[jerseydebil]

I think the first thing at ~ 5K miles was transmission jumping all around, next was rear interior panel came loose, problems with tailgate not locking, electrical gremlins with the dash electrical and then an oil leak. it still has a squeak that shows up at 60 mph. I don't know if these are common to the car or if she bought one that was built during the company xmas party but in general the vehicle seems like it was just thrown together. Nothing close to my experience with the finish quality of the CRV.

I totally get what you're saying........ I heard all these raves about the rav 4 so it was the first car I test drove in August. It was noisey, rough and cramped. I had no love for it.. Headed to Honda right after and fell in love with the 2018 Ex-l Crv and never looked back.

 

[jerseydebil]

Yeah I know, it was supposed to blow up in your face if you bought one yet it still on top of the pack.

The Rav4 was supposed to be the CR-V killer! We now know it pretty much sucks in so many ways. Owned two Mazdas over the years and both gave me nothing but trouble so they got sold. Subaru the same thing. Honda was new to me but so far my one year old has not given me any problems and she's comfortable stylish powerful and yet sips Gas, I am very happy with the purchase.


Rob

Shhhhhh Rob.... isn't this the place that you're supposed to do nothing but bash the 2017-18 crvs? All those that sold theirs early, even without problems, losing money because they thought they'd be worthless soon seems they may have jumped the gun. Sales were highest for the year in December in the U.S. AFTER the CR article and others on oil dilution came out.

 

[fore10]

Honda wins Honda wins!

 

[robbyg]

Shhhhhh Rob.... isn't this the place that you're supposed to do nothing but bash the 2017-18 crvs? All those that sold theirs early, even without problems, losing money because they thought they'd be worthless soon seems they may have jumped the gun. Sales were highest for the year in December in the U.S. AFTER the CR article and others on oil dilution came out.

Yep the vehicle is still selling like Hotcakes after 2+ years. The only complaint I have now is that there are so many of them on the road that mine is hard to find in a parking lot :Wink:

It's sad that a few people got a Lemon but with every vehicle there is always a small percentage that are lemons. You either fight with the dealer to get it fixed or sell it and cut your loses.

As for Consumer Report it lost it's relevance years ago. It now competes in a world full of specialized review sites. Wanna know about a car then go to one of a half dozen review sites that only deals with cars. Want to know which TV to buy go to AVS Forum or CNet.


Rob

 

[gnosisdog]

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

 

[crv383]

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

 

[calico]

8. Chevy Equinox
7. Jeep Cherrokee
6. Nissan Rogue
5. Hyundai Tucson
4. Toyota RAV4
3. Subaru Forester
2. Mazda CX-5
1. Honda CR-V

"Now with the whole of its competitive set assembled, the CR-V shines again. No crossover provides a better overall balance than the Honda. It's fun to drive yet still comfortable. It's quick yet efficient. It's affordable yet still well equipped. And it's compact outside and spacious inside. The Honda CR-V is not only the best in this segment, but its crossover appeal should also put it on the short list of anyone shopping for a new family ride of any shape or size. With a CR-V this good, it's easy to see why the sedan is on its way out."

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/hon...i-tucson-jeep-cherokee-mazda-cx-5-nissan-rogue-subaru-forester-and-toyota-rav4/

"Best for gas in oil."

 

[crv383]

:Notagain::Notagain::Notagain:

 

[sv11]

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

 

[crv383]

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

 

[hans471+]

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

Oddly enough most CRV owners don't get gas in their oil and have nice heaters. I know I do. And my kids have loved my car so much they bought a new 2019 a few weeks back and LOVE it. I feel for those few who have issues but you have to understand that most owners don't have those problems no matter how loudly you scream about it.

I do hope those with a problem will get it fixed. I have spent hours over the past couple of years explaining how Lemon Laws would protect those few owners and get them out of those cars with problems. But it always seems there are a small number of people who have to crash every thread here with their damning of the CRV as junk. Sorry but hundred of thousands of us CRV owners like our car and get great service from them.

 

[KonaCoffee]

All those that sold theirs early, even without problems, losing money because they thought they'd be worthless soon seems they may have jumped the gun. Sales were highest for the year in December in the U.S. AFTER the CR article and others on oil dilution came out.

Because a lot of uninformed sheep blindly do something doesn't necessarily mean they are correct. In my experience most of the time they are wrong.

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

 

[KCGL1800]

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.

 

[S2k_Dude]

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.

 

[Mike728]

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 think you missed the part of those 0-60 results being "estimates".

When they actually tested it, they got 6.2 sec's.

"The turbocharged CX-5's appeal isn't really about scorching performance, although the 250-hp engine does send it to 60 mph in 6.2 seconds, nearly two seconds quicker than the base engine. But this engine is more effortless than exciting and is almost diesel-like in the way it doesn't like to rev. To maximize acceleration, the transmission"

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25693266/2019-mazda-cx-5-turbo-by-the-numbers/

As I've said, if you need the extra room and are looking for great fuel economy, the CR-V is for you. If you don't need all that space and want something fun to drive, get the CX-5 turbo. Being on both forums, this one sure has a lot more hatred for other brands. It wasn't like this when I joined.

 

[bluegrass]

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.

Vehicles are NOT eligible for the "10Best" if they have already lost in a comparison test and have not received any substantive upgrades.
The Honda CR-V has previously lost to the Mazda CX-5 in a direct head-to-head comparison, and hasn't received any changes/upgrades since.

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.

Not again! You cited incorrect information in your last thread and are doing the same thing again.
You know that actual test data exists (instead of quoting estimates).

Here are actual performance numbers from actual tests (CX-5 vs CR-V):

• Zero to 60 mph - 6.2 vs 7.6 sec
• Zero to 100 mph - 16.7 vs 21.5 sec
• Rolling start, 5–60 mph - 6.7 vs 8.1 sec
• Top gear, 30–50 mph - 3.5 vs 4.2 sec
• Top gear, 50–70 mph - 4.6 vs 5.3 sec
• Standing ¼-mile - 14.8 sec @ 95 mph vs 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
• Real world highway MPG - 30MPG vs 32 MPG

The CX-5 does SIGNIFICANTLY better on all of these performance metrics.

You are also wrong on the power to weight ratios...

• The torque/LB rating is 60% better for the Mazda, regardless of what fuel is used
• The HP/LB rating is 22% better for the Mazda using premium fuel
• The HP/LB rating is 10% better for the Mazda using regular unleaded

 

[Mike728]

...
Real world highway MPG - 30MPG vs 32 MPG.
...

Can you show me the reference to this? I've not seen this documented before.

 

[r crv]

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.

Vehicles are NOT eligible for the "10Best" if they have already lost in a comparison test and have not received any substantive upgrades.
The Honda CR-V has previously lost to the Mazda CX-5 in a direct head-to-head comparison, and hasn't received any changes/upgrades since.

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.

Not again! You cited incorrect information in your last thread and are doing the same thing again.
You know that actual test data exists (instead of quoting estimates).

Here are actual performance numbers from actual tests (CX-5 vs CR-V):

• Zero to 60 mph - 6.2 vs 7.6 sec
• Zero to 100 mph - 16.7 vs 21.5 sec
• Rolling start, 5–60 mph - 6.7 vs 8.1 sec
• Top gear, 30–50 mph - 3.5 vs 4.2 sec
• Top gear, 50–70 mph - 4.6 vs 5.3 sec
• Standing ¼-mile - 14.8 sec @ 95 mph vs 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
• Real world highway MPG - 30MPG vs 32 MPG

The CX-5 does SIGNIFICANTLY better on all of these performance metrics.

You are also wrong on the power to weight ratios...

• The torque/LB rating is 60% better for the Mazda, regardless of what fuel is used
• The HP/LB rating is 22% better for the Mazda using premium fuel
• The HP/LB rating is 10% better for the Mazda using regular unleaded

I looked at the space behind the rear seat and the Mazda was smaller than the CRv. Mazda 30.9 Crv 39.2. This is with stats up.

 

[Mike728]

I looked at the space behind the rear seat and the Mazda was smaller than the CRv. Mazda 30.9 Crv 39.2. This is with stats up.

I don't think anyone was debating this. The CR-V is definitely larger inside than the CX-5. I believe the CR-V is considered best in class in this category.

 

[bluegrass]

Can you show me the reference to this? I've not seen this documented before.

Mazda Turbo:
"we recorded a strong 30 mpg in our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test—3 mpg better than the EPA estimate—and averaged 22 mpg overall."
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25693266/2019-mazda-cx-5-turbo-by-the-numbers/

Honda:
"CR-V earned 32 mpg on our 200-mile highway fuel loop, which is one of the best results in its class."
https://www.caranddriver.com/honda/cr-v