bluegrass is not going to be happy about this. He'll be here soon to tell us the article is wrong and then he'll explain to us why the CX5 is better :uhoh3:

 

I'm not Bluegrass, but I own a CX-5 Sig. They point out the reasons why I chose it over the CR-V:

"Always the bridesmaid, never the bride—this seems to be where the Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring finds itself. It's no secret we love the CX-5. Quite simply, no other vehicle in this group focuses on exciting and delighting the driver more than the Mazda does. Its exterior look is sharp, its interior design is elegant, and its driving feel is precise. If you put driving ahead of functionality, this is the crossover for you. But this is a Big Test, and as such the CX-5 gives up ground in key areas, falling short on overall packaging, passenger space, and cargo room to our winner."

I don't need the space, so it was a no brainer for me. If you do, go with the CR-V.

 

What good are these test..... Honda can't fix all the problems they have

 

It's just flat irritating how the CRV continues to do so well.:Notagain: I'll be seeing the big 'ol grin again in the mirror here shortly.

 

... I'll be seeing the big 'ol grin again in the mirror here shortly.

Something seems maladjusted. Maybe your mirror? :confused2:

 

All the things they say about the CRV are true and they are exactly the reason we chose the CRV back in April. Unfortunately its what they don't say about the potential for oil dilution that move it it to the bottom of the heap for me. On the flip side as much grief as Consumer Reports gives Jeep about reliability/quality I know 3 people who have 2015-2017 Cherokees and they have had zero issues with them.

 

If you like gas in your oil and no heat in the winter buy a CR-V with the 1.5L. Someone needs to do a comparison test when these vehicles are 5 years old with 100k on them.

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

 

That's exactly what CR will do........it just takes 5 years. CR reports various reliability areas for 8 model years back.

 

When we were looking to buy an SUV last spring we drove all on that list and pretty much rated them the same way.

We had a Mazda car we really liked and truly thought we would end up with a CX5...but then we drove a CRV and it was clearly the best overall for what we wanted..
The storage space, mileage, comfort and finish were winners.

Our '18 Touring now has 26k miles and has always put out good heat.. Highest mileage has been 39 mpg..

Sent from my LG-H700 using Tapatalk

 

When we were looking to buy an SUV last spring we drove all on that list and pretty much rated them the same way.

We had a Mazda car we really liked and truly thought we would end up with a CX5...but then we drove a CRV and it was clearly the best overall for what we wanted..
The storage space, mileage, comfort and finish were winners.

Our '18 Touring now has 26k miles and has always put out good heat.. Highest mileage has been 39 mpg..

Sent from my LG

 

Ooops, my bad, that's what I get for presuming you had a Gen 5.:Surrender:

 

Honda wins Honda wins!

 

I wonder if the 2019 CX-5 with the 2.5L turbo would have won this test.

 

It would probably win 0-60 mph and finish last in mpg.

 

"Best for gas in oil."

 

:Notagain::Notagain::Notagain:

 

Car and Driver 10 best trucks and SUVs
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a25603385/10best-trucks-suvs-2019/

picks Mazda CX-5 as best compact SUV.

sv11

 

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be one of C&D's comparison tests, just a top 10 recommendation. They don't even mention the CR-V, the vehicle that dominates sales in the CUV class. In the past, subscribers have accused C&D of being very biased toward liking any Honda product regardless of any criticisms.

BTW, it's interesting to see C&D lists the 0-60 on the CX-5 of 6.9s-8.1s, given my test drive of 2.5L turbo CX-5, I would agree that at most it's about 0.5s quicker than the CR-V. Given the power to weight ratios are the same when using unleaded, it's only when using premium fuel in the CX-5, the power to weight ration improves and is what seems to give the Mazda 2.5T the 0.5s advantage. For me, it wouldn't be worth spending another $0.50-$0.60 per gallon to get slightly better acceleration but worse gas mileage.

I do like the CX-9 quite a bit (as well as the Miata), and believe it's a nicer driving experience than the Honda Pilot. However, some buyers are going to stick with Honda's NA V6 over Mazda's turbo I4.

 

Wonder if C and D buys those cars to test......or are they on loan?

 

The comparison tests by all the major car magazines have always been a snapshot of instant gratification. It is a week in time when some folks get to drive a vehicle for free and compare it to the other vehicles they are cruising around in. They are interesting and I enjoy them. I even factor in their thoughts and comments when making a decision knowing that my results may vary.

I have felt for several years that if these folks really wanted to assist the car buying public and differentiate themselves from the pack they would provide a link to forums such as the one we are all on right now. Beyond the link I think it would be great for them to include perhaps a paragraph or a couple of bullet points regarding comments/themes they observe from the forum. What they note doesn't have to impact their ratings or alter their opinions of the vehicles but I think that in this digital age it should be one of the next enhancements that could/should be included.

I always thought that when some of the younger guard rose to power within these magazines this would be one of the first changes due to these folks being much more enamored and engaged relative to social media and many of them having grown up with computers/forums their entire lives but it hasn't happened yet. Even some of us oldsters (greater than 60 years of age) have done our homework prior to making major purchases for a couple of decades.

No worries for me as I can still fire up the computer and google my way to a list serv/user group/forum.

 

I've been reading Motor Trend and Car and Driver for way more years than I want to admit. C & D always prefers vehicles that handle better, can corner faster, and give the driver more feel of the road (Zoom Zoom?). MT always evaluates the vehicle in a much broader fashion. It's no surprise that C & D prefers the CX5 over the CR-V, although, they didn't include the CR-V in this particular article.

This whole discussion is really fruitless. Some folks lean toward the C & D preferences, and others lean toward the MT preferences. Neither the CX5 or CR-V is a bad vehicle...either is the RAV 4, or ..... (any number of other competitors) It's good that we have choices!

I always chuckle when magazines claim a 0-60 time of 4/10 of a second less for one vehicle (over another) makes it a winner. (that's a fraction of a second! As if anyone could really notice that!)

EDIT: Everyone makes a choice... and has a right to defend that choice, or regret that choice, and discuss that choice. :banana:

 

"Now with the whole of its competitive set assembled, the CR-V shines again."

I own a 2018 Touring and I live in the South so heating and so far dilution are not an issue for me. So yes, my CR-V shines for me as well in balmy Houston!
Motor Trend is based in Los Angeles and their evaluation tests were done in that area (the pictures are from Death Valley). I wonder if they would have rated the cars differently if they had conducted their tests in Minnesota or Canada instead. Dealers in Canada are telling customers post "fix" that the CR-Vs are not suitable to heat the cabin in their environment. I have lived up north and I have never owned a car that did not keep proper cabin temperature, even at idling. This is my 6th Honda and the slowest to warm up; lucky I live down here.

 

Drove mine in 7 degree temps today and it was windy. No problem heating the cabin to roast mode within a mile from my home. Always have to turn the heat way down within ten mins of driving.

 

3 mpg better highway than EPA rating and doing 75 mph......really?:jawdrop: I don't think I have ever owned a vehicle that would actually/consistently get EPA city/highway mpg numbers. Usually close, but a tick below those "on the happy side" EPA numbers. Have there been some rare occasions where I exceeded the EPA highway numbers?........sure, extenuating circumstances like maybe a nice tailwind. My city driving mpg numbers have been about the same way...... a tick below those "on the happy side" EPA numbers. Our CRV is no different. I'll say the same thing regarding claims of higher than EPA city mpg numbers......really?:jawdrop:

 

Fully agree... My experience as well with my current 2018 Touring, my 5 previous Hondas and the German sports car I traded in.

 

I love my 18 CR-EXL AWD! I’ve always been a Honda sedan person and am so happy with my first SUV, it drives like a dream. I live in New England and no heat issues here. Heats up quickly, so much so, I have to lower it before getting to my destination as it gets to hot. No highway miles yet, but around town getting about 26 mpg. Great vehicle no regrets.

 

Here's the review of the CX-5 from SavageGeese. IMO, one of the top reviewers on YouTube. Overall he liked the CX-5 but he noticed some of the same things I did on my test drive about the infotainment system and the strange lack of power at times. Autoblog also had similar things to report.

https://youtu.be/3qOd5tZJi-4

 

Love love love my CRV. Great on gas, power, tons of cargo space, class leading safety systems, tons of leg room, reliable, and provides a nice comforting ride.

If I wanted a sporty handling vehicle, I would have bought an X3 M40i.

LOL @ Mazda, another dreaded 2nd place finish. Maybe once they fix that horrific infotainment system that takes 10 minutes to boot up they might topple the CRV one day.

 

Where have you been? bluegrass is running wild and free here always talking up the CX5. I guess this forum is a lot more forgiving then the CX5 forum. Welcome back!

 

There are long term road tests here:
https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/long-term-road-tests/latest-updates/
including CRV and CX5.

 

I liked the CX5 a lot...till I drove it...Very fun, sporty, could just jump for it...but I have arthritis in my hands and it hurt hands and arms up to shoulders...too much stress to hold that "precise" wheel...

 

Yeah, I can totally understand that. You don't want to be stuck with something that is a literal pain to drive. I once owned a vehicle that I had to sit on an angle to drive. My head was hitting the roof if I didn't lean more towards the sunroof opening. I now do a more thorough test drive.

 

Amen on the OP. I tried several of those on the list. The CRV was and still is my favorite.

 

I have an '18 Touring also. 39 mpg? You must be coasting down I-70 from the Eisenhower tunnel on I-70 to Denver