Mazda CX-5 or Subaru Crosstrek, which is better ?

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: horse123
People act like AWD is completely pointless in warm climates. For one thing, I can spin the tires of any fwd vehicle I've ever driven which means it's not even true for the reasons you're thinking. Another thing, ask any subaru driver and they'll tell you it was no fun to drive a fwd rental car or their wife's altima because it corners completely differently with no power to the rear wheels. Inarguably worse.

Eh, only the mechanical or high performance versions of AWD really help handling "feel" on the street. Most of the Subaru's out there have a front slip then rear grip system which makes it pretty feel pretty much like fwd unless you are on a slippy surface.
My CRV handles pretty good for an SUV, but that's got nothing to do with the AWD on the street. I'm not lighting up the front inside tire at 40 mph in a corner to get the rears involved and I doubt many people do, plus all the nannies kick in before the AWD could help on pavement anyways.
Sure for autocross or on a track, almost any AWD system puts down power better than a open diff fwd car, but driving that hard on the street isn't a good long term plan.

 

[JTK]

The entire reason I traded my 2014 XV Crosstrek for the Forester was because of the horrible 5spd manual in the XV. Terrible clutch feel.

 

[surfstar]

Sportwagen

Look at the dimensions vs the CX5. Cargo capacity: 65.4 vs 66.5

2.0 vs 1.8T engine

Guess which will get MUCH better mpg at 75mpg? The one with more HP and torque, actually.

A TSI Sportwagen 5spd, can also be had for $2-3k less than a CX5, so if you're worried about reliability and maintenance costs, that should go a long ways. Cheaper tire replacements too.

Faster and more fun to drive. I can go up long grades in 5th gear, with a fully loaded car in the Sportwagen. That Mazda would be down to 4th, I'd bet.

I do like the CX5 in 6MT, as they get 34mpg hwy (on paper), but I found the Sportwagen to be better (and cheaper) overall. (I also get ~39mpg, loaded down, hwy trips at 75mph - doubt the Mazda can do that) If you prefer the CUV, I'd say get the Mazda. Seem like a great car, if a bit slow.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: horse123
This is what you get when you ask this question on a forum full of ford/Mazda lovers and hate Subaru's.


Fixed it for you....



THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[horse123]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: horse123
People act like AWD is completely pointless in warm climates. For one thing, I can spin the tires of any fwd vehicle I've ever driven which means it's not even true for the reasons you're thinking. Another thing, ask any subaru driver and they'll tell you it was no fun to drive a fwd rental car or their wife's altima because it corners completely differently with no power to the rear wheels. Inarguably worse.

Eh, only the mechanical or high performance versions of AWD really help handling "feel" on the street. Most of the Subaru's out there have a front slip then rear grip system which makes it pretty feel pretty much like fwd unless you are on a slippy surface.
My CRV handles pretty good for an SUV, but that's got nothing to do with the AWD on the street. I'm not lighting up the front inside tire at 40 mph in a corner to get the rears involved and I doubt many people do, plus all the nannies kick in before the AWD could help on pavement anyways.
Sure for autocross or on a track, almost any AWD system puts down power better than a open diff fwd car, but driving that hard on the street isn't a good long term plan.


Ha not at all. The heaviest split is the 2.0i/crosstrek and that's only 66% to the front when you're cruising on flat ground. It goes 50:50 on moderate acceleration without any slip, and can go even further on heavy acceleration.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: horse123
People act like AWD is completely pointless in warm climates. For one thing, I can spin the tires of any fwd vehicle I've ever driven which means it's not even true for the reasons you're thinking. Another thing, ask any subaru driver and they'll tell you it was no fun to drive a fwd rental car or their wife's altima because it corners completely differently with no power to the rear wheels. Inarguably worse.

Fun ? Rear wheel drive is more fun than AWD, especially the one that can slide around a corner.

I am strictly taking about fun, not ability to hang on the asphalt while making a hard turn.

 

[horse123]

There's only a few people in the world who desire for their car to lack traction, buddy.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: horse123
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
The Crosstrek is literally a lifted Impreza, with some stiffening and different body cladding. If it's cargo space you want, then you should be comparing a base Forester with a base CX-5. Do you need AWD in FL? If not, then I'd got with a base, FWD CX-5.


It's not a lifted impreza. There are LOTS of other changes. An important one is a bigger radiator for towing.

All I can say is my dad liked the CX5... then he drove the Crosstrek and there was no going back.


Is the drive-train any different? Is there any advantage in cargo capacity? Is the braking system different?

I'm asking, because I haven't looked into it in more than a couple of years, when I chose my Forester. Then, the practical differences between a Crosstrek and an Impreza for a DD consisted solely of an increased ride height.

 

[horse123]

I contemplated typing this because there was an uncalled-for rude tone to your post. But I prefer to fight ignorance more than not give the pleasure to a troll.

XV:
Standard 17 inch wheels with a much larger diameter than the wheels on the imp
Larger front sway bar
Stiffer springs/dampers
Shorter wheelbase
Body and suspension are stiffened overall
Larger brakes
Taller transmission ratio
Larger radiator
Larger fuel tank

 

[jigen]

I vote CX5 mainly because if you want a manual trans, I much prefer the one in the Mazda.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: horse123
People act like AWD is completely pointless in warm climates. For one thing, I can spin the tires of any fwd vehicle I've ever driven which means it's not even true for the reasons you're thinking. Another thing, ask any subaru driver and they'll tell you it was no fun to drive a fwd rental car or their wife's altima because it corners completely differently with no power to the rear wheels. Inarguably worse.

Fun ? Rear wheel drive is more fun than AWD, especially the one that can slide around a corner.

I am strictly taking about fun, not ability to hang on the asphalt while making a hard turn.


Have you actually driven an Awd sports car? Rwd and Awd both have great merits. my wife and I have an absolute with our 2005 legacy turbo (no traction controls manual Awd bliss with lsd) and advanced Awd Acura MDX with ability to kick power to single rear wheel. It's a blast on snow packed roads and gravel/mud roads leading to our ski house.

 

[JTK]

Pretty sure the OP said AWD doesn't matter anyway.

Just to add to my earlier comment, drive a 5spd XV if you can find one. I thought it was OK initially, but grew to absolutely hate it. I'd still have the vehicle had I gotten it with CVT. I wound up with a new Forester CVT because I felt it was more vehicle for basically the same money. It's nowhere near as cool looking as the XV, but I find it much more pleasant to drive. Better ride, more room and better MPGs than the 5spd XV.

 

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted By: horse123
People act like AWD is completely pointless in warm climates. For one thing, I can spin the tires of any fwd vehicle I've ever driven which means it's not even true for the reasons you're thinking. Another thing, ask any subaru driver and they'll tell you it was no fun to drive a fwd rental car or their wife's altima because it corners completely differently with no power to the rear wheels. Inarguably worse.


It never occurred to me that this would be the case when I purchased my Subie. But power to the rear wheels is for me now a game changer.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: SeaJay
It never occurred to me that this would be the case when I purchased my Subie. But power to the rear wheels is for me now a game changer.


But that is also the "problem"... Subaru is not really RWD-bias with one exception (WRX). Subaru directs power to the back wheels in a dozen different ways and even the same model could have 2-4 ways of sending it back. Non-turbo manuals are 50/50 (and suffer for a ding to their fuel economy) but automatics can be 90/10 bias towards the front depending on the gear. Then you have the WRX/Turbos that send it mostly to the back (35/65) but that is dependent on the transmission two.

Still, a Subaru is nowhere near being a RWD-style car. AWD is neutral. It still understeers more akin to a FWD but you can recover easier. But, you can't use the throttle to push the tail around. It is all point-and-drive. Going from RWD to AWD, it is no biggie but yeah, you notice the difference with FWD.

Then again, drive something with the engine in the middle and you will question why so many cars put it up front... until you need to transport something.

 

[Dave Hess]

I will test drive both next week.

Any other CUV should be on my test drive list ?

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: horse123
People act like AWD is completely pointless in warm climates. For one thing, I can spin the tires of any fwd vehicle I've ever driven which means it's not even true for the reasons you're thinking. Another thing, ask any subaru driver and they'll tell you it was no fun to drive a fwd rental car or their wife's altima because it corners completely differently with no power to the rear wheels. Inarguably worse.

Fun ? Rear wheel drive is more fun than AWD, especially the one that can slide around a corner.

I am strictly taking about fun, not ability to hang on the asphalt while making a hard turn.


Originally Posted By: madRiver
Have you actually driven an Awd sports car? Rwd and Awd both have great merits. my wife and I have an absolute with our 2005 legacy turbo (no traction controls manual Awd bliss with lsd) and advanced Awd Acura MDX with ability to kick power to single rear wheel. It's a blast on snow packed roads and gravel/mud roads leading to our ski house.

I said "RWD is more fun than AWD ... strictly taking about fun", not the merits of AWD vs RWD.

I am 100% sure AWD is more surefooted on slippery roads, but "fun" is another thing.

 

[badtlc]

Ford Escape if you don't have to have a stick. Otherwise, no.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: horse123
I contemplated typing this because there was an uncalled-for rude tone to your post. But I prefer to fight ignorance more than not give the pleasure to a troll.

XV:
Standard 17 inch wheels with a much larger diameter than the wheels on the imp
Larger front sway bar
Stiffer springs/dampers
Shorter wheelbase
Body and suspension are stiffened overall
Larger brakes
Taller transmission ratio
Larger radiator
Larger fuel tank



You misread my tone. I'm a big Subaru fanboi, but I mentioned pretty clearly that I wasn't sure what exactly the practical differences are, because I haven't had cause recently to check. I asked, because you seemed knowledgeable and could provide a better, more specific answer that might help out the OP, based on what he might need it for. In other words, if he wants a DD for cargo capacity, the Impreza and Crosstrek are nearly identical. If he wants a certain level of acceleration performance or durability in the drivetrain, the two are again nearly identical (except for the items, such as the radiator, that you corrected me on.)

If the OP wants a smaller vehicle, but with increased ride height, and/or wants to take it gently offroad or two something small, then the Crosstrek makes more sense, right?

In context, the OP is looking at this vehicle and it wasn't clear what benefit the Crosstrek provides over the Impreza for a DD, except increased ride height. Cargo capacity is the same (slightly smaller, because of the beefier suspension right?)

Just for giggles I looked up braking distances from 60 MPH on CR

Crosstrek:

Dry: 131'
Wet: 135'

Impreza (sedan - wagon is shorter):

Dry: 129'
Wet: 143'

I didn't see what the base tires were, but it would be interesting to see whether they're the same (I believe the Crosstrek has the same Geolanders as my Forester, stock.)

 

[surfstar]

HRV

more cargo and better mpg vs crosstrek

6sp manual (if they actually exist?)

 

[HTSS_TR]

I don't know anything about Subaru Crosstrek but Honda HRV is very small.