% it would usually do nothing except lug away in 6th. Unfortunately it's the type of thing that didn't really show up in my cx-5 test drives. I drove it fairly conservatively but also floored it a few times. Power was fine. But it's the middle of the road acceleration I never really tested much in my test drive and that's where I find the cx-5 most frustrating. That and hills that I slowed down on because it never wanted to get out of 6th and lugged its way up.

 

[RG_Flyer]

Thank you for your thoughts and comments. This is good stuff, from someone who has lived with both vehicles, rather than a cursory test evaluation.

 

[Nodnerb]

Well, things may change, but I sure hope not. This is a little preliminary but that's ok. It took a while to realize how frustrating the cx-5 was for me too. Hopefully I will still be satisfied with the rav after living with it for a few months instead of a week.
I will update this thread with other thoughts, discoveries and comparisons as they come up.

 

[CC58]

When I test drove a 2013 2.0 CX-5, I walked away. Test drove a 2013 Mazda3 2.0 and even that car was underpowered with the 2.0. It had no low end torque and inadequate power.

I had a 1986 Toyota Corolla GTS that was similiarly underpowered with no low end torque. I sold that car in less than a year, so I understand your complaint.

The 2.5 is much more powerful and 4-2-1 headers lowered torque peak of 185ft-lbs to 3250rpm. Haven't heard a professional reviewer complain about shifts with 2.5L. Its a full second faster 0-60 than CRV even though their HP is similiar.

What were your mechanical troubles? What did the dealer do or not do?

 

[cthew0rld]

nice comparison. the fake carbon fiber you mention really turned me off when i saw it, but i agree with pretty much everything else.

 

[Nodnerb]

When I test drove a 2013 2.0 CX-5, I walked away. Test drove a 2013 Mazda3 2.0 and even that car was underpowered with the 2.0. It had no low end torque and inadequate power.

I had a 1986 Toyota Corolla GTS that was similiarly underpowered with no low end torque. I sold that car in less than a year, so I understand your complaint.

The 2.5 is much more powerful and 4-2-1 headers lowered torque peak of 185ft-lbs to 3250rpm. Haven't heard a professional reviewer complain about shifts with 2.5L. Its a full second faster 0-60 than CRV even though their HP is similiar.

What were your mechanical troubles? What did the dealer do or not do?

I was one of the unfortunate ones with the rough idle and stumbling on cold starts. There is a thread about it on here. Mine seems to be the worst case though since I am the only one who actually experienced repeated stalling upon random cold starts. As of now, no one has gotten mazda to solve the problem. It's probably a simple fuel pump or something. Mazda jsut didn't want to do anything about it. That and other rather minor issues. But, I was sick of mazda. Sick of my $35k new car stalling and sick of the throttle response. Such a shame because I loved that car.

 

[xtrailman]

I once had a car that stalled while cold a 2L petrol primera bought at 10 months old.
It only stalled when cold never warm, in the end the Nissan dealer changed the ECU.

If only America had the diesel version, its a brilliant engine that none of the competition can beat, any engine with a turbo for me, short of a six cylinder of course.

 

[IHeartGroceries]

I bought my CX-5 before the new generation (2014 IG?) RAV-4 hit the market.

We did, however, take a last gen RAV-4 out for a spin. Horrendous interior (cheap, ugly), ugly exterior, yawn inspiring design overall, noisey, and just plain nothing special.

......that intoxicating V-6 power, though. That V-6 had, what, 260 horsepower? Those things are sleepers, and straight up bust ass.
My wife LOVED the power, and she wanted one for that reason. But, I couldn't get over that it was just an absolute piece of crap. And I knew as well we'd be purchasing a model year prior to a total redesign.

The only complaint either of us have about the CX-5 is lack of power. But, it really does fine overall. It has otherwise been great for 23 months now.

 

[NinjaNoises]

I want to echo some agreement here.

My CX-5 is a MT and I've always owned manual transmission cars, so my reaction to a post like this used to be: "Why not just drive it in manual shifty mode?" But after driving my wife's Skyactive 3 for a little while, I realize that automatics in manual mode are just not the same thing at all.

I can see the manual mode being useful during aggressive driving, like on a track. But it is somewhat unnatural to do day-to-day driving with an automatic in manual mode. I often forget to upshift or downshift when needed. It's like you have to learn a new skill all over again. Like you, I expect an automatic to be able to read my mind. Because when I'm in an automatic, I don't want to shift!

 

[MikeM.]

When I press the ravs accellerator 25% of the way it responds accordingly and quickly. If I pressed the cx-5 25% it would usually do nothing except lug away in 6th. Unfortunately it's the type of thing that didn't really show up in my cx-5 test drives.

No doubt, the tuning of the throttle response on the CX-5 is very different from other cars.

I've said this before but it looks like it's worth repeating. The throttle response is tied to how quickly the accelerator is depressed and this is especially true above 35 mph. It is important NOT to ease on the throttle if your intention is to downshift and go. Otherwise the tranny will remain in high gear and take it's sweet time accelerating. It's not necessarily required to completely floor it unless you want 100% (give 'er all she's got, Scotty) but if you want the transmission to downshift moderately to accelerate at a moderate rate, you MUST push the accelerator to a middle position rapidly. Easing on the pedal gradually WILL NOT WORK. I learned this in the first few minutes of my test drive but it would not surprise me if others took longer to adapt.

Once a driver learns how to "talk" to the transmission using the throttle pedal, the car responds as desired. I actually appreciate this feature because it allows me more control of the transmission without needing to change to manual shift mode.

 

[CX-SV]

Thanks for comparison Nodnerb, your perspective after driving both extensively is useful.

Yep, I've learned to adapt to some degree to throttle response in (CX-5 2.0L) with a educated foot. I've also learned that some gaps in traffic at speed are best ignored with the CX-5 because of the limited 2.0L power combined with the ability to get the right gear quickly and consistently with right foot.

I'm not surprised by a gas mileage difference of 1-3 mpg's, other automakers are improving (actual) fuel efficiency in this class with latest models.

 

[cjecpa]

I always like owner comparisons. I notice on the article attached they seem to indicate that the CX-5 had problems with climbing at Bear Mountain because of gear changes. I have been doing research on the CX-5, Forester, etc. to buy but I have not seen this as a complaint of owners. Is this common? I know on the Outback it is always recommended if you are driving up into mountains on a continuous basis or carrying full loads to buy the 6 cylinder.

 

[CC58]

I bought my CX-5 before the new generation (2014 IG?) RAV-4 hit the market.

We did, however, take a last gen RAV-4 out for a spin. Horrendous interior (cheap, ugly), ugly exterior, yawn inspiring design overall, noisey, and just plain nothing special.

......that intoxicating V-6 power, though. That V-6 had, what, 260 horsepower? Those things are sleepers, and straight up bust ass.
My wife LOVED the power, and she wanted one for that reason. But, I couldn't get over that it was just an absolute piece of crap. And I knew as well we'd be purchasing a model year prior to a total redesign.

The only complaint either of us have about the CX-5 is lack of power. But, it really does fine overall. It has otherwise been great for 23 months now.

Thank your lucky stars you didn't buy the V6 Rav4. The 4 cylinder is fine, but the V6 has serious transmission problems and engine too. There is a thread on rav4world.com on this with over 1000 posts and 200,000 views. It has amazing acceleration, but problems are not worth it.

 

[TreyP]

My previous 2 vehicles were Toyota, and I love that Toyota quality and reliability. I probably would have gotten the Rav but as soon as I saw the interior that was the deal breaker. To me it just looks so cheap and bad. Too bad too, because I really like the exterior.

 

[RG_Flyer]

My CX-5 is a MT and I've always owned manual transmission cars, so my reaction to a post like this used to be: "Why not just drive it in manual shifty mode?" But after driving my wife's Skyactive 3 for a little while, I realize that automatics in manual mode are just not the same thing at all.
I can see the manual mode being useful during aggressive driving, like on a track. But it is somewhat unnatural to do day-to-day driving with an automatic in manual mode. I often forget to upshift or downshift when needed. It's like you have to learn a new skill all over again. Like you, I expect an automatic to be able to read my mind. Because when I'm in an automatic, I don't want to shift!

Interesting, as I am a manual driver too. I test drove a 2014 CX-5 MT-6 and while I was expecting a little more oomph, I did not notice any weird throttle curve. Would you say the OP's issues are not not relevant with a manual? I came away from the test drive with uncertainty as the Mazda is probably the best option for what I need in a manual. I don't think we will see a 2.5L MT-6, but I wish it had a bit more power.

 

[ALafya]

FWIW, had Mazda did not offer the 2.5L, I would probably have ended-up with a RAV-4 XLE too.
Personally, I feel my previous ride had a better mind-reader AT transmission, though I get along pretty good with the transmission in my CX-5. I do own the 2.5L though.

Congrats on your new vehicle and I hope you'll be able to enjoy it.

 

[dougal]

I actually spent a lot of time with the Rav 4. I liked the look of the car and even liked the interior. Something about it was just nice. For some reason, I remember the Rav 4 having a push button start - which I also liked. With that said, I hated how it drove. I did not notice much on the throttle response but the car just felt lumbering. Not fun in any way. Very much like the CR-V.

However, my impressions of things could be jaded. That is, I learned how to drive (and to drive a manual) on a 944 Turbo. That car would just move along without much haste until you really stomped on the pedal -than it would take off like a rocket! The CX-5 has some of that same feel... but it ain't no turbo!

 

[CC58]

I was one of the unfortunate ones with the rough idle and stumbling on cold starts. There is a thread about it on here. Mine seems to be the worst case though since I am the only one who actually experienced repeated stalling upon random cold starts. As of now, no one has gotten mazda to solve the problem. It's probably a simple fuel pump or something. Mazda jsut didn't want to do anything about it. That and other rather minor issues. But, I was sick of mazda. Sick of my $35k new car stalling and sick of the throttle response. Such a shame because I loved that car.

I have read details on rough cold start of skyactiv engine. Skyactiv uses a 4-2-1 header that is much larger than traditional headers so the catalytic converter can not warm up quickly. Mazda's solution was to burn gasoline in the header for 30 seconds on some revolutions to quickly heat up the catalytic converter. This results in a rough idle for 30 seconds on cold start.

Its a smart idea and allowed Mazda to use a 4-2-1 header (tri-y) on a production car. This header allows 13:1 compression on 87 octane and lowers the torque peak to 3250rpm. Tri-y full length headers were used exclusively on race cars in the past because they could not heat up the catalytic converter sufficiently to pass smog tests. The rough start is a trade off for best in class power and efficiency. Rough start is normal, but it shouldn't stall. Perhaps not waiting 30 seconds before driving would make it stall.