Impressions and comparison after a week with my rav4.

[Bladecutter]

OP wanted to own a car that does all the thinking for him, and did not want to drive a manual, or an automatic in manual mode.
Some people are not "drivers", and get no pleasure from having to work a car to have it do exactly what you want.

I think it's a good thing this driver found a better vehicle for his driving style.
No point having people driving around in cars they don't like.

BC.

 

[V8toilet]

Nodnerb, which SUV do you feel is quieter? How do you think the RAV compares to the CX5 in road noise?

I read that article and it should be noted that the CX5 has been retested after Mazda made some changes for the small overlap test and now the Mazda has a good rating.

 

[IHeartGroceries]

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.

That is sad!

But, it never would have happened, under any circumstances. It was never even a consideration for me, personally. The Toyota dealer is a half mile down the road from the Mazda dealer. We drove it just to drive it.

Either way, the redesign looks like a significant improvement.

 

[Nodnerb]

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.

That is not the problem we are speaking of. The car sputters and wants to stall for the people with this issue. It is not the normal catalytic converter warm up. Mine actually was stalling frequently. Search for the thread if you want to learn more.

OP wanted to own a car that does all the thinking for him, and did not want to drive a manual, or an automatic in manual mode.
Some people are not "drivers", and get no pleasure from having to work a car to have it do exactly what you want.

I think it's a good thing this driver found a better vehicle for his driving style.
No point having people driving around in cars they don't like.

BC.

I love driving manual. But at 40 years old with 90% of my driving in rush hour, and the fact you could only get the manual in the base model etc. etc. an automatic was in order. And of course I drove it in manual mode a good portion of the time but I pretty much *had* to drive in manual mode just to get up a small hill. And no matter what mode it was in, it was a dog. And had a stalling issue which mazda wouldn't recognize. If I have an automatic it should at least be drivable in automatic mode and not stall.
But yes, thanks, I do like the rav much more and it is certainly a better car for me. And anyone who buys an automatic solely to drive in manual mode thinking they are a "real" driver is fooling themselves. In fact, anyone who buys any car with the notion that it makes them a "real" driver is kind of pathetic, never mind if the vehicle is a cute-ute.

Nodnerb, which SUV do you feel is quieter? How do you think the RAV compares to the CX5 in road noise?

I read that article and it should be noted that the CX5 has been retested after Mazda made some changes for the small overlap test and now the Mazda has a good rating.

The rav is certainly a bit quieter. Especially with wind noise. Slightly quieter with road noise.

 

[costermonger]

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.

All of this is very true. Before I even got into a CX-5 for a test drive the salesman told me something along the lines of "the accelerator pedal isn't like other cars - if you feel like it's being kind of sluggish, jab the pedal".

I can fully understand people not liking that, but it's true. First auto I've ever driven that allowed you to so finely control the transmission through the gas pedal.

 

[Kelme]

Apparently I’m the only here that likes the combination of the 2.0L with the 6 speed auto. (anyone) Bueller?....Bueller?

 

[CX-SV]

Apparently Im the only here that likes the combination of the 2.0L with the 6 speed auto. (anyone) Bueller?....Bueller?

Not likely. I like the 2.0L with 6 speed auto, even if I point out its faults.

Its less desirable characteristics and modest levels of performance are expected with only 155 hp, 3400 pound curb weight in an AWD configuration (combined with best in class fuel efficiency).

Both the 2.0L and 2.5L are long stroke inline 4 bangers, therefore neither sounds like premium machinery when pressed at higher revs. The 2.5L (and the Rav4 engine) have more abundant power and torque so the driver can more easily stay out of the higher rev zone were higher NVH levels get a bit thrashy for all of these engines.

 

[silverboy]

Thanks for the review.
Funny thing is I had a 2013 Rav4 and traded for a 2014 Subaru Forester XT (turbo).
The Rav4 was fine and the reason I traded was because I drove the Subaru Forester XT and I loved the power of it. Had a headache with the Forester (many trips to the stealership) so I traded for the Mazda CX5 2.5.

I agree with the heather, it takes for ever to warm up and not enough, mind you, I'm not the coldest person but the CX5 doesn't provide enough heat, just my opinion.
I used to live in NY and I have driving that area that they did the test. I can see the Rav4 doing better than the CX5.

So far, my concern with the CX5 is the annoying well know radio problem (USB/Ipod playing the same song all the time) and after I spend that kind of money, not having satellite.

Also, the CX5 is lighter and doesn't handle as well s the Rav4 in the snow. When I had the Rav4 I tested in a empty parking lot that I tested the CX5 last night, Rv4 handled better. I also like the interior of the Rav4 better (just my opinion) but no satellite radio either unless you get the Limited model.

Not crazy about the Bose system, all sound sounds like is coming from the front. Just added a subwoofer in the rear, sounds better.

 

[Nodnerb]

Thanks for the review.
Funny thing is I had a 2013 Rav4 and traded for a 2014 Subaru Forester XT (turbo).
The Rav4 was fine and the reason I traded was because I drove the Subaru Forester XT and I loved the power of it. Had a headache with the Forester (many trips to the stealership) so I traded for the Mazda CX5 2.5.

I agree with the heather, it takes for ever to warm up and not enough, mind you, I'm not the coldest person but the CX5 doesn't provide enough heat, just my opinion.
I used to live in NY and I have driving that area that they did the test. I can see the Rav4 doing better than the CX5.

So far, my concern with the CX5 is the annoying well know radio problem (USB/Ipod playing the same song all the time) and after I spend that kind of money, not having satellite.

Also, the CX5 is lighter and doesn't handle as well s the Rav4 in the snow. When I had the Rav4 I tested in a empty parking lot that I tested the CX5 last night, Rv4 handled better. I also like the interior of the Rav4 better (just my opinion) but no satellite radio either unless you get the Limited model.

Not crazy about the Bose system, all sound sounds like is coming from the front. Just added a subwoofer in the rear, sounds better.

Congrats on all of your new cars. lol
Yeah, the interior really grows on you for the rav. It's just different because it's situated more horizontal instead of the vertical center stack most cars have for everything.
The 14's have satellite in the xle, not sure about the le, but my xle has satellite and nav. Haven't had any snow since I've had the rav(surprisingly enough, over 100cm so far this year), but it's good to know it's at least as good if not better than the mazda.
Enjoy the new cx-5!

 

[dougal]

Drive what you like but that review (torque) is just plain stupid. Having the car lock out 5th and 6th when in manual mode is a good thing? The sales guy never told me that. Without a doubt, the CX-5 likes to stay in the highest gear possible, but I have never found it lumbering to get up anything. Never tried a 2.0 but do wonder if he got a lemon?

 

[Antigone]

I test drove both the 2014 Rav4 XLE and the 2014 CX-5 Touring with the 2.5L engine. I really did not notice any issues with acceleration when compared with the Rav4 in normal mode, but I never drove the 2.0L CX-5. I did not like the Rav4 Eco mode at all, found it kind of scary on the highway. If the 2.0L is anything like that, I might have ended up with the Rav4 also if the 2.5L was not available. It was honestly a tough decision for me as it was. I really liked how the Rav4 felt a lot more spacious, in both the passenger and cargo area. But overall I liked the appearance and features of the CX5 just a little bit better. Also the Rav4 had poorer performance on certain crash tests, which was also a consideration.

 

[CX5BC]

I have read this post with interest and wanted share my experience with the 2.0L auto FWD CX-5. I know this car is not the fastest, but I am happy with throttle response. If I push the gas pedal 25%, it will downshift 1 gear, If I push to more than 50%, it would downshift 2 gears, enough to go faster as needed.
Also it does take little time to warm up but once warmed up, my heater setting is right in the middle (pointing straight up) or slightly to the right. (1 to 3 clicks to the warm side) If I place heater nob more than that, it heats too much and unbearably hot in the car. My experience seems to differ from many of others but I thought to share my take.

 

[RG_Flyer]

I have read this post with interest and wanted share my experience with the 2.0L auto FWD CX-5. My experience seems to differ from many of others but I thought to share my take.

Thank you for the comments, CX5BC.

Nodnerb, what do you think of the audio systems between the Rav4 XLE and the CX-5 GT? Primarily audio quality?

 

[V8toilet]

I agree with CX5BC and MikeM. The shifting on this automatic adjusts its sensitivity and shift points based on how you drive and how fast you press the throttle input. I found this very useful when driving because it gave you the best of both worlds. Slow gradual throttle inputs yielded quicker up shifts and better economy. Push the pedal at a faster rate to the same point as you would have during the slower rate and the transmission holds onto the gears longer and or makes a downshift quickly.

Also again on the 2.0 (had for 27,000 miles) I never felt that the power was inadequate except for the most demanding highway situations. It felt peppy in and around town and the fuel mileage was awesome with this engine especially when speeds were in the 50-60 mph range. Even on the highway I could do back to back 34-35 mpg trips (in the warm weather) which is much harder to do with the 2.5.

Driving with the manual feature I found to be useful and intuitive. I'd use it in stop and go traffic for the engine braking. I'd use it to lock out a down shift going down a steep hill while I was in cruise control or the opposite for engine braking. I also liked using it for forced downshifts when I was anticipating that needed acceleration long before the transmission could know. I also liked that it wouldn't down shift if you put it in manual mode while under a load but it would if you were coasting. I thought this was well thought out by Mazda and prefer this control over the typical automatic down shift I experienced with other manumatic transmissions.

Last thing is when I hop into my Mazda 5 (actually wife's but I pay for it) I don't notice much difference in sensitivity between the older designed 5 auto in that and my Skyactive 6 speed in my Touring CX5 with the 2.5. If anything the Mazda 5 is a little more willing to downshift but it is down 15 lb ft of torque to my CX5. We had a Kia Rondo once and the throttle with that 4-speed was terrible. It was either all or nothing; very hard to modulate.

 

[Nodnerb]

Thank you for the comments, CX5BC.

Nodnerb, what do you think of the audio systems between the Rav4 XLE and the CX-5 GT? Primarily audio quality?

It's hard to compare because I went from the bose system in the cx5 to the middle of the road system in the rav. But I'll do my best. Honestly, I love a good system and I was pretty content with the bose, even though I HATE bose home audio. The cx5 bose was really good for a system without a dedicated sub. I did test drive the rav4 limited with the jbl top of the line system with a sub and it was very disappointing. I didn't exactly have a lot of time to play with it. it wasn't my priority but I did tune it a bit to see what I could get out of it. Maybe after some more tweaking it could sound good but in my limited time, the bose in the cx5 seemed better. The mid level system in my xle without a sub is good, not great, but much better than I expected. It's clean and clear with half decent bass.
Hope this helps.

 

[Nodnerb]

I can relate to what everyone is saying about the cx5 throttle responding to quick input, but to me this isn't a benefit. I dont see how adding a second variable input to the same output gives more control. A gas pedal has one function. To accelerate. A "normal" car accelerates relatively proportionally to to amount of pedal travel. And fairly predictably. There is nothing wrong with this system and having one linear input system for a known given output is good. Adding another variable(ie.how fast you press the pedal) in combination with how far you press the pedal, and every combination of each gives a different response does not simplify the process. How does adding a second variable to the acceleration process make it better? If I don't want the car to accelerate fast, I don't press it far. If I do, I press it farther. What's the problem with that?

 

[V8toilet]

Noderb, there isn't a problem, all this talk about how each individual perceives the throttle sensitivity is really very subjective. We could go on and on and never come to a complete agreement. In the end what matters is you are happy with what you have. Mazda has always pitched their vehicles with sporting intentions for their perspective classes and Toyota has always taken the more conservative approach offending the least amount of consumers with more of a rounded persona. They are both fine SUV's and how can anyone disagree with the amount of RAV 4's Toyota sells as proof.

 

[CX-SV]

I strongly suspect the addition of the kickdown switch was Mazda's quick response to what many of us have described above (and as I did in post #13).

 

[RG_Flyer]

It's hard to compare because I went from the bose system in the cx5 to the middle of the road system in the rav. .
Hope this helps.

Thanks. I actually test drove an XLE today as it looks like I might have to abandon my long-standing commitment to manual transmissions. I really enjoyed the Rav4 drive today, but my only experience with the CX-5 is in a 2.0 MT6 Sport. So, if I do forgo the manual, I will have to cross-shop apples-to-apples, regarding trim level (CX-5 GT?). My original plan was an MT-6 Sport with aftermarket audio/nav. I would like to drive a nicer vehicle and I'm tired of buying base-level and having to upgrade/accessorize in order to have a manual.
It is good to know the Rav4 Limited's JBL system did not impress you, that was the only thing the Limited had over the XLE, for me anyhow. Two other Limited features I absolutely no not want are a powered-lift-gate and auto headlights after dealing with them in my wife's 2012 Odyssey. Thanks again for this thread. If nothing else, it has opened my eyes to consider features I really want and more importantly, probably became the tipping point for me to consider modern automatic transmissions options.

 

[Nodnerb]

I strongly suspect the addition of the kickdown switch was Mazda's quick response to what many of us have described above (and as I did in post #13).

Isn't the kick down switch for maximum acceleration though?

Thanks. I actually test drove an XLE today as it looks like I might have to abandon my long-standing commitment to manual transmissions. I really enjoyed the Rav4 drive today, but my only experience with the CX-5 is in a 2.0 MT6 Sport. So, if I do forgo the manual, I will have to cross-shop apples-to-apples, regarding trim level (CX-5 GT?). My original plan was an MT-6 Sport with aftermarket audio/nav. I would like to drive a nicer vehicle and I'm tired of buying base-level and having to upgrade/accessorize in order to have a manual.
It is good to know the Rav4 Limited's JBL system did not impress you, that was the only thing the Limited had over the XLE, for me anyhow. Two other Limited features I absolutely no not want are a powered-lift-gate and auto headlights after dealing with them in my wife's 2012 Odyssey. Thanks again for this thread. If nothing else, it has opened my eyes to consider features I really want and more importantly, probably became the tipping point for me to consider modern automatic transmissions options.

The "apples to apples" cross shopping the rav xle would be the cx5 touring( or gs in canada). I didn't go for the limited either because of the lift gate and the rough ride. Apparently lots of people are having the power lift gate struts breaking. The limited wheels do make the ride a lot stiffer in the rav. Also, the limited trim has softex seats, artificial leather that many say are very hot and sweaty in summer.
Glad I could help.