Mazda CX-5 Vs Hyundai Tucson Vs Honda CR-V

Hunter80 on 11/03/2016 - 07:13
Last edited 11/03/2016 - 13:17 by 1 other user

Hi Guys,

We are planning to buy a medium sized SUV and have been looking at Mazda CX-5 Maxx Sport FWD 2.0 and Hyundai Tucson Active X. They fit our requirements and additionally we may try a Honda CR-V.

I was wondering if I can hear your experiences/opinions/recommendations on these two?

Time frame that we are looking at is from here to end Jun and we have our finances sorted so can buy as early or as late until probably Jul 16. When you reckon will be a good time to buy?

What sort of price should we look into paying? Not interested in any accessories as such, just the car drive away.

I trust this community and the level of collective knowledge we all have. Will consider the opinions from this forum for sure.

Also if someone knows a dealer in Sydney/Melbourne who is keen to sell please feel free to PM as I can buy from either locations.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Poll Options expired

  • 12
    Mazda CX 5 Maxx Sport 2.0 Auto
  • 5
    Hyundai Tucson - Active X
  • 3
    Honda CR-V
  • 2
    Any other (please mention in comments)
Automotive Honda Hyundai Motors Mazda SUV

Comments

  • oscargamer on 11/03/2016 - 07:51
    +1

    No to the Honda

    If you go the Tucson, MAKE SURE the build date is after the dates below, else it's only a 4 star safety rated vehicle

    "The five-star rating applies to South Korean-built Hyundai Tucson manufactured from 17 November 2015, and to European-built Tucson from 16 December 2015."

    http://autoexpert.com.au/buying-a-car/hyundai-tucson-five-st…

    when you say no to extras, that's fine, but make sure tint and mats are thrown in - DO NOT pay extra for them

    • Hunter80 on 11/03/2016 - 07:55

      Thanks for that info, I will ask for matts and tint at the end, after negotiations and prior to paying ;-)
      Good point on safety rating, I was aware of it and the car that we looked was Dec 15 built.

      • oscargamer on 11/03/2016 - 08:04

        if it was Dec 15 built in Europe, and the date was actually 2 Dec 15, then it's a 4 star

        you need to know the actual date and place of build, or to be safe, go one month later……you know what i'm trying to say !

  • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 09:02
    +7

    The Tucson is great, both exterior and interior. The engine sux and renders it a lemon of an SUV.
    Any manufacturer that makes a standard 2.0L engine for an SUV needs to be demolished.

    I paid $5K for the upgraded 2.5L AWD engine for the CX-5 and it lacks courage all round. When I first test-drove the 2.0L variant at the dealership, I cut the trip short and told the Mazda dealer i'm not considering this at all. He was like sorry why? I'm like, it's got less power than my 2002 Pulsar Hatch runaround

    Japanese and Korean car makers are bending over for the demand in stupid low-power, low-emission cars. Largely driven by morons who just can't handle power or let alone drive cars, and don't get me started on who's who in the zoo.

    Atleast BMW and Merc have the decency to throw in a turbo in the 2.0L variants , or tune the engine to the minimum 170KW+

    • JimB on 11/03/2016 - 09:43

      A turbocharged 1.5L is much better than a N/A 2.0L, not so much for the power but the torque.

      I've driven 2.0L N/A SUV, they are terribly underpowered as SUVs get heavier and heavier.

      I'm on my 3rd turbocharged Euro, I could never go back to N/A unless it was over 3L. My next car will be another turbocharged Euro.

    • tomleonhart on 11/03/2016 - 10:46
      +1

      Whist I agree 2.0L on a SUV is stupid I often wonder in grid lock city like Sydney. Why do you want a powerful car when the average speed is 40km/h ?

      • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 11:06
        -2

        Let me reverse the question first, why dont' we all drive cars limited to 110 km/h (because that's the maximum speed limit)
        Or perhaps drive cars with 80kW power running 1.5L engines?

        The majority of the Gridlock in Sydney is (believe it or not) caused by Stupid (and shit) drivers. Going back to my original post, at almost every deadlock build-up of traffic, you will eventually see someone had clipped someone from the back, ran over a pedestrian or hit a bike.

        Slow and useless drivers end up agitating the "normal" drivers, causing them to tailgate, or attempt dangerous maneuvers to overtake.
        Slow and useless drivers also hit the brakes unnecessarily and/or don't know how to use the rear-view mirror

        Rant finished…

        A more responsive engine driven by a responsible driver allows that person to enter/exit roundabouts, lanes, streets in a swifter fashion (not necessarily FASTER")
        It allows you to carry 5 people in the car without having to let the engine rev at 5K RPM
        It allows you to overtake and or climb steeper roads (such as Beverly hills going south)

    • plmko on 11/03/2016 - 11:02

      LOL no just no. Your 2002 Pulsar probably produced less than 110BHP, unless you're talking about the Pulsar SSS, which being a turbo charged hatch is anything but a "runaround".

      All of the above is at the minimum 110KW, with torque to boot. If you have deficiencies down your pants and need to compensate with 'power' in your car, why are you even looking at SUVs? If drag racing behemoth trucks is your thing, then go ahead and pay $60k+ for the Euro variety of SUV, everyone else will be happy enough to pay $30k for a family car.

      • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 11:15

        My 2004 Pulsar Q produced 92KW and weighed 400KG less than the 138KW CX5
        Speaking just KW, and not going into the deep technical details of the Torque @ RPM stats, the CX5 presented a raw 46KW extra adding 400KG of weight.
        Technically, this is an increase of 10KW / 100KG addition weight. Hardly worth it? I can place a K&N Air Filter, with some decent spark plugs, good oil and get 10kw without throwing on 100KG of raw metal

        Are you smoking some bin-laden weed?

        The CX5 is utterly under-powered

        • plmko on 11/03/2016 - 11:28

          So first it was a 2002 Pulsar, and now it's a "2004 Pulsar Q"?

          Good one, I'll have what you're smoking.

          Honestly I don't even know why you're looking into the details of racing air filters to get utterly marginal (if any) on a N/A engine and then applying it onto a SUV. Get a sports coupe and leave budget family cars alone. Otherwise pay up for something like a Jeep SRT and enjoy the fuel economy (or lack of it).

        • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 11:34

          @plmko:

          You have no idea about what Nissan is, please stay the hell away from any Nissan boards and/or discussions

          The Nissan 2000-2006 is the N16 model which is essentially the same car

          The N16 Q is NOT the turbo SR2.0 engine you inferred, the Q is a standard 1.8L engine with bit more grunt than the LX which is believe was 1.6

          It doesnt matter if my car was a Nissan Q or W, i presented the stats above of my engine in comparison to the CX5.

          bloody keyboard warriors

        • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 11:37

          @plmko:

          Honestly I don't even know why you're looking into the details of racing air filters to get utterly marginal (if any) on a N/A engine and then applying it onto a SUV. Get a sports coupe and leave budget family cars alone. Otherwise pay up for something like a Jeep SRT and enjoy the fuel economy (or lack of it).

          The moral of the story was that for $36,000, the CX-5 is under performing in everyway. When compared to a shopping-trolley car like my Pulsar, you don't get much grunt. I'm not after a Jeep SRT or AMG ML63

        • plmko on 11/03/2016 - 11:53

          @frostman:

          Yes you know everything, please continue to apply your race boy logic onto a $36,000 car tuned for reliability, torque, fuel efficiency and above all else is feature packed for the price.

          There has never been a single review that doesn't at least acknowledge the target audience doesn't really care all that much about "grunt" (from your perspective), because it's adequate for our streets.

          For the record, I 100% understand what you're saying, no need to assume you are one up because you frequent "Nissan boards and/or discussions". If you must know I frequent 86/BRZ boards/clubs and drive a BRZ daily, I fully well know what BHP/KW is all about, and talking like "power" is everything is very very dumb for SUV. And exactly why 99% of buyers give no crap about your points when buying one.

        • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 12:04
          -1

          @plmko:

          $36,000 car tuned for reliability

          OK

          torque, fuel efficiency

          WTF? do you even have a CX5? Because I happen to… Torque and power are synonymous. You agreed it lacks power in the later discussion yet here you are telling me it's "tuned" for torque? You're in a deeper hole than the miners
          Fuel efficiency? Ive had my car for 3 years, it's averaging 11.9 L/100 KM. if that's fuel efficient in your books, I beg to differ. BTW, don't start on the "heavy foot" mantra.

          because it's adequate for our streets.

          as are the 1.3L, 50KW Charades

          If you must know I frequent 86/BRZ boards/clubs and drive a BRZ daily, I fully well know what BHP/KW is all abou

          Means nothing, I know 80 year-olds driving S65 AMG, V12 bi-Turbo. Doesnt mean they know a thing or 2

          and talking like "power" is everything is very very dumb for SUV. And exactly why 99% of buyers give no crap about your points when buying one

          An SUV with no power is like a lawnmower with no blades.

        • plmko on 11/03/2016 - 12:24

          @frostman:

          Oh gosh, I'm just going to leave it here, you're already deeper in than Gina Rinehart's pit.

          Torque and power are synonymous.

          LOL, a V8 Toyota Landcruiser has roughly 450nm of torque and only 230kw of "power". By your logic of comparing "power" you'd say the Landcruiser is completely underpowered since it's 230kw would be pathetic for a 2 tonne V8 truck.

          You need to have a read of why the context of the car changes the displacement ratings of the car.

        • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 12:52
          -1

          @plmko: Your attempt at insults is mediocre, try some novelty, recycling my comments is pathetic

          You better please LEAVE IT HERE, you're information is less worthy of reading Yahoo Answers!

          Torque is best considered as the measurement of power at any given engine speed and the one that gets you moving, whereas power is the measurement of how fast torque is being used.
          Reference [Drive.com.au] (http://www.drive.com.au/tips-and-advice/qa-torque-v-kilowatt…)

          LOL, a V8 Toyota Landcruiser has roughly 450nm of torque and only 230kw of "power". By your logic of comparing "power" you'd say the Landcruiser is completely underpowered since it's 230kw would be pathetic for a 2 tonne V8 truck.

          Using "LOL" at the beginning of a statement does not grant your statements any additional value. It's another lame attempt at trying to patronize the other party, ie even more pathetic.

          At what point did my logic not consider a Med/Large SUV with 230KW as lacking power?
          Your're second statement completely paraphrases me by assuming I will start mingling with KW/Torque ratio of Diesel engines and trucks

          Please, spare us, go to sleep, your comments offer no insight to this board.
          Please close your Web Browers that you're copying/pasting your drivvel from without any form of knowledge foundation.
          Your comments have only made the whole board dumber, may god have mercy on you

        • plmko on 11/03/2016 - 13:10

          @frostman:

          Lordy lordy, please put more words in my mouth at your attempt to belittle those who don't have the same opinion as yours.

          At what point did my logic not consider a Med/Large SUV with 230KW as lacking power?

          Geez I dunno, maybe your lame attempt at trying to explain weight to power ratios with your pulsar?

          • KW/Torque ratio of Diesel engines and trucks*

          I thought power and torque were synonymous as per your definition you google'd? So you can just exclude vehicle types now? And since when was a V8 Toyota Land Cruiser with 230kw and 430nm a diesel, you could've Google'd that too whilst you're at it. It's all relevant, because we were talking about N/A engines or are you going to swap out cars like your Pulsar.

          Do continue to enlighten our boards with your race boy logic based on your Pulsar. I'm sure SUV buyers out there who push the CX-5 to top seller status actually care about your crusade against underpowered SUVs.

        • TheOneWhoKnocks on 11/03/2016 - 19:13
          +1

          grabs popcorn

  • PVA on 11/03/2016 - 09:11

    have a test drive of the Nissan Xtrail as well. (or even the Qashqai as that is prob more the size of the small cx5 and crv)

    go and test drive them all dont just go by brochures etc. by driving you may knock out a couple of choices just because they 'feel' not right for you.

    the cx5 is based on mazda 3 size car.

  • Ryanek on 11/03/2016 - 09:25

    If you're considering the Tucson and are in Sydney, Suttons Arncliffe are offering two free years servicing on all cars sold this weekend. Not sure of all the T&C's though.

  • stratbargain on 11/03/2016 - 09:59

    Have you looked at the Honda HRV as well?

  • dragonfly090 on 11/03/2016 - 10:00

    I think you are comparing two different versions on CX5 and Tucson.

    I think it should be CX 5 Maxx Sport v/s Tucson Elite.

    Active X does not have the dual climate control, rear vents, start/stop button. while active x has the leather appointed seats.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2016 - 10:08
    +2

    I have had a Mazda CX-5 for over two years. Generally, I find it does a good job. My main criticism is that it doesn't want to change down soon enough when in slow moving situations. It seems to labour in too high a gear in traffic. I put it into manual mode and control gear changes myself. For that reason, I would recommend looking elsewhere. Don't recall picking up on this in the test drive. Soon after I bought it, the Kia equivalent was rated No 1 and I wish I had considered it as well.

    • frostman on 11/03/2016 - 10:30
      +2

      The CX-5 is over-priced in every way shape and form.

      I have no idea why they bothered with the Maxx and Maxx Sport but they should have only made 2 models. GT and the Akera.

      The Maxx and Maxx Sport have the bare basics from an interior point of view, you might as well drive in shell.

      At 51,000 for the Akera, we're venturing near the 61K of the Audi Q5 which comes with a proper European-themed interior and german engineered engine.

    • brazen00 on 11/03/2016 - 10:33
      +1

      I dislike my CX-5 for exactly this reason. If I suddenly find I want to accelerate into a roundabout or intersection, the response time for shifting down is dangerously slow. The service centre refused to recognise this as a problem. I would not recommend a CX-5.

      • daewoo on 11/03/2016 - 11:49

        We bought a manual CX-5 which has a great transmission (wife-friendly-manual).

        As it was a manual, we were limited to the Maxx only. Otherwise we would have bought a Maxx-Sport.

        The steel wheels on the base model CX5 are disgusting (we've changed them), and the GPS option is fantastic (yet expensive, around $500).

  • Wallace666 on 11/03/2016 - 10:29
    +3

    I have got the current Honda CR-V and it is great. Bigger inside than the Mazda which is a big plus. Also I got the VTI-L model for a really good price. Was 6K cheaper than the comparable CX-5. I can recommend it.

    • Mackeg02 on 11/03/2016 - 11:38

      I have heard from some Honda owners that the brakes tend to be soft and they need replacing every 25,000 kms which can be up to $700 if the rotors need doing to.

      Have you found that to be the case?

  • Looking4Bargians on 11/03/2016 - 16:02

    Bought Tuscon Highlander 1.6 Turbo GDi. Jan 2016 built. Delivery end of March. 15% less of MSRP - CTP/REGO/Stamp. Can't complaint.

    • powerhead on 12/03/2016 - 10:08

      how much is that in monetary terms drive-away?

  • plowry1977 on 12/03/2016 - 09:53
    +2

    We have 2010 Honda crv. Couldn't be happier with it and considering another as need 2nd car soon. Huge boot space, beautiful drive, well built.
    Only expense been normal things at service, 1 set brakes + set of tyres.
    In regards to above comments the 2l engine is totally fine for size of car, we have young family so not too interested in racing people at lights anymore

    • TheOneWhoKnocks on 13/03/2016 - 18:49

      not too interested in racing people at lights anymore

      Lol.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join