Mazda CX-5 vs Subaru Crosstrek XV

Yea, no, maybe...
As someone here pointed out, the XV is kind of a tweener when compared to that subset of vehicles. The HR-V and CX-3 have wheelbases between 101"-103" and overall lengths under 170". Subaru XV has about a 105" wheelbase and 176" overall length while CX-5 measures 106.3" and 179".

Subcompact CUVs are starting to fall into two different size classes now. I'd put the CX-3, Juke, CH-R, Fiat 500x in the small group, and I'd put the HR-V, Crosstrek, Renegade, Soul in the large group.

I don't think length is a good metric for categorizing vehicles into size classes, because the size metrics that people care about when buying are passenger space, leg room, head room, cargo space. The HR-V and Crosstrek are very close to the same in terms of interior space. Crosstrek has slightly more cargo space and a wider back seat, while the HR-V has more rear legroom.
 
Subcompact CUVs are starting to fall into two different size classes now. I'd put the CX-3, Juke, CH-R, Fiat 500x in the small group, and I'd put the HR-V, Crosstrek, Renegade, Soul in the large group.

I don't think length is a good metric for categorizing vehicles into size classes, because the size metrics that people care about when buying are passenger space, leg room, head room, cargo space. The HR-V and Crosstrek are very close to the same in terms of interior space. Crosstrek has slightly more cargo space and a wider back seat, while the HR-V has more rear legroom.
Both do an exemplary job with interior space utilization. Mazda could learn something from their example!
 
In around town mpg wise the CX5 will do from 26-29 range. On highway never seen any FWD hitting 31+ or any AWD hitting 29 except certain posters over here who always have tail wind Lol. 2.0L numbers are much better.

my 2.5 mazda 6 gets 35-38MPG on the highway without even trying.

the 2L is not more efficient then the 2.5L, especially not if you like to drive fast. the CX-5 gets s*** highway mpg because it's a little underpowered and probably other things like ride height, aerodynamics etc. which affect acceleration above 80MPH like you mention.

my 240HP, 3900pound BMW 528i gets a steady 32MPG on the highway.
 
Both do an exemplary job with interior space utilization. Mazda could learn something from their example!

Mazda's packaging and use of space is definitely not bad. have you sat in a RWD car before?
 
Subcompact CUVs are starting to fall into two different size classes now. I'd put the CX-3, Juke, CH-R, Fiat 500x in the small group, and I'd put the HR-V, Crosstrek, Renegade, Soul in the large group.

I don't think length is a good metric for categorizing vehicles into size classes, because the size metrics that people care about when buying are passenger space, leg room, head room, cargo space. The HR-V and Crosstrek are very close to the same in terms of interior space. Crosstrek has slightly more cargo space and a wider back seat, while the HR-V has more rear legroom.

Maybe so. But despite the HR-V having good interior space, exterior-wise it is noticeably smaller than a CX-5, hence the different categorization. They have to base it on exterior dimensions in relation to all other vehicles on road space.
 
my 2.5 mazda 6 gets 35-38MPG on the highway without even trying.

the 2L is not more efficient then the 2.5L, especially not if you like to drive fast. the CX-5 gets s*** highway mpg because it's a little underpowered and probably other things like ride height, aerodynamics etc. which affect acceleration above 80MPH like you mention.

my 240HP, 3900pound BMW 528i gets a steady 32MPG on the highway.

Its definitely more the 'other things'..ride height, aero, and almost certainly gearing is not the same as your 6..that being said my bro reports 31-33 in his 6

my 240HP, 3500# BMW gets 28-29 so aero, height but I have a hard time staying much under 75-80 in the X1..so there's not trying and then there's really not trying
 
Last edited:
FWIW...when it sport mode, it will only shift up to 4th, but will hold gears and be reluctant to upshift, but provides a much more responsive throttle...when in manual mode, you can only upshift to 5th
In Manual you can upshift to 6th - only condition is speed should be above 45 mph with light load. Or you are in 5th and cross 45 and then ease off on gas and upshift (In auto it automatically does this as the RPMs drop a bit).
All upshifts only happen upon crossing a specific speed. For e.g. 5th happens only after 30 mph, 4th after 25 etc.

my 2.5 mazda 6 gets 35-38MPG on the highway without even trying.

the 2L is not more efficient then the 2.5L, especially not if you like to drive fast.
A 6 should be hitting 40+. the 2.0L is a legend when it comes to mpg. 36-37 on highway trips is not unheard of. There is a 77 mpg screen shot here for someone who did an 80 mile jaunt. The 2.0 L is a perfect kid in college car, cargo minus the power with good crash ratings.
 
Mazda's packaging and use of space is definitely not bad. have you sat in a RWD car before?

I didn't say it was bad. I said it could be improved, especially in the area of rear seat accommodations. And BTW, I've been driving for 50+ years, of course I've sat in the back of a f*%#*^g RWD car!
 
I am looking at either a CX-5 or a Crosstrek. Lets say 2015 because I know there are new models of both but I am not planning on buying new.

I am looking to get opinions why I should get one over the other / why you purchased your CX-5.

About me:
I am very utilitarian. I drive about 20k miles per year. I have 2 motorcycles. I keep some tools in my trunk for work. No kids. I drive by myself majority of the time.

What I am looking for:
A utilitarian crossover. Good gas mileage.
A "little" bit of towing capacity. Interior volume. Comfortable ride. Hopefully low maintenance cost. Good reliability.

Ok. As for towing, I know the tow ratings for the cx-5 and Crosstrek are 2000 and 1500 lbs respectively. I "think" both of these are suitable. I dont plan on pulling anything big. It would mostly just be used for pulling a lightweight trailer with 1 or two motorcycles on it.
I am thinking about getting one of those motorcycle carriers that just attach to the trailer hitch(see: MotoTote.) I would worry about putting my 500lb v Strom on there but my sub 300lb dirt bike could be fine. Could a CX5 handle that much tongue weight? Anyone know the tongue weight limit for the cx5?

What about trims? I feel like I should get a grand touring to have all the bells and whistles as my 2005 car is a limited so it has the old bells and whistles. I don't want to feel like I am buying a downgrade.

Thanks in advance for thoughts and opinions.

David, I had a 2014 Crosstrek Limited and recently upgraded to a 2017 CX5. The Crosstrek was a decent vehicle, never a single problem with it, and never gave me any doubts that it wouldnt remain reliable. It is a little underpowered but that wasnt a huge issue. I got rid of mine because of the road noise. It is extremely loud at any speed above 60 and that really wears on you during long highway drives. CX5 is so much smoother, quieter and more refined in every way.
 
I have a 2016 cx5, 2l manual. Fuelled up today and was at 39 mpg. These were mostly city miles. Highway is less if I'm over 75mph, but even then, I've averaged 36 mpg going from Utah to Oregon. I was going to buy my neighbors 2014 Crosstrek, but I couldn't fit 2 bikes upright (after removing front wheel)drive inhe back of the Crosstrek, but I can in my cx5. I measured just under 6 feet from the back of the drivers seat to the rear hatch in the cx5. Crosstrek was just over 5 feet, same with the hr-v.
 
I have a 2016 cx5, 2l manual. Fuelled up today and was at 39 mpg. These were mostly city miles. Highway is less if I'm over 75mph, but even then, I've averaged 36 mpg going from Utah to Oregon. I was going to buy my neighbors 2014 Crosstrek, but I couldn't fit 2 bikes upright (after removing front wheel)drive inhe back of the Crosstrek, but I can in my cx5. I measured just under 6 feet from the back of the drivers seat to the rear hatch in the cx5. Crosstrek was just over 5 feet, same with the hr-v.

If the manual 2.0 came in AWD and a Touring trim level, I honestly might take the penalty for the mpg.
 
I have a 2016 cx5, 2l manual. Fuelled up today and was at 39 mpg. These were mostly city miles. Highway is less if I'm over 75mph, but even then, I've averaged 36 mpg going from Utah to Oregon. I was going to buy my neighbors 2014 Crosstrek, but I couldn't fit 2 bikes upright (after removing front wheel)drive inhe back of the Crosstrek, but I can in my cx5. I measured just under 6 feet from the back of the drivers seat to the rear hatch in the cx5. Crosstrek was just over 5 feet, same with the hr-v.

So you are debunking GJ Molestor's claim that 2.0 is underpowered and thus bad for fuel efficiency? Whoa never happened on these pages before.
 
So you are debunking GJ Molestor's claim that 2.0 is underpowered and thus bad for fuel efficiency? Whoa never happened on these pages before.

Did he really call the 2.0L fuel inefficient? Wow. A FWD 2.0L will yield MPG the 2.5L can't even come close to.

Plenty of documented 2.0L manual CX-5 owners getting around 40...

Edit: And just speaking to the engines for a sec, it's not a speed demon, sure, but I've yet to really see any 2.0L owners complain about power. I know I don't with my 2.5L. Not saying I wouldn't welcome more, but good lord, the "issue" is overblown.
 
Last edited:
From the archives..slowness and its impacts depends on your environment i guess..in mine I found the 2l with awd/auto borderline dangerous and you really had to rev the piss out of it for anything to happen..unlike the 2.5 which has great low end..for an na4..almost 25% more tq, peaking 750rpm sooner makes a pretty yuge difference in everyday driving.

MikeM did and likely would still argue but consumers voted otherwise- sales took off and the 2l was dropped..good riddance. Fine in 3/cx3, buzzy and felt overworked in cx5. I mean how many 2l owners you see/know?

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review
 
Last edited:
Did he really call the 2.0L fuel inefficient? Wow. A FWD 2.0L will yield MPG the 2.5L can't even come close to.

Plenty of documented 2.0L manual CX-5 owners getting around 40...

Edit: And just speaking to the engines for a sec, it's not a speed demon, sure, but I've yet to really see any 2.0L owners complain about power. I know I don't with my 2.5L. Not saying I wouldn't welcome more, but good lord, the "issue" is overblown.
Could not agree more! I've been saying for years that the power in my 2013 6AT is perfectly adequate for 99% of driving conditions. If the 2.5 had been available in the introductory year, I would have opted for that in a heartbeat. But I've never regretted not having waited for the bigger engine which was introduced 4-5 months later in the 2014. And I've always liked that mine never drops below 30 mpg, no matter how I drive it.
 
From the archives..slowness and its impacts depends on your environment i guess..in mine I found the 2l with awd/auto borderline dangerous and you really had to rev the piss out of it for anything to happen..unlike the 2.5 which has great low end..for an na4..almost 25% more tq, peaking 750rpm sooner makes a pretty yuge difference in everyday driving.

MikeM did and likely would still argue but consumers voted otherwise- sales took off and the 2l was dropped..good riddance. Fine in 3/cx3, buzzy and felt overworked in cx5. I mean how many 2l owners you see/know?
The 2.0 was only offered in the Sport after the intro year. Sales "took off" on the 2.5 because Touring and Grand Touring models far outsold the stripper base model from the get-go. That has a lot to do with why you don't see many 2.0s running around!
 
^i thought it was sport and 2.5 was optional on touring but im prob mistaken..either way fair point
 
Back