I've narrowed my search down to these two. Both are nice, and both have their drawbacks. My wife and I drove a 2016 CR-V yesterday. It had the 2.4 liter engine and it was a dog. 0-60 seemed like it took about 30 minutes. We don't need Dodge SRT acceleration, but come on, the thing at least needs to be able to get out of it's own way. I haven't driven the 1.5 turbo yet, it's supposed to have a little more power, but I typically don't like tiny engines with turbos. They have to work harder than larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines. Another problem with the CR-V is availability. CR-Vs in the EX trim level are almost nonexistent. There are tons of LX models, and EX-L models, but the LX lacks options we want, and the EX-L has leather seats (which we hate), and is way too expensive. We haven't driven a CX-5 yet, but they look very nice inside and out. I'm hoping it's 2.5 liter engine makes it accelerate better than the CR-V. My complaint with the CX-5 so far is every single one I've found for sale has a black interior. We hate black interior because they're so hot in the summer time. Didn't Mazda make any of these with lighter colored interiors?
Honda CR-V or Mazda CX-5?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
Drive them both. See what you like.
I've driven both. The Honda is an appliance. The Mazda is fun.
I've driven both. The Honda is an appliance. The Mazda is fun.
Originally Posted by grampi
I've narrowed my search down to these two. Both are nice, and both have their drawbacks. My wife and I drove a 2016 CR-V yesterday. It had the 2.4 liter engine and it was a dog. 0-60 seemed like it took about 30 minutes. We don't need Dodge SRT acceleration, but come on, the thing at least needs to be able to get out of it's own way. I haven't driven the 1.5 turbo yet, it's supposed to have a little more power, but I typically don't like tiny engines with turbos. They have to work harder than larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines. Another problem with the CR-V is availability. CR-Vs in the EX trim level are almost nonexistent. There are tons of LX models, and EX-L models, but the LX lacks options we want, and the EX-L has leather seats (which we hate), and is way too expensive. We haven't driven a CX-5 yet, but they look very nice inside and out. I'm hoping it's 2.5 liter engine makes it accelerate better than the CR-V. My complaint with the CX-5 so far is every single one I've found for sale has a black interior. We hate black interior because they're so hot in the summer time. Didn't Mazda make any of these with lighter colored interiors?
They offered a parchment color leather, although pretty much everything else outside of the seat upholstery is still going to be black.
I've narrowed my search down to these two. Both are nice, and both have their drawbacks. My wife and I drove a 2016 CR-V yesterday. It had the 2.4 liter engine and it was a dog. 0-60 seemed like it took about 30 minutes. We don't need Dodge SRT acceleration, but come on, the thing at least needs to be able to get out of it's own way. I haven't driven the 1.5 turbo yet, it's supposed to have a little more power, but I typically don't like tiny engines with turbos. They have to work harder than larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines. Another problem with the CR-V is availability. CR-Vs in the EX trim level are almost nonexistent. There are tons of LX models, and EX-L models, but the LX lacks options we want, and the EX-L has leather seats (which we hate), and is way too expensive. We haven't driven a CX-5 yet, but they look very nice inside and out. I'm hoping it's 2.5 liter engine makes it accelerate better than the CR-V. My complaint with the CX-5 so far is every single one I've found for sale has a black interior. We hate black interior because they're so hot in the summer time. Didn't Mazda make any of these with lighter colored interiors?
They offered a parchment color leather, although pretty much everything else outside of the seat upholstery is still going to be black.
Out of those two I'd go with the CX-5 all day. My sister has had two over the last 5 years and both have been 100% trouble free. First one she got t-boned in by someone running a red light and it did great.
They are pretty zippy with the 2.5 ( make sure you get the 2.5 and not the 2.slow) , easy to maintain and ride pretty nice. I don't think you can go wrong getting one. They do have a sand colored interior.
I've owned 4 Honda's and found the newer ones to be nothing special. They had the same if not more go wrong than the other makes I have owned. Not worth the premium price to me. The newer ones are just plain ***** too.
I currently have a 2015 Toyota Rav4 in my fleet. It's not high mileage yet, just crossed 80K but all it's needed is routine maintenance, two sets of tires and front brake pads. Been a pleasure to own so far. It's no speed demon but will get up and go if you ask it to in the higher rev's. Rides nice, we've taken it on many long trips. Maybe worth checking them out in addition to what you are looking at. So far from what i'm seeing, Toyota is worth the extra $$.
They are pretty zippy with the 2.5 ( make sure you get the 2.5 and not the 2.slow) , easy to maintain and ride pretty nice. I don't think you can go wrong getting one. They do have a sand colored interior.
I've owned 4 Honda's and found the newer ones to be nothing special. They had the same if not more go wrong than the other makes I have owned. Not worth the premium price to me. The newer ones are just plain ***** too.
I currently have a 2015 Toyota Rav4 in my fleet. It's not high mileage yet, just crossed 80K but all it's needed is routine maintenance, two sets of tires and front brake pads. Been a pleasure to own so far. It's no speed demon but will get up and go if you ask it to in the higher rev's. Rides nice, we've taken it on many long trips. Maybe worth checking them out in addition to what you are looking at. So far from what i'm seeing, Toyota is worth the extra $$.
Last edited:
I have not liked the CX-5. Rode it my BILS and it was horrid.
Found the Mazda Ive owned to be troublesome and quirkier than many Japanese. over the years.
IDK what the commotion is about.
So, Neither, Look at Domestics or the Subaru.
Most Guys and gals at work like the Chevy Equinox with the Big engine.
How about an off lease X3 Bimmer or MB GLK instead of a Bagel Toaster on wheels
Found the Mazda Ive owned to be troublesome and quirkier than many Japanese. over the years.
IDK what the commotion is about.
So, Neither, Look at Domestics or the Subaru.
Most Guys and gals at work like the Chevy Equinox with the Big engine.
How about an off lease X3 Bimmer or MB GLK instead of a Bagel Toaster on wheels
We looked at both, but the CR-V was cvt. Liked the Rav 4 but the ride quality, and back seat comfort was better in the Mazda, we went Mazda.
Something to ponder, the Mazda CX-5 had a substantial update for 2017. Nicer interior, much quieter and a update on the chassis to make it stiffer among other things. If you get a chance to compare a 16 and a 17 or later model year, you will notice the changes.
Mazda CX 5, more fun to drive has no CVT if you go for it do not get the trim that gives you cylinder deactivation, I think it come standard on the highest trim, but not on the intermediate & lower trims
Last edited:
Mazda CX-5 (brother & SIL's) gets high points. Two Mazda3's and a CX-3 in the family get high points too.
Look at everything I suppose.
There are 3 types of "stop-start" technology I've read.
1 just employs the starter
1 has an alternator which is reversed thus creating a motor
I read Mazda has a sophisticated single spark system which uses engine location and precise single cylinder firing to kick a warm engine over.
Is this available now or is it an upcoming feature.......meaning you might consider waiting to purchase.
Look at everything I suppose.
There are 3 types of "stop-start" technology I've read.
1 just employs the starter
1 has an alternator which is reversed thus creating a motor
I read Mazda has a sophisticated single spark system which uses engine location and precise single cylinder firing to kick a warm engine over.
Is this available now or is it an upcoming feature.......meaning you might consider waiting to purchase.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
I haven't been around a CX-5, but I'd probably lean more towards that than a CRV. My grandma had an 11' CRV that we bought used in 2016, it was crazy slow too. Off the line it was ok but try to pass on the freeway? Think again. Climb a mountain? Forget about it.
My mom has been shopping for new compact suvs too. She is in between the Mazda CX-5 and the RAV4.
Have you considered the 2020 RAV4?
If you want the acceleration, go for the hybrid.
Love our 2019 Limited Hybrid.
"Alex on Autos" YouTube has a long-term RAV4 Hybrid. Quite a few good recent videos on the RAV4.
If you want the acceleration, go for the hybrid.
Love our 2019 Limited Hybrid.
"Alex on Autos" YouTube has a long-term RAV4 Hybrid. Quite a few good recent videos on the RAV4.
I guess, Ill be the only one playing the devil's advocate in here
The CR-V gets job done;
Pros; gas milage - in subirban driving reguraly at 26mpgs, space, functionality, residual value; In addition we like its seats that comes right from 2008-2012 Accords, Acura TSX 2009-2014 or a MDX same age, meaning they're very supportive yet comfortable. 0-60 mph CRV gets in 9 sec that is comparable to the rest of the segment. I like its leather better then to me in new Accord, very soft; IMO its targeted to female/moms demographics, its not to be a drivers car like CX-5; Also, If one would consider CX-5 then he just may get a sedan due to sedan nicer driving characteristics overall; In our case, we did replace anything due to broken parts, so its low operation cost in a long run is highly attractive too.
Cons: certainly its steering feel so vague, and whining CVT
On the other hand as much as like the Mazda products, I think CX-5 is too small in comparison to its segment and its seats, especially the bottom cushion i found it very short, meaning does not extend long enough toward the occupants' knees that could be an issue during long trips for some people
The CR-V gets job done;
Pros; gas milage - in subirban driving reguraly at 26mpgs, space, functionality, residual value; In addition we like its seats that comes right from 2008-2012 Accords, Acura TSX 2009-2014 or a MDX same age, meaning they're very supportive yet comfortable. 0-60 mph CRV gets in 9 sec that is comparable to the rest of the segment. I like its leather better then to me in new Accord, very soft; IMO its targeted to female/moms demographics, its not to be a drivers car like CX-5; Also, If one would consider CX-5 then he just may get a sedan due to sedan nicer driving characteristics overall; In our case, we did replace anything due to broken parts, so its low operation cost in a long run is highly attractive too.
Cons: certainly its steering feel so vague, and whining CVT
On the other hand as much as like the Mazda products, I think CX-5 is too small in comparison to its segment and its seats, especially the bottom cushion i found it very short, meaning does not extend long enough toward the occupants' knees that could be an issue during long trips for some people
Last edited:
Go with the CR-V. The 2.4 is about as bulletproof as an engine gets. The 1.5 is also a nice engine which Honda tests to the exact same durability standards as its non-turbo engines. Yes, early in the run they had issues with fuel dilution in very cold weather. It seems to be a dog whistle around here but consequences from it are elusive and Honda has addressed it on newer vehicles. When it comes to a trans. no one does a better CVT than Honda and they have proven to be extremely reliable. You'll also find that the CR-V has a bigger and more flexible cargo area.
I own a 2011 CR-V now, but I would go with the CX5 if I were to buy a new CUV today. Not that the CR-V has been a bad vehicle, but I would not purchase one now that they have dropped the K24 and all of them now have the turbocharged DI 1.5L. Also, I am not a fan of CVT automatics in SUVs/CUVs. Honda has not had the CVT in service long enough to judge it's long-term durability, and Honda has a long history of recurring problems with some automatic transmissions going all the way back to the Hondamatics in the 1970s.
If you want the CR-V to be peppy on acceleration like pulling out onto a highway, drop it down into S (sport mode) before you accelerate and the CVT will then keep at a lower ratio that gets the engine to rev faster and the vehicle will accelerate faster. L mode is even a lower ratio than S but I do not know if it would be so low that it would limit the high end speed.
On my way home each day, there is a long fairly steep windy hill that I go up and if I drop it into S before getting on that hill the engine revs about a thousand RPMs faster on the way up that hill and the vehicle has noticeably more get up and go. While that hill does not have the high speeds of a highway, from what I read S is for when you are going to want more acceleration from the vehicle like pulling out onto a highway. Of course in S it gets a little less MPGs, but you can put it back in D once you get going on the highway.
The transmission control of the CR-V is supposed to be smart enough to sense that you are on a hill and take that into account when selecting what ratio to use, but it is even peppier in S.
L is even a lower ratio and the engine will rev even faster. I used L to go up the long steep hill once and decided that the vehicle is fast enough in S and do not use L to go up that long hill anymore.
There is one extremely steep hill that I do not go up often, but when I do I put it in L before getting on that hill.
S, and L are also for getting the CVT to provide some engine braking for slowing down, though if you really want a CR-V to provide engine braking you should turn off eco and use S for some engine braking and L for even more.
On my way home each day, there is a long fairly steep windy hill that I go up and if I drop it into S before getting on that hill the engine revs about a thousand RPMs faster on the way up that hill and the vehicle has noticeably more get up and go. While that hill does not have the high speeds of a highway, from what I read S is for when you are going to want more acceleration from the vehicle like pulling out onto a highway. Of course in S it gets a little less MPGs, but you can put it back in D once you get going on the highway.
The transmission control of the CR-V is supposed to be smart enough to sense that you are on a hill and take that into account when selecting what ratio to use, but it is even peppier in S.
L is even a lower ratio and the engine will rev even faster. I used L to go up the long steep hill once and decided that the vehicle is fast enough in S and do not use L to go up that long hill anymore.
There is one extremely steep hill that I do not go up often, but when I do I put it in L before getting on that hill.
S, and L are also for getting the CVT to provide some engine braking for slowing down, though if you really want a CR-V to provide engine braking you should turn off eco and use S for some engine braking and L for even more.
