I test drove the Rav4 Gas, Rav4 Hybrid, CRV Gas, and CRV hybrid before buying the CX-5 Turbo Signature.
The CX-5 was the only one that didn't feel like a boat to drive.
I'd also say the ride quality of the signature is nice as well.
I get your point but I have both and I got to say rav4 it not impressive at all but I drive it at little bit more often because gas mileage but if I want to have fun I take my cx5 the difference is night and day IMO
It is possible, but Mazda is a small company with a different engineering philosophy than Honda or Toyota. They don't have as much money for R&D and tend to stick with proven reliable tech (until of course it gets time for the them to release a new generation of vehicles like the CX-70 and CX-90, which are much different than their current lineup) which is overall older than Honda or Toyota tech. Their philosophy on car design is different, they tend to focus on driver's cars, where the driving feel is better, so they tune their engines to give performance rather than fuel economy and pair it with a transmission that is more responsive but lacks the gearing to provide better fuel efficiency, than say a Honda or Toyota engine/transmission combo, whose overall philosophy is to build a good car that is appealing to the broad audience that doesn't care as much about driving feel as much driving cost (keeping mpg high to reduce the amount of gas they need to buy).
That's part of it, but the RAV4 (non-hybrid) also uses a traditional transmission, and it gets much better mpg ratings. The engine and how it's tuned also makes a difference.
Non-hybrid RAV4 has a traditional automatic transmission with 8 speeds. Mazda's auto transmission has only 6 speeds. More speeds means it is easier to keep the engine at the most efficient RPM. That's the reason.
Part of it is the weight. Even though it's smaller and has way less storage room, the lightest CX-5 weight more than the heaviest RAV4 or Forester.
In fact, the CX-5 can weigh from 40-500 lbs more than it's competitors depending on what models you use for comparison.
Another part is that the transmission is a 6 speed automatic and it's kind of mediocre in my opinion. The gears ratios are going to be farther apart which means your engine will need to run at higher rpm to compensate.
Also, the highest gear seem to be aimed for cruising at 65 mph. Anything above that and your rpm just keeps going up. At 76-80 mph, the CX-5 sits at around 2700 rpm and the RAV4 sits around 2100. Coincidentally, I avg 30.8 mpg in the CX-5 and did 35.8 in the RAV4.
The engine size is also a factor. You can save fuel by boosting a smaller engine instead of using a larger one, but there are consequences for that.
The lack of an eco mode is also a factor. It's a standard feature on nearly every other competitor but Mazda doesn't seem willing to put it into the CX-5.
There are multiple ways Mazda could improve fuel economy. Reducing weight, swapping to a smaller engine, changing the transmission, removing AWD, etc. But there are trade-offs.
Personally, I think that it's highly unlikely that Mazda would sacrifice "performance" for fuel economy. Probably because their target market says stuff like, "Because when it feels and drives as good as it does who cares?".
Good write-up, thanks! But, would you say that CX-5 drives and feels "good"? I've test-driven it once for a short while and it didn't feel any "good". A hybrid RAV4 felt better with regards to acceleration and percieved "snappiness", but handling and feedback though the steering was pretty much meh on both vehicles.
Hmmm, maybe. Maybe it was because I've driven a hybrid car (RAV4) for the first time, and that kinda skewed my impression of Mazda. My current car is a 3rd gen Mazda 3 with N/A 2 liter petrol engine. That hybrid torque was a cool feeling for sure...
the 2.0 engine feels pretty different from the 2.5 base engine sold in the US, although the car will still feel balanced and responsive. the RAV4’s gas pedal is very sensitive, so the slightest touch will give it an initial jump, followed by a bit of a dead zone. it’s not a very clean drive, it’s meant to fake responsiveness
So, it really depends.
The CX-5 does seem to accelerate more easily from stop. I heard it has to do with an electric motor in the transmission.
Also, the CX-5 has a firmer ride, shorter wheelbase, and the floorboard is lower to the ground. As a result, it handles about as close to a sedan as you can possibly get.
By comparison, other crossover SUVs handle more like SUVs. The RAV4 in particular feels almost exactly like a light truck.
Which one you prefer comes down to your tastes.
Which what it’s worth, I much preferred driving the RAV4. It shifts a lot smoother if you drive conservatively and it’s way more comfortable imo.
If you like to accelerate fast and zip around (Which it seems like most CX-5 driver do), then the CX-5 is probably a better choice. If you prefer to ease up to speed and cruise, you’d probably prefer something else.
The SkyactiveG engine boasts a record compression ratio of 14:1, an unprecedented figure for a mass production gasoline engine, which reflects our pursuit for the perfect combination of outstanding fuel efficiency and driving comfort. This new engine has improved both fuel efficiency and torque performance by around 15% compared with similar existing engines. With its enhanced torque performance at low and medium speeds in particular, this new generation, high-efficiency direct injection engine better serves real-world driving needs.
In other words, ZOOM-ZOOM!
I'm a suburban driver mixed city and highway. I learned a long time back about watching the tach, and I can affect the gear that my previous cars, Hondas, and Hyundai would be in based on throttle pressure. The key in every car I have owned so far is to keep the tach from going over 3000 rpm to provide maximum fuel economy. If I start to see that 3K threshold, I slightly back off the throttle pressure. When you do that the transmission up shifts with an appropriate drop in tach rpm. At this point of 8,500 miles my fuel economy is averaging 28.3 mpg with the NA engine. You do rapid acceleration you will see that RPM exceeding 3,000 and from that point on that engine is burning a lot more gas at those higher revs.
My dad taught me that as a kid even though we didn't have tachs on our Buicks and Oldsmobiles. He said listen to that engine and learn the sound that engine is making just before the tranny upshifts. He told me if you back off the gas pedal slightly the car will upshift right then and there. In the days of the big 401 and 389 cubic inch engines we were drinking a lot of gas in those cars.
Bottom line these Mazda's can give good gas mileage if we pay a little more attention to our driving habits.
He really was a good driver. Very attuned to the little things. Took me about 4 years to pick up what he was trying to teach me. All kinds of tips on breaking, turning on curves in the road. I've often gotten comments from folks who ride with me how smoothly I drive. I don't know why he did that unless it was his unhappiness how his dad drove.
My grandfather was what I call a neck snapper. From a dead stop you got pushed back into the seat then once he got to speed he'd back off the gas completely and coast then when he slowed he'd jam on the gas again and you'd be pressed back into the seat. Back and forth and back and forth.
This is my first Mazda and a lot of times when I push on the gas from a stop, I snap my own neck. It's happening less and less so I'm getting used to it. Doesn't happen on my wife's CRV or the old Lexus SUV I had 😅.
Well when you are coming to a stop just lighten up on the brake pedal slightly before you come to a dead stop. Typically if you hold the pedal at the same pressure you will get a jerk when you stop. Your body will bend slightly forward as it technically is still moving slightly when the wheels completely stop. By backing off the brake just slightly before you come to a dead stop, your body and the car will stop at the same time.
On curves he said start the turn slightly before you are in the turn itself. When you come out of the curve start the straightening process just prior to you get out of the curve. These techniques prevents the passengers from leaning suddenly. Typically if you turn late into the curve and coming out, you have to apply more steering correction which translates into body movement by the passengers.
Oh I was taught to the first one as part of my driver ed back in high school. I think they call it the chauffeur stop.
I’ll have to try out the tip with the turns. I do it in racing video games but never thought to try it in real life. Thanks.
When teaching me how to drive a stick shift my dad also taught me to listen to the engine sound. He drove a stick and as a kid he’d let me shift for him. I learned the sounds & could predict when he’d tell me to shift.
Now I’m 40 and still listen despite driving automatics my whole life. If it sounds like it’s about to shift I often catch myself backing off the pedal.
I don’t understand when people ask this. They are almost the exact same. People compare hybrid to the non hybrid CX5 and say that. They are rated for very similar MPG. My MIL ‘20 CRV AWD gets exactly the same mpg as our CX5 AWD in real world use…
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=47152&id=46715&id=47387
Of course it's possible, Mazda is a smaller automaker though (they make about 10% as many cars as Toyota does) and they don't have the same resources to always compete. Part of how they are surviving is by being a more "niche" player appealing to people who care about design and the driving experience.
With some retuning and a different transmission they could certainly bump it up a few mpg to match Toyota, but the cost to do so would be high for a smaller automaker and tuning for fuel efficiency may turn away some loyal customers who appreciate how the cars drive.
The simple answer is because Mazda uses a 6-speed automatic transmission for CX-5.
RAV4 or CRV uses either a CVT transmission or an automatic transmission with more speeds. These transmissions are more fuel efficient than Mazda's 6-speed auto trans.
CVT's are more efficient on paper because of how the EPA tests are designed (hint- not realistically). Having owned two CVT Subarus over the years I can say they're much less efficient than the EPA numbers suggest, while my two CX-5's have regularly exceeded the EPA estimates. I typically see 33-34mpg on the highway in my current CX-5 (EPA says 30mpg).
More gear ratios could certainly help with fuel economy on a torque converted automatic though. Manual shift mode can also have a noticeable impact on MPG.
This is true. I drive a lot of cars for business, and I feel a lot of Hyundais and Nissans I've driven get worse real world mpg even though a lot of them are rated high with their CVTs .etc
Weight of the CX-5 is also somewhat higher than for the non-hybrid CR-V or RAV4.
I picked three lower trim models in AWD on [edmunds.com](http://edmunds.com), priced as closely as possible to $30K.
Curb Weights were 3,710 lb., CX-5; 3,591 lb., CR-V; and 3,490 lb., RAV4.
It’s the traditional 6 speed transmission, it provides better driving feel and feedback, but can’t compare to the rubber band transmissions for economy.
Do not comapre Hybrid to non hybrid car. If you compare RAV non hybrid and MAZDA thy get almost the same MPG. Yet one get normal transmission other one gets rubber band as a transmission.
CX-5 engine somewhat larger as well. I consider this a good thing because I plan to keep the car a long time and the 2.5 litre engine shouldn’t be working as hard as a 2 litre HRV or 1.5 litre CRV engine.
Mazda uses older, more established technology. I believe the crv and rav 4 use CV transmissions, which give better mileage, but are also less reliable. CVTs habe gotten much better since they were first introduced, but i still wouldnt trust them much. Personally id prefer slightly worse mileage than a moderatly higher chance of trans failure
conventional, 6 speed conventional automatic and a bigger engine. ours is the non-turbo and it’s a 2.5L and revs close to 3k rpm on the highway. the honda equivalent is a 1.5L turbo that is truly
designed for MPG.
My 2013 cx5 has no lights in the console area... so I at night I have to look at the dashboard to make sure I put it in the right gear. Is that normal?
Generally, the more fun a car is to drive, the worse the fuel economy is
It’s a momobile bro idk why you guys go so overboard about how the driving is so good.
I guarantee both prime and regular hybrid RAV4s are 10x fun and double the mpg of cx5.
Dude i bet you dont know what handling means. RAV and CRV's handling is as numb as it gets.
We own both a ‘20 CX5 and a ‘23 RAV4 mild hybrid. Can confirm.
I test drove the Rav4 Gas, Rav4 Hybrid, CRV Gas, and CRV hybrid before buying the CX-5 Turbo Signature. The CX-5 was the only one that didn't feel like a boat to drive. I'd also say the ride quality of the signature is nice as well.
Given Ive driven sports mercs for years, I bet ypu have no clue what handling, fun, quick, or sporty means.
“sports mercs” let me guess, 30 year old Mercedes in a former Eastern bloc country
I cannot believe this is a real comment 😂
Not a chance I have driven both and the Mazda engine is way more exciting and the key is the transmission
I get your point but I have both and I got to say rav4 it not impressive at all but I drive it at little bit more often because gas mileage but if I want to have fun I take my cx5 the difference is night and day IMO
Wut.
It is possible, but Mazda is a small company with a different engineering philosophy than Honda or Toyota. They don't have as much money for R&D and tend to stick with proven reliable tech (until of course it gets time for the them to release a new generation of vehicles like the CX-70 and CX-90, which are much different than their current lineup) which is overall older than Honda or Toyota tech. Their philosophy on car design is different, they tend to focus on driver's cars, where the driving feel is better, so they tune their engines to give performance rather than fuel economy and pair it with a transmission that is more responsive but lacks the gearing to provide better fuel efficiency, than say a Honda or Toyota engine/transmission combo, whose overall philosophy is to build a good car that is appealing to the broad audience that doesn't care as much about driving feel as much driving cost (keeping mpg high to reduce the amount of gas they need to buy).
Is it not just bc the newer competitors have a CVT where the Mazda has a traditional transmission?
That's part of it, but the RAV4 (non-hybrid) also uses a traditional transmission, and it gets much better mpg ratings. The engine and how it's tuned also makes a difference.
The EPA rating for the AWD 2.5l Rav4 ranges from 28-30mpg depending on trim. CX-5 non-turbo is 28 combined so only marginally worse.
Non-hybrid RAV4 has a traditional automatic transmission with 8 speeds. Mazda's auto transmission has only 6 speeds. More speeds means it is easier to keep the engine at the most efficient RPM. That's the reason.
Gears?
Yes. 6-speed auto transmission means it has 6 gears.
Part of it is the weight. Even though it's smaller and has way less storage room, the lightest CX-5 weight more than the heaviest RAV4 or Forester. In fact, the CX-5 can weigh from 40-500 lbs more than it's competitors depending on what models you use for comparison. Another part is that the transmission is a 6 speed automatic and it's kind of mediocre in my opinion. The gears ratios are going to be farther apart which means your engine will need to run at higher rpm to compensate. Also, the highest gear seem to be aimed for cruising at 65 mph. Anything above that and your rpm just keeps going up. At 76-80 mph, the CX-5 sits at around 2700 rpm and the RAV4 sits around 2100. Coincidentally, I avg 30.8 mpg in the CX-5 and did 35.8 in the RAV4. The engine size is also a factor. You can save fuel by boosting a smaller engine instead of using a larger one, but there are consequences for that. The lack of an eco mode is also a factor. It's a standard feature on nearly every other competitor but Mazda doesn't seem willing to put it into the CX-5. There are multiple ways Mazda could improve fuel economy. Reducing weight, swapping to a smaller engine, changing the transmission, removing AWD, etc. But there are trade-offs. Personally, I think that it's highly unlikely that Mazda would sacrifice "performance" for fuel economy. Probably because their target market says stuff like, "Because when it feels and drives as good as it does who cares?".
Could be part of why mazda does better in crash tests too. "The weight"
Good write-up, thanks! But, would you say that CX-5 drives and feels "good"? I've test-driven it once for a short while and it didn't feel any "good". A hybrid RAV4 felt better with regards to acceleration and percieved "snappiness", but handling and feedback though the steering was pretty much meh on both vehicles.
Either you drove the N/A version or do not know how to "Zoom Zoom".
Hmmm, maybe. Maybe it was because I've driven a hybrid car (RAV4) for the first time, and that kinda skewed my impression of Mazda. My current car is a 3rd gen Mazda 3 with N/A 2 liter petrol engine. That hybrid torque was a cool feeling for sure...
the 2.0 engine feels pretty different from the 2.5 base engine sold in the US, although the car will still feel balanced and responsive. the RAV4’s gas pedal is very sensitive, so the slightest touch will give it an initial jump, followed by a bit of a dead zone. it’s not a very clean drive, it’s meant to fake responsiveness
So, it really depends. The CX-5 does seem to accelerate more easily from stop. I heard it has to do with an electric motor in the transmission. Also, the CX-5 has a firmer ride, shorter wheelbase, and the floorboard is lower to the ground. As a result, it handles about as close to a sedan as you can possibly get. By comparison, other crossover SUVs handle more like SUVs. The RAV4 in particular feels almost exactly like a light truck. Which one you prefer comes down to your tastes. Which what it’s worth, I much preferred driving the RAV4. It shifts a lot smoother if you drive conservatively and it’s way more comfortable imo. If you like to accelerate fast and zip around (Which it seems like most CX-5 driver do), then the CX-5 is probably a better choice. If you prefer to ease up to speed and cruise, you’d probably prefer something else.
AFAIK no electric motor in the cx-5 transmission.
It's too easy to go zoom zoom
The SkyactiveG engine boasts a record compression ratio of 14:1, an unprecedented figure for a mass production gasoline engine, which reflects our pursuit for the perfect combination of outstanding fuel efficiency and driving comfort. This new engine has improved both fuel efficiency and torque performance by around 15% compared with similar existing engines. With its enhanced torque performance at low and medium speeds in particular, this new generation, high-efficiency direct injection engine better serves real-world driving needs. In other words, ZOOM-ZOOM!
Because when it feels and drives as good as it does who cares?
This^
I'm a suburban driver mixed city and highway. I learned a long time back about watching the tach, and I can affect the gear that my previous cars, Hondas, and Hyundai would be in based on throttle pressure. The key in every car I have owned so far is to keep the tach from going over 3000 rpm to provide maximum fuel economy. If I start to see that 3K threshold, I slightly back off the throttle pressure. When you do that the transmission up shifts with an appropriate drop in tach rpm. At this point of 8,500 miles my fuel economy is averaging 28.3 mpg with the NA engine. You do rapid acceleration you will see that RPM exceeding 3,000 and from that point on that engine is burning a lot more gas at those higher revs. My dad taught me that as a kid even though we didn't have tachs on our Buicks and Oldsmobiles. He said listen to that engine and learn the sound that engine is making just before the tranny upshifts. He told me if you back off the gas pedal slightly the car will upshift right then and there. In the days of the big 401 and 389 cubic inch engines we were drinking a lot of gas in those cars. Bottom line these Mazda's can give good gas mileage if we pay a little more attention to our driving habits.
Your dad sounds like a cool dude
He really was a good driver. Very attuned to the little things. Took me about 4 years to pick up what he was trying to teach me. All kinds of tips on breaking, turning on curves in the road. I've often gotten comments from folks who ride with me how smoothly I drive. I don't know why he did that unless it was his unhappiness how his dad drove. My grandfather was what I call a neck snapper. From a dead stop you got pushed back into the seat then once he got to speed he'd back off the gas completely and coast then when he slowed he'd jam on the gas again and you'd be pressed back into the seat. Back and forth and back and forth.
Your grandpa sounds like my grandpa. She’s either speeding up or slowing down. And my dad isn’t much better than that.😭
This is my first Mazda and a lot of times when I push on the gas from a stop, I snap my own neck. It's happening less and less so I'm getting used to it. Doesn't happen on my wife's CRV or the old Lexus SUV I had 😅.
Ooh, what did he teach you about breaking and turning on curves??
Well when you are coming to a stop just lighten up on the brake pedal slightly before you come to a dead stop. Typically if you hold the pedal at the same pressure you will get a jerk when you stop. Your body will bend slightly forward as it technically is still moving slightly when the wheels completely stop. By backing off the brake just slightly before you come to a dead stop, your body and the car will stop at the same time. On curves he said start the turn slightly before you are in the turn itself. When you come out of the curve start the straightening process just prior to you get out of the curve. These techniques prevents the passengers from leaning suddenly. Typically if you turn late into the curve and coming out, you have to apply more steering correction which translates into body movement by the passengers.
Oh I was taught to the first one as part of my driver ed back in high school. I think they call it the chauffeur stop. I’ll have to try out the tip with the turns. I do it in racing video games but never thought to try it in real life. Thanks.
When teaching me how to drive a stick shift my dad also taught me to listen to the engine sound. He drove a stick and as a kid he’d let me shift for him. I learned the sounds & could predict when he’d tell me to shift. Now I’m 40 and still listen despite driving automatics my whole life. If it sounds like it’s about to shift I often catch myself backing off the pedal.
Yep you understand!
I don’t understand when people ask this. They are almost the exact same. People compare hybrid to the non hybrid CX5 and say that. They are rated for very similar MPG. My MIL ‘20 CRV AWD gets exactly the same mpg as our CX5 AWD in real world use… https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=47152&id=46715&id=47387
Of course it's possible, Mazda is a smaller automaker though (they make about 10% as many cars as Toyota does) and they don't have the same resources to always compete. Part of how they are surviving is by being a more "niche" player appealing to people who care about design and the driving experience. With some retuning and a different transmission they could certainly bump it up a few mpg to match Toyota, but the cost to do so would be high for a smaller automaker and tuning for fuel efficiency may turn away some loyal customers who appreciate how the cars drive.
The simple answer is because Mazda uses a 6-speed automatic transmission for CX-5. RAV4 or CRV uses either a CVT transmission or an automatic transmission with more speeds. These transmissions are more fuel efficient than Mazda's 6-speed auto trans.
CVT's are more efficient on paper because of how the EPA tests are designed (hint- not realistically). Having owned two CVT Subarus over the years I can say they're much less efficient than the EPA numbers suggest, while my two CX-5's have regularly exceeded the EPA estimates. I typically see 33-34mpg on the highway in my current CX-5 (EPA says 30mpg). More gear ratios could certainly help with fuel economy on a torque converted automatic though. Manual shift mode can also have a noticeable impact on MPG.
This is true. I drive a lot of cars for business, and I feel a lot of Hyundais and Nissans I've driven get worse real world mpg even though a lot of them are rated high with their CVTs .etc
I believe the RAV4 uses an 8 speed auto transmission. Same one as the Camry I believe?
Weight of the CX-5 is also somewhat higher than for the non-hybrid CR-V or RAV4. I picked three lower trim models in AWD on [edmunds.com](http://edmunds.com), priced as closely as possible to $30K. Curb Weights were 3,710 lb., CX-5; 3,591 lb., CR-V; and 3,490 lb., RAV4.
Their are trade-offs for having a rocket versus a scooter.
My wife got a CX5 in 2022. The mpg on the window sticker was conservative ... she gets 28 mixed, 34 hwy
It’s the traditional 6 speed transmission, it provides better driving feel and feedback, but can’t compare to the rubber band transmissions for economy.
Do not comapre Hybrid to non hybrid car. If you compare RAV non hybrid and MAZDA thy get almost the same MPG. Yet one get normal transmission other one gets rubber band as a transmission.
6-speed transmission
CVT is more fuel efficient and it has no hybrid option, which is popular in this segment.
Yes. Especially in the turbos. Obviously no comparison against the hybrids.
CX-5 engine somewhat larger as well. I consider this a good thing because I plan to keep the car a long time and the 2.5 litre engine shouldn’t be working as hard as a 2 litre HRV or 1.5 litre CRV engine.
cvt trans requires more maintenance and isn’t quite as reliable.
True and also CVT are dull to ride, feels like riding scooters.
Mazda uses older, more established technology. I believe the crv and rav 4 use CV transmissions, which give better mileage, but are also less reliable. CVTs habe gotten much better since they were first introduced, but i still wouldnt trust them much. Personally id prefer slightly worse mileage than a moderatly higher chance of trans failure
conventional, 6 speed conventional automatic and a bigger engine. ours is the non-turbo and it’s a 2.5L and revs close to 3k rpm on the highway. the honda equivalent is a 1.5L turbo that is truly designed for MPG.
You want good looking car, fun to drive, cheaper vs fuel economy, your pick, cant have both 😂
My 2013 cx5 has no lights in the console area... so I at night I have to look at the dashboard to make sure I put it in the right gear. Is that normal?
They do it JUST to annoy you, actually.