I recently purchased a 2016 CR-V EX AWD. These are impressions of the vehicles that I test drove before purchasing the Honda. They are in roughly order of worst to best overall.
CR-V Test Drives
Nissan Rogue SV AWD
+
Appearance-wise, the Rogue is first rate. It looks nice outside and in.
The front seating is comfortable and supportive, among the best of any vehicle tested.
The interior layout and materials are very good for the class. Controls are intuitive and the number of buttons to fiddle with are refreshingly limited.
Around-view camera system is very cool if you like that sort of thing.
The standard audio on the SV level is good for the segment. The upgraded Bose system is the best among those tested here, unlike the CX-5’s Bose system, which was remarkably bad.
Nissan dealers are typically quite eager to price their vehicles aggressively. For the Rogue, it allows a higher trim level to be priced against several competitor’s lower versions.
-
The Rogue is underpowered and the engine is rough and noisy under acceleration, what there is of it. Nissan has been using CVT’s for longer than most, and they don’t seem to be able to optimize them the way that some others do. It goes to high revs and drones badly as the engine struggles for speed.
Steering has good weighting but almost no feel or feedback of any kind. Uncomfortably numb.
Rear visibility is poor. It really needs the camera system.
The Rogue’s safety scores are not generally as good as the competition.
Verdict – A surprisingly nice vehicle that’s hamstrung with a few significant issues. Like the Rav4, the Rogue must compete against its own brother in the Murano, and like the Rav4, one gets the feeling of driving something that’s not playing at the top of its potential game. Too bad.
Toyota Rav4 XLE
+
The Rav has excellent storage capacity that is easy to access and utilize. The rear hatch is large and the floor low. It’s the only vehicle here that can store road bikes relatively upright with both wheels on. Rear seating is ample, and the front feels spacious.
The seats feel like a huge upgrade from prior models, which were not good. At all.
Instruments are complete and well laid out. Nothing amazing, but quite adequate.
The RAV has a real 6 speed automatic transmission.
The new RAV appears generally reliable and gets good gas mileage with regular fuel.
-
You're asked to pay $2500 for a package that upgrades the RAV to what everyone else (except Ford) offers as part of the standard package, and then you get no leather interior available.
The RAV is not inspiring to drive. It feels about the slowest here, and the steering, handling, and suspension are close to truck-like. The transmission is the only one here that feels lost on anything other than flat ground. It’s constantly shifting, trying to find, something….
The 2016 exterior refresh looks like the front end was put through a nose-compactor.
The upgraded audio system is mediocre. The speaker size and placement provide sound, but there is little life-like imaging.
The XLE is on the high side price wise, and Toyota dealers don’t appear highly motivated price-wise. That made the RAV the most expensive vehicle here out the door.
Verdict – Nice enough, great interior capacity, boring in all regards, too expensive for what you receive relative to the competition. The driving experience is boring, as a “driver’s car” it’s handily bested by everything else here. As with the Rogue, the RAV4 must compete against the Highlander for market position, and Toyota’s focus just doesn’t seem 100% on the Rav4. Unlike the Rogue, the RAV4 really does no wrong, just nothing particularly great.
Subaru Forester XT Premium
+
The XT is fast, easily the fastest here by any measure. Once over 5 MPH or so, it’s almost BMW 6 cylinder-like. Did I say fast? Yes...
Off-road capability is the best here, again by a large margin. Subaru’s AWD systems are as close to the best in the world that few need discuss the differences. If you are going fire-roading at altitude, look no further.
Foresters have exceptional outward visibility for 360 degrees. One reason that exterior cameras have become so popular in the SUV segment is that they generally suck in this area. Not so the Forester.
Subaru’s have excellent reliability, maybe the best at this point. While they have always been good, in the last few years they have become about the best available regardless of cost. The XT is turbocharged, which can mean a lower potential reliability for most makes. Not so much for a Subaru.
The interior quality is competitive in the segment though not outstanding in any way. The stereo system in the Premium version is adequate.
Owning a Subaru is a pleasure. You get nice magazines and dealers are aggressive in keeping you a Subaru owner.
The XT has a CVT transmission. However, unlike the standard engine Forester, the XT has “fake” shift points that simulate a regular automatic and paddle shifters to simulate a manual transmission. They work very well.
-
Seating comfort is awful. A sure fix for those who don’t like their CR-V seats is to drive a Subaru (non-WRX) for a few hundred miles. You will change your opinion. This is no joke and no minor matter. In reality, seats are the main reason that I don’t remain a Subaru owner.
The suspension is calibrated for the standard 185 HP model. The XT overwhelms it. The XT also outweighs it. Being a fairly tall vehicle with high ground clearance, the extra HP’s are more of a detriment than a plus for most users most of the time. The main advantage is when driving with passengers and loads in mountainous or hilly terrain.
The XT requires premium fuel, and gets modest MPG’s while doing so. That significantly knocks down the utility rating.
The XT is relatively expensive. Dealers like keeping you a customer, but the demand for XT’s is fairly high, and their availability fairly low. The overall value level is average IMO.
The verdict – Relatively expensive, painful seats, and mediocre mileage with premium fuel required. It has the look of a sports CUV, but the suspension and wheel/tire package don’t support the appearance. The engine is excellent for hauling people and gear up to high altitude play locations though.
Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD 2016.5
+
Zoom Zoom – Driven with zest, the CX-5 is fairly quick, with superior handling, suspension, steering, driving position, and overall ergonomics. Mazda clearly put a lot of effort into the CX-5 and it shows in a lot of ways.
The center BMW-like control knob is a real treat. It’s worth driving one just to check it out. Excellent implementation.
The interior’s appearance is first rate, almost Audi A4-like. It has a refined, Teutonic look that’s very nice indeed. The seats are supportive and moderately comfortable.
-
The stereo is one of the worst I’ve experienced since 8 Tracks. I thought there must be something wrong with it until I looked on-line and saw that there was general agreement. I’m no audio geek, but I do like to listen to music when I drive. You literally wouldn’t do that it a CX-5. It makes no sense at all. Come on, Mazda
It’s relatively small in terms of storage area. The sleek-ish rear end means that loading large-ish objects, like bikes, isn’t going to happen easily, or at all. The sport/utility ratio is clearly on the side of sport here.
The controls and materials generally have a lesser quality feel and response versus other vehicles here.
While the CX-5 can be driven relatively quickly, you have to drive it aggressively to make it be so. At lower revs, it’s just slow, subjectively at least easily the slowest here other than the Rogue. In everyday driving, the CR-V feels livelier for instance. While it may appeal to the Zoom-Zoom crowd, I personally don’t want a CUV to mimic a small sports car. Just me though.
The transmission mapping is complex and not terribly well calibrated. In standard mode, it upshifts very quickly in order to maximize MPG’s. Calling for power on hills or when already at speed has the trans shifting through its gears rather significantly. There is a sports mode that eliminates the issue however. Unfortunately, the sports mode tends to hold a lower gear almost to redline when there is no need to do so. There are paddle shifters as well, and the combination of sports mode and the paddles is the treat. One must think that most people just want to get to the grocery store though, not simulate LeMans.
Verdict – On the small side, horrible stereo, dealer has the lowest discounts available next to Toyota, making the end price in line with models with much better feature sets. It doesn’t feel right to put down the CX-5 though. It gives the impression of a product that’s trying really hard to be good at what it is.
CR-V Test Drives
Nissan Rogue SV AWD
+
Appearance-wise, the Rogue is first rate. It looks nice outside and in.
The front seating is comfortable and supportive, among the best of any vehicle tested.
The interior layout and materials are very good for the class. Controls are intuitive and the number of buttons to fiddle with are refreshingly limited.
Around-view camera system is very cool if you like that sort of thing.
The standard audio on the SV level is good for the segment. The upgraded Bose system is the best among those tested here, unlike the CX-5’s Bose system, which was remarkably bad.
Nissan dealers are typically quite eager to price their vehicles aggressively. For the Rogue, it allows a higher trim level to be priced against several competitor’s lower versions.
-
The Rogue is underpowered and the engine is rough and noisy under acceleration, what there is of it. Nissan has been using CVT’s for longer than most, and they don’t seem to be able to optimize them the way that some others do. It goes to high revs and drones badly as the engine struggles for speed.
Steering has good weighting but almost no feel or feedback of any kind. Uncomfortably numb.
Rear visibility is poor. It really needs the camera system.
The Rogue’s safety scores are not generally as good as the competition.
Verdict – A surprisingly nice vehicle that’s hamstrung with a few significant issues. Like the Rav4, the Rogue must compete against its own brother in the Murano, and like the Rav4, one gets the feeling of driving something that’s not playing at the top of its potential game. Too bad.
Toyota Rav4 XLE
+
The Rav has excellent storage capacity that is easy to access and utilize. The rear hatch is large and the floor low. It’s the only vehicle here that can store road bikes relatively upright with both wheels on. Rear seating is ample, and the front feels spacious.
The seats feel like a huge upgrade from prior models, which were not good. At all.
Instruments are complete and well laid out. Nothing amazing, but quite adequate.
The RAV has a real 6 speed automatic transmission.
The new RAV appears generally reliable and gets good gas mileage with regular fuel.
-
You're asked to pay $2500 for a package that upgrades the RAV to what everyone else (except Ford) offers as part of the standard package, and then you get no leather interior available.
The RAV is not inspiring to drive. It feels about the slowest here, and the steering, handling, and suspension are close to truck-like. The transmission is the only one here that feels lost on anything other than flat ground. It’s constantly shifting, trying to find, something….
The 2016 exterior refresh looks like the front end was put through a nose-compactor.
The upgraded audio system is mediocre. The speaker size and placement provide sound, but there is little life-like imaging.
The XLE is on the high side price wise, and Toyota dealers don’t appear highly motivated price-wise. That made the RAV the most expensive vehicle here out the door.
Verdict – Nice enough, great interior capacity, boring in all regards, too expensive for what you receive relative to the competition. The driving experience is boring, as a “driver’s car” it’s handily bested by everything else here. As with the Rogue, the RAV4 must compete against the Highlander for market position, and Toyota’s focus just doesn’t seem 100% on the Rav4. Unlike the Rogue, the RAV4 really does no wrong, just nothing particularly great.
Subaru Forester XT Premium
+
The XT is fast, easily the fastest here by any measure. Once over 5 MPH or so, it’s almost BMW 6 cylinder-like. Did I say fast? Yes...
Off-road capability is the best here, again by a large margin. Subaru’s AWD systems are as close to the best in the world that few need discuss the differences. If you are going fire-roading at altitude, look no further.
Foresters have exceptional outward visibility for 360 degrees. One reason that exterior cameras have become so popular in the SUV segment is that they generally suck in this area. Not so the Forester.
Subaru’s have excellent reliability, maybe the best at this point. While they have always been good, in the last few years they have become about the best available regardless of cost. The XT is turbocharged, which can mean a lower potential reliability for most makes. Not so much for a Subaru.
The interior quality is competitive in the segment though not outstanding in any way. The stereo system in the Premium version is adequate.
Owning a Subaru is a pleasure. You get nice magazines and dealers are aggressive in keeping you a Subaru owner.
The XT has a CVT transmission. However, unlike the standard engine Forester, the XT has “fake” shift points that simulate a regular automatic and paddle shifters to simulate a manual transmission. They work very well.
-
Seating comfort is awful. A sure fix for those who don’t like their CR-V seats is to drive a Subaru (non-WRX) for a few hundred miles. You will change your opinion. This is no joke and no minor matter. In reality, seats are the main reason that I don’t remain a Subaru owner.
The suspension is calibrated for the standard 185 HP model. The XT overwhelms it. The XT also outweighs it. Being a fairly tall vehicle with high ground clearance, the extra HP’s are more of a detriment than a plus for most users most of the time. The main advantage is when driving with passengers and loads in mountainous or hilly terrain.
The XT requires premium fuel, and gets modest MPG’s while doing so. That significantly knocks down the utility rating.
The XT is relatively expensive. Dealers like keeping you a customer, but the demand for XT’s is fairly high, and their availability fairly low. The overall value level is average IMO.
The verdict – Relatively expensive, painful seats, and mediocre mileage with premium fuel required. It has the look of a sports CUV, but the suspension and wheel/tire package don’t support the appearance. The engine is excellent for hauling people and gear up to high altitude play locations though.
Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD 2016.5
+
Zoom Zoom – Driven with zest, the CX-5 is fairly quick, with superior handling, suspension, steering, driving position, and overall ergonomics. Mazda clearly put a lot of effort into the CX-5 and it shows in a lot of ways.
The center BMW-like control knob is a real treat. It’s worth driving one just to check it out. Excellent implementation.
The interior’s appearance is first rate, almost Audi A4-like. It has a refined, Teutonic look that’s very nice indeed. The seats are supportive and moderately comfortable.
-
The stereo is one of the worst I’ve experienced since 8 Tracks. I thought there must be something wrong with it until I looked on-line and saw that there was general agreement. I’m no audio geek, but I do like to listen to music when I drive. You literally wouldn’t do that it a CX-5. It makes no sense at all. Come on, Mazda
It’s relatively small in terms of storage area. The sleek-ish rear end means that loading large-ish objects, like bikes, isn’t going to happen easily, or at all. The sport/utility ratio is clearly on the side of sport here.
The controls and materials generally have a lesser quality feel and response versus other vehicles here.
While the CX-5 can be driven relatively quickly, you have to drive it aggressively to make it be so. At lower revs, it’s just slow, subjectively at least easily the slowest here other than the Rogue. In everyday driving, the CR-V feels livelier for instance. While it may appeal to the Zoom-Zoom crowd, I personally don’t want a CUV to mimic a small sports car. Just me though.
The transmission mapping is complex and not terribly well calibrated. In standard mode, it upshifts very quickly in order to maximize MPG’s. Calling for power on hills or when already at speed has the trans shifting through its gears rather significantly. There is a sports mode that eliminates the issue however. Unfortunately, the sports mode tends to hold a lower gear almost to redline when there is no need to do so. There are paddle shifters as well, and the combination of sports mode and the paddles is the treat. One must think that most people just want to get to the grocery store though, not simulate LeMans.
Verdict – On the small side, horrible stereo, dealer has the lowest discounts available next to Toyota, making the end price in line with models with much better feature sets. It doesn’t feel right to put down the CX-5 though. It gives the impression of a product that’s trying really hard to be good at what it is.