Last post on Dec 06, 2013 at 3:22 PM
You are in the Mazda CX-5
What is this discussion about?
Mazda CX-5, SUV
#237 of 499 Re: Looks good drives slow [m6user]
May 18, 2012 (12:59 pm)
Well, not necessarily. I'm posting in this forum specifically because a month of so ago when I myself was trying to research for the best possible CUV option I wanted to hear real world advantages and disadvantages of all models regardless of what 'forum' I was in. I'm simply providing input in case another fellow comes along and is trying to gain input from someone else who has driven both vehicles and why he came to the conclusion he owns one instead of the other. I did like the CX5 and i'm not bashing it. However I do feel there is a lot of 'hype' over a vehicle that's average at best esp for it's price range($27k for a touring w sunroof). A lot of EPA estimates on fuel efficiency are also hyped. Take into account the Equinox/Terrain dilemma. Google terrain bad fuel or equinox bad fuel efficiency and you will in fact find hoards of forums and posts regarding the poor fuel efficiency of both vehicles.
Anyways I'm simply here to provide another end of the spectrum which is why this is called 'townhall' talk. As for the base weight, my apologies as you are correct about the closer to 3100 lbs.....
It's just weird a company touting 'zoom-zoom' producing a CUV vehicle that has a 0-60 time of 9.2 seconds. Do your research, buy what you like. I did.
#238 of 499 Re: Looks good drives slow [enginemedic21]
May 19, 2012 (9:35 am)
Thanks for the different point of view.
But I thought 'zoom-zoom' was more of a driving experience than speed.
By the way, how much did you pay for your CR-V on what trim?
I am almost sold to CX-5 but I am still open minded for CR-V.
The outer design of the CR-V is the only thing thats keeping me from buying it.
I love the CX-5 design.
#239 of 499 Re: Looks good drives slow
May 19, 2012 (9:46 am)
I test drove a CX-5 a couple of days ago, and was very impressed. As far as power goes, from 1982 to 1985 I drove a 52 hp Jetta, from 1985 to 1990 I drove a 68 hp Jetta. With both cars I was able to beat most people to the top of an entrance ramp, simply because most people are scared of that right pedal. I believe that hp is over rated. When I got in my 2009 Accord LX-P to drive home after the test drive I drove the test route, and was amazed at how noisy my Accord was. The CX-5 was very quiet. I believe when my current lease expires in a few months a CX-r will be my next car.
#240 of 499 Re: Looks good drives slow [enginemedic21]
May 19, 2012 (1:28 pm)
Depending on who evaluated the car, you will get different results. I believe there is a couple reviews out there that had the CX-5 faster than the CR-V. Not that anyone buys a car in this class for 0-60 or 1/4 mile times.
The CR-V and CX-5 are built to do similar tasks in a different way. Mazda has chosen the sport and fun way, while the CR-V is more about practicality. They are similar sizes, are as quick as each other and are similar in price. It really depends on what you value, but to make a point to say it is slow and that was a deciding factor is foolish if you buy a CR-V instead because it is not any faster. Basing that decision on utility or space or being a Honda loyalist are more valid reasons.
#241 of 499 Re: Looks good drives slow [aviboy97]
May 20, 2012 (10:26 am)
I drove the CX-5 and CR-V back to back, and while they both have their positive attributes, the CX-5 was a much more enjoyable driving experience for me. The CR-V felt heavier and wallowed/leaned much more than the CX-5 in turns. As for power, there wasn't really any discernible difference in my experience, but I'm a moderate driver, And the CX-5 felt much lighter on it's feet with better steering feel. I think that's what "zoom-zoom" is all about, not simply horsepower.
I also wanted satellite radio, which you can only get in the CRV if you order leather seats. Huh?
My teenage son went with me on the drives and his comment seemed apt: "They're both nice, but the CR-V is probably what mom would buy". And mom isn't into "fun to drive". To each his own.
#243 of 499 Re: Looks good drives slow [gearjammer62]
May 21, 2012 (8:48 pm)
A CR-V is basically known as a "chick/mom" car anyway. Based on my driving experiences most CR-Vs I pass are driven by women. Like you say, to each "her" own.....
BTW, I driven both and agree, the CX-5 is def more fun to drive than a CR-V....
#244 of 499 Re: Looks good drives slow [godeacs]
May 22, 2012 (12:34 pm)
I also drove both recently. One thing I really disliked about the CR-V was the necessity of spending $4,000 more for a power driver's seat, and the fact that it had one of those parking brake pedals rather than an emergency brake handle in the console.
#245 of 499 CX-5 after 8K miles
May 25, 2012 (11:40 am)
Real world mileage varied between 29.2 and 31.3 mpg per tankful in Maryland, including driving in Baltimore and DC (highway, country roads and traffic jam) and trips to NC and PA. Handling with GT and AWD is very good on winding country roads, wet or dry. Only negatives, neither the seats nor the sound system can compare with my 2003 Mazda 6. Oh, and one other. Some drive through car washes do not like the rear hatch wiper blade, so beware.
Acceleration from standing stop or slow on ramp is not a problem. Manual shift mode works well, and gives you the feeling of standard for spirited driving on curvy roads. Blind spot warning light on side mirrors (and audible warning if blinker goes on with traffic there) is a plus, although I have gotten false positives on winding roads.
In response to those considering the Honda, my also-rans included Subaru Outback, Hyundai Santa Fe, and Toyota Venza. The Mazda was more nimble than any of those, with sufficient utility and cargo capacity for most trips.
Would be happy to answer any questions based on my ownership experience.
#246 of 499 Re: CX-5 after 8K miles [tfm_iv]
May 25, 2012 (12:05 pm)
Pleased to hear your report. 8,000 miles already? You must drive a lot!!
My CX-5 is currently at the port in NJ and I should see it next week. My wife and I got the Touring AWD with tech & moon/bose. She will be the primary driver and does not prefer leather seats which is why we opted not to get the GT.
We are also replacing the 2005 Mazda6 we have enjoyed for the last 7 years. The leather has held up perfectly , although I thought the Bose sound could have been better. I like the audio interface in the CX-5 much better and I have found the sound quality to be better than that of the 6 as well.
In any event, glad to hear you are getting great fuel economy. I have been waiting to hear real-world results. I know the Skyactiv Mazda3's have been excellent, so I figured the CX-5 would hold it's own as well.
Keep us posted as to your ownership experience. Thanks!