Originally Posted By: badtlc
CRV = CX-5
HRV = CX-3
You're right. My error.
CRV = CX-5
HRV = CX-3
You're right. My error.
Your thoughts on the new 2016 mazda cx5
- Thread starter moparguy19
- Start date
- Status
My 2014 CX-5 hit the 35k mile mark today (time for another oil change).
It's helped us move, by towing large U-Haul trailers that were fairly well stuffed, towed a small 'dozer to push a large load of mulch into the backyard, did a cross country drive to Kansas and Missouri the other year, and lots and lots of commuting.
So far, nothing on it has failed, though it has a few slight squeaks in cold weather that I notice every now and again. Center console area, and I believe is covered under a TSB if I really wanted to push it, but I don't.
Absolutely fantastic vehicle.
The newer ones are even better than mine.
They redesigned the side mirrors, which are less noisy at highway speeds.
The interior has had a couple changes, which I believe fully eliminated the squeaks that mine have.
I recommend anything in the Mazda lineup.
BC.
It's helped us move, by towing large U-Haul trailers that were fairly well stuffed, towed a small 'dozer to push a large load of mulch into the backyard, did a cross country drive to Kansas and Missouri the other year, and lots and lots of commuting.
So far, nothing on it has failed, though it has a few slight squeaks in cold weather that I notice every now and again. Center console area, and I believe is covered under a TSB if I really wanted to push it, but I don't.
Absolutely fantastic vehicle.
The newer ones are even better than mine.
They redesigned the side mirrors, which are less noisy at highway speeds.
The interior has had a couple changes, which I believe fully eliminated the squeaks that mine have.
I recommend anything in the Mazda lineup.
BC.
You will take a bath selling/trading the Dart.
The only negative on CX-5 vs something like CRV is that resale is not quite as strong if you repeat the short ownership periods often and buy brand new.
CX-5 is quite nice and excellent vehicle.
The only negative on CX-5 vs something like CRV is that resale is not quite as strong if you repeat the short ownership periods often and buy brand new.
CX-5 is quite nice and excellent vehicle.
I'm glad to hear mostly positive opinions about mazda. I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet but this is making my trigger finger itchy
The CX-5 was near the top of my list of candidates when shopping for my last car. I really liked the vehicle. It handled nicely and looked fentastic. My only quibble was the 2.5 liter engine, which I thought a little underpowered. That's why I ended up getting the GLA AMG. If size had been a concern, I would have gone with the CX-5, because at least the trunk is much roomier than the GLA's. I actually guess the GLA is more comparable in size to the CX-3 than to the CX-5.
GLA isn't really direct competition of the CX-5, but I'm sure if you send an email to Mazda USA and tell them why you chose it over the CX-5, they would enjoy the feedback.
Compared to all of it's true competitors, with similar sized naturally aspirited engines, it's more powerful, and provides better fuel mileage.
BC.
Compared to all of it's true competitors, with similar sized naturally aspirited engines, it's more powerful, and provides better fuel mileage.
BC.
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Compared to all of it's true competitors, with similar sized naturally aspirited engines, it's more powerful, and provides better fuel mileage.
Honda CR-V beats the CX-5 on both (though power is a wash, with just 1 hp difference). Mazda's 2.5L engine generates 184 hp and gets 26/33 FWD and 24/30 AWD. The Honda CR-V's 2.4L engine generates 185 hp and gets 27/34 FWD and 26/33 AWD. The AWD CR-V achieves the same fuel economy as the FWD CX-5.
Compared to all of it's true competitors, with similar sized naturally aspirited engines, it's more powerful, and provides better fuel mileage.
Honda CR-V beats the CX-5 on both (though power is a wash, with just 1 hp difference). Mazda's 2.5L engine generates 184 hp and gets 26/33 FWD and 24/30 AWD. The Honda CR-V's 2.4L engine generates 185 hp and gets 27/34 FWD and 26/33 AWD. The AWD CR-V achieves the same fuel economy as the FWD CX-5.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
the CX-5 is rated up to 35 MPG. you conveniently ignored that.
I didn't ignore it; that's with the smaller 2.0L engine. Read the claim to which I responded again...the claim was that with like-sized naturally-aspirated engines, the CX-5 beats its competitors for fuel economy, and it's not true in all cases. The 2.5L CX-5 does not beat its like-sized competitor, the 2.4L CR-V, in power or economy.
the CX-5 is rated up to 35 MPG. you conveniently ignored that.
I didn't ignore it; that's with the smaller 2.0L engine. Read the claim to which I responded again...the claim was that with like-sized naturally-aspirated engines, the CX-5 beats its competitors for fuel economy, and it's not true in all cases. The 2.5L CX-5 does not beat its like-sized competitor, the 2.4L CR-V, in power or economy.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: badtlc
the CX-5 is rated up to 35 MPG. you conveniently ignored that.
I didn't ignore it; that's with the smaller 2.0L engine. Read the claim to which I responded again...the claim was that with like-sized naturally-aspirated engines, the CX-5 beats its competitors for fuel economy, and it's not true in all cases. The 2.5L CX-5 does not beat its like-sized competitor, the 2.4L CR-V, in power or economy.
You know full well you cherry picked. You also forgot to mention it only took Honda 3 years to catch up to Mazda.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
the CX-5 is rated up to 35 MPG. you conveniently ignored that.
I didn't ignore it; that's with the smaller 2.0L engine. Read the claim to which I responded again...the claim was that with like-sized naturally-aspirated engines, the CX-5 beats its competitors for fuel economy, and it's not true in all cases. The 2.5L CX-5 does not beat its like-sized competitor, the 2.4L CR-V, in power or economy.
You know full well you cherry picked. You also forgot to mention it only took Honda 3 years to catch up to Mazda.
Last edited:
I suggest reading, again, the original claim made and my response to it. If you find that the information that I provided was false, given the context of the claim (like-sized engines, etc), then I'll be appreciative of your correction.
Well if 1 hp is a "wash", then 1 mpg should be as well
Don't worry, the next gen CX5 will leapfrog ahead again in mpg numbers. (diesel would be awesome) Nice that Honda finally caught up, though. I was tempted by a 35mpg CX5 6spd manual. It would be similar size and slowness of my current Vue. But drive nicer and cost a lot more. Realized I didn't need a newer version of the same vehicle to save at most 20% mpg. Once they get a CUV up near 40mpg - it will get the economy of my Civic HX and haul weekend gear like my Vue and then I'll upgrade.
Don't worry, the next gen CX5 will leapfrog ahead again in mpg numbers. (diesel would be awesome) Nice that Honda finally caught up, though. I was tempted by a 35mpg CX5 6spd manual. It would be similar size and slowness of my current Vue. But drive nicer and cost a lot more. Realized I didn't need a newer version of the same vehicle to save at most 20% mpg. Once they get a CUV up near 40mpg - it will get the economy of my Civic HX and haul weekend gear like my Vue and then I'll upgrade.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Well if 1 hp is a "wash", then 1 mpg should be as well
.
Perhaps...point was, the CX-5 is a great small SUV, but others are competitive as well. That market has received so much attention over the last decade, it's hard to go wrong buying any one of them.
Well if 1 hp is a "wash", then 1 mpg should be as well
.
Perhaps...point was, the CX-5 is a great small SUV, but others are competitive as well. That market has received so much attention over the last decade, it's hard to go wrong buying any one of them.
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
GLA isn't really direct competition of the CX-5, but I'm sure if you send an email to Mazda USA and tell them why you chose it over the CX-5, they would enjoy the feedback.
Compared to all of it's true competitors, with similar sized naturally aspirited engines, it's more powerful, and provides better fuel mileage.
BC.
I know what you mean, but the CX-5 and the GLA were certainly competitors in my book when searching for a crossover. More power won out over bigger size and better fuel economy. Had there been a CX-5 turbo diesel, it would have been my choice.
GLA isn't really direct competition of the CX-5, but I'm sure if you send an email to Mazda USA and tell them why you chose it over the CX-5, they would enjoy the feedback.
Compared to all of it's true competitors, with similar sized naturally aspirited engines, it's more powerful, and provides better fuel mileage.
BC.
I know what you mean, but the CX-5 and the GLA were certainly competitors in my book when searching for a crossover. More power won out over bigger size and better fuel economy. Had there been a CX-5 turbo diesel, it would have been my choice.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: badtlc
the CX-5 is rated up to 35 MPG. you conveniently ignored that.
I didn't ignore it; that's with the smaller 2.0L engine. Read the claim to which I responded again...the claim was that with like-sized naturally-aspirated engines, the CX-5 beats its competitors for fuel economy, and it's not true in all cases. The 2.5L CX-5 does not beat its like-sized competitor, the 2.4L CR-V, in power or economy.
You know full well you cherry picked. You also forgot to mention it only took Honda 3 years to catch up to Mazda.
Jason is right.
You should compare apple with apple, likewise engine with likewise engine, EPA rated MPG with EPA rated MPG.
In this case Honda CRV engine is actually much better than Mazda engine, CRV 2.4L engine generates 185HP equals 77.1HP/L while CX5 2.5L engine generates 184HP equals 73.6HP/L for almost 5% more efficient.
Engine efficient(power density) and reliability is Honda force, especially for normally aspirated reciprocal engine.
Mazda, Toyota, Subaru ... can't compete with Honda in term of horse power for a given displacement.
Honda had 120HP/L normally aspirated engine with 9,000 RPM redline in the S2000 15 years ago. Any mass produced engine from any Japanese company came close today, 15 years later ? The best was Subaru/Toyota 2L engine with 100HP/L in BRZ/FR-S more 10 years later.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: badtlc
the CX-5 is rated up to 35 MPG. you conveniently ignored that.
I didn't ignore it; that's with the smaller 2.0L engine. Read the claim to which I responded again...the claim was that with like-sized naturally-aspirated engines, the CX-5 beats its competitors for fuel economy, and it's not true in all cases. The 2.5L CX-5 does not beat its like-sized competitor, the 2.4L CR-V, in power or economy.
You know full well you cherry picked. You also forgot to mention it only took Honda 3 years to catch up to Mazda.
Jason is right.
You should compare apple with apple, likewise engine with likewise engine, EPA rated MPG with EPA rated MPG.
In this case Honda CRV engine is actually much better than Mazda engine, CRV 2.4L engine generates 185HP equals 77.1HP/L while CX5 2.5L engine generates 184HP equals 73.6HP/L for almost 5% more efficient.
Engine efficient(power density) and reliability is Honda force, especially for normally aspirated reciprocal engine.
Mazda, Toyota, Subaru ... can't compete with Honda in term of horse power for a given displacement.
Honda had 120HP/L normally aspirated engine with 9,000 RPM redline in the S2000 15 years ago. Any mass produced engine from any Japanese company came close today, 15 years later ? The best was Subaru/Toyota 2L engine with 100HP/L in BRZ/FR-S more 10 years later.
(Note, you have to get a manual transmission CX-5 in the 2.0L weaker size to get the 35 mpg EPA hiway rating.) Didn't the Flintstones use manuals? Is this not 2015 & r we not civilized? Automatic!!!
With power and fuel economy about the same in a CRV vs. CX-5, thats really a tie:
Notice the price tags though!!! Mazda wins, and probably handles better, so its Mazda please.
With power and fuel economy about the same in a CRV vs. CX-5, thats really a tie:
Notice the price tags though!!! Mazda wins, and probably handles better, so its Mazda please.
Last edited:
Ooh, ooh, how about 183 hp/L from a NA rotary?
Not to mention a lovely 6 spd auto in the CX5 vs a CVT in the CRV...
Not to mention a lovely 6 spd auto in the CX5 vs a CVT in the CRV...
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Ooh, ooh, how about 183 hp/L from a NA rotary?
I clearly posted "normally aspirated reciprocal engine", not Rotary engine.
Rotary engines are known to consume a lot of oil and are not as reliable as piston engines.
If Rotary engines are so good why don't Mazda have it in all their vehicles ? At least in MX-5 Miata.
Again, compare apple with apple is valid, apple with orange is not.
Ooh, ooh, how about 183 hp/L from a NA rotary?
I clearly posted "normally aspirated reciprocal engine", not Rotary engine.
Rotary engines are known to consume a lot of oil and are not as reliable as piston engines.
If Rotary engines are so good why don't Mazda have it in all their vehicles ? At least in MX-5 Miata.
Again, compare apple with apple is valid, apple with orange is not.
- Status
