Kawasaki Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am a big fan of Consumer Reports because they have non-profit experts with funding from magazine subscriptions and they do not accept any advertising money, so hopefully they stay completely independent.

The problem with this is that there is very little free info from them online. I go to the library to read their newest magazines.

After a lot of research I recently bought one of the used cars they recommend, from Carmax with only 10,000 miles for it and with a window sticker showing the oil was changed at 5,000 miles. The car came from the factory with synthetic oil, so even if the window sticker was fake it is probably not a big problem. Carmax gives you a grace period after buying the car, and they have fewer add-ons after the sale compared to most dealers. (Always get the out-the-door price and the insurance price).

The list below is old enough now so that it is free:
-
-
Best Used Cars for $25,000 and Less - Consumer Reports
-
-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
My 2015 Mazda CX-5 used to be on this list, until they updated it to 30 vehicles and raised the used price to $30,000 or less. They switched the old list for the new list at the same web location.

The CX-5 is considered the most reliable Mazda by Consumer Reports, with the CX-3 the least reliable. I test drove a new CX-3 and liked it, even though it was noisier and rougher riding, and had a smaller back seat for its lower price new and higher gas mileage compared to the CX-5.

We drove my 2015 CX-5 for a 7 hour trip one way to visit the University of Virginia and Monticello (Thomas Jefferson's home) recently, with 4 adults and one 17-year-old (looking at colleges for after high school), and it was probably a lot more comfortable than the CX-3 would have been (but the CX-5 uses more fuel and has a higher price new or similar used).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
For new small SUVs, Motor Trend has a recent comparison for the 2017 Mazda CX-5 and the 2017 Honda CR-V:
-
-
“The 2017 Honda CR-V corners shockingly flat, giving it a planted and confident feeling rather than the top-heavy floatiness we generally expect from crossovers and SUVs. Body control is excellent, allowing smooth and purposeful weight transfers and implying a subterranean center of gravity despite the CR-V having more ground clearance than the CX-5.

The 2017 Mazda CX-5, by contrast, is more of a wild child. As with other Mazdas, the rear end feels slightly loose, as if it wants to rotate just slightly and point you into corners. The Mazda’s steering feel is heavier, and the Honda’s feels more naturally weighted.

The CR-V damping provides an impressively smooth ride and minimal head toss. Large bumps and potholes are deftly dispatched and barely felt or heard in the cabin. The CX-5 isn’t far behind, but its sportier handling comes with a stiffer ride, so you feel the bumps more.

I preferred the Honda’s unflappable stability, but features editor Christian Seabaugh liked the CX-5’s playfulness. Regardless, if you thought trading in for a crossover meant you’d never experience the joy of driving again, you’re wrong.

One thing anyone can agree on is the importance of good brakes. And here Honda nails it. The Mazda’s brakes are plenty strong, but they lack the initial bite, and you have to press the pedal farther before they feel like they’re really digging in.

Both engines make roughly the same power and torque, but they do so in very different ways. The Mazda’s naturally aspirated 2.5-liter four-cylinder feels much more responsive than the Honda’s 1.5-liter turbo-four. We definitely preferred the Mazda’s sharply exponential power delivery that seems to pick up velocity as you go faster, building all the way to its high-rpm peak torque and horsepower, compared to the Honda’s low-down grunt and steady, locomotive accelerative force.

The Mazda’s six-speed automatic is an excellent gearbox, shifting smoothly and quickly and never hesitating to downshift and get you more power. In fact, it’s nearly impossible to not get a downshift when accelerating from a steady pace. “The CX-5 is not quick, but I’m never left wanting for more,” Seabaugh said. “Credit to the transmission—it shifts with speed and purpose. It’s happy to hold a gear, too. In Sport mode the transmission even rev-matches downshifts while braking into corners. It’s really a sporty car."

“Honda’s CVT is one of the best in the business,” he continued. “It’s responsive, but it isn’t tuned to be super jerky off the line, and it surges through the rev range, imitating gears every once in a while when prudent. I kept it in D most of the time; S didn’t seem to do much except keep the revs slightly higher. L was actually a better Sport mode than S.” I agree—the Honda’s transmission was slower to change ratios but did so with a smoothness that took any bite out of the engine.

On the test track, the seemingly less aggressive CR-V hit 60 mph nearly a second quicker than the sporty CX-5, needing just 7.5 seconds to the Mazda’s 8.4, though the advantage narrowed to 0.6 second by the end of a quarter mile. Although both vehicles pulled the same 0.81 average g on the skidpad, the nearly 200-pound-lighter Honda maintained its speed advantage with a 27.9-second figure-eight lap at 0.60 average g. The Mazda—hampered by its aggressive stability control, which couldn’t be deactivated—needed 28.5 seconds at 0.58 average g. More predictably, the lighter Honda stopped 10 feet shorter, in just 116 feet.

It’s a similar story in efficiency. The CR-V has a superior EPA rating of 27/33/29 mpg city/highway/combined, though it fell short of that in our Real MPG testing with a result of 21.9/34.2/26.1. The CX-5, on the other hand, receives an EPA rating of 23/29/26 mpg city/highway/combined and also disappointed with 18.4/29.9/22.3 in Real MPG testing.

The CR-V offers an additional 8.3 cubic feet of cargo space over the CX-5 with the seats up, thanks in part to its boxier design versus the Mazda’s sexier sloping roof. The CX-5 gets bonus points for its 40/20/40 split and the ability to drop each segment separately from the cargo area.

Despite giving up 1.5 inches in wheelbase, the CR-V offers considerably more rear-seat space than the CX-5. If you compare cargo volumes behind the first row, you’ll see the Honda offers an extra 16.2 cubic feet, and as noted before, only half of that advantage comes from the cargo area. Or as the 6-foot-1 Seabaugh put it: “Damn near luxury-car levels of room when sitting behind myself.” On the Mazda, he said: “The back seat is a bit tight when sitting behind my driver’s seat. Despite the scallop in the back of the driver’s seat, my knees are up against it.”

Mazda has done an admirable job of building a modern-luxe interior. The materials feel much richer. Honda has gone with something of a starfighter design theme. We prefer the Mazda’s black and white two-tone scheme over the Honda’s medium gray and light gray, and the Mazda’s materials feel much richer and more expensive (though neither car’s “wood” trim is in any way convincing). “The Mazda makes the Honda look down-market,” Seabaugh said. “That’s not a slam on the Honda. It’s just an example of how much Mazda has raised the game.”

As for where the rump meets the road, the Honda’s front seats are more comfortable and supportive, and the Mazda’s are flat and lack sufficient lumbar support. Then again, the Mazda was nearly silent inside, save some engine noise; the Honda suffered some wind noise and a lot of tire noise, especially on poor pavement.

As so often happens in these sorts of comparison tests, it ultimately came down to a fight between the head and the heart. Frankly, we hate recommending the car we wouldn’t spend our own money on, but we know the priorities of enthusiasts tend to be different than most people who buy crossovers. We get it—we’re outliers.

This time, though, we don’t necessarily have to couch it that way. Yes, the Mazda CX-5 is prettier, more luxurious, and a little more fun to drive, but the Honda CR-V is just damn good. If you want to be coldly rational, the CR-V has more space, gets better fuel economy, has more-advanced technology, and is cheaper to own. It’s also very good to drive.

In the past, we lead-footed sports car lovers might have excused the Mazda’s deficiencies in exchange for its lusty driving experience. But this time, we have no hesitation in recommending the CR-V to enthusiasts as well as our automotively apathetic friends and family. It’s a narrow margin of victory, but whether your other car is a Camaro or a Corolla, if you want a compact crossover, you’ll be slightly better served by the new Honda CR-V."
-
-
From:
-
2017 Honda CR-V vs. 2017 Mazda CX-5 Comparison
-
-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I find going to the forums of the car you are interested in very helpful. There you can see all of the common problems members are having with their vehicles and get a feel for what they think of the car.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top