Should I get a proper SUV, or a CUV instead? Boot space wise, horse power wise and fuel efficiency, Mazda leads with only Rm8k extra. I wouldn't mind living without keyless entry and Bi-xenon lamps though. Should I get the 2.0 Mazda CX5 GL (lowest spec) or 1.8 Honda HRV (V Spec)? Rm126k / Rm118k.

CX-5 should be compared to CR-V, and if in terms of space when comparing with HRV, CX-5 wins.

Weight wise, CX-5 1,522kg compare to HRV 1,249kg, that is about 273kg difference. So power-to-weight ratio CX-5 74.9kW/tonne vs HRV 84.1kW/tonne. What lost in power is gained in torque, so CX-5 will have decent acceleration as it has 200Nm compare to HRV 172Nm. Power is the one determining top speed (we won't be driving at top speed here in Malaysia, unlike in Germany Autobahn), so torque is a more comparison parameter since it determines whether a car can accelerate fast enough, CX-5 131.4Nm/tonne vs. HRV 137.7Nm/tonne (quite close).

FC wise, CX-5 have i-Stop which stops your engine when you are at a traffic light, while HRV doesn't has this kind of system. So it could be comparable in terms of FC (CX-5 2.0L vs. HRV 1.8L). As Mazda is implementing Skyactiv in their design which yield about 10% more fuel efficient than its predecessors with lower compression ratio engines, something similar to Honda i-VTEC. To my experience with Honda torque converter CVT vs. Mazda Skyactiv AT, Honda needs to rev up high to get the acceleration since the will be power losses through the torque converter and a peculiar not enough power feeling with CVT, while Mazda has a built-in clutch in the torque converter to transmit 100% power to the gearbox directly when enough speed is achieve (usually 1st gear around 2k rpm the clutch will engage).

One problem with Mazda Skyactiv in foreign countries is their regular fuel is RON92, while Mazda Skyactiv engines runs at RON95, so their consumer needs to pump slightly more expensive RON95 premium fuel. Meanwhile, in Malaysia, our regular is RON95 (the RM1.95 ones), so it is well capable of running the new Mazda Skyactiv engines.

Maintenance wise, of course CX-5 will be slightly higher because it is a segment higher than HRV (it is like comparing City to Civic, of course Civic cost slightly more to maintain). The maintenance is comparable to CRV. The tyre itself can tell the difference in cost: 225/65R17 for CX-5 (bigger) vs. 215/60R16 for HRV (smaller).

I have chosen CX-5 over HRV.  No regrets.

If you have the budget,  go for CX-5. HRV is similar class with CX-3.

CX-5 should be compared to CR-V, and if in terms of space when comparing with HRV, CX-5 wins.

Weight wise, CX-5 1,522kg compare to HRV 1,249kg, that is about 273kg difference. So power-to-weight ratio CX-5 74.9kW/tonne vs HRV 84.1kW/tonne. What lost in power is gained in torque, so CX-5 will have decent acceleration as it has 200Nm compare to HRV 172Nm. Power is the one determining top speed (we won't be driving at top speed here in Malaysia, unlike in Germany Autobahn), so torque is a more comparison parameter since it determines whether a car can accelerate fast enough, CX-5 131.4Nm/tonne vs. HRV 137.7Nm/tonne (quite close).

FC wise, CX-5 have i-Stop which stops your engine when you are at a traffic light, while HRV doesn't has this kind of system. So it could be comparable in terms of FC (CX-5 2.0L vs. HRV 1.8L). As Mazda is implementing Skyactiv in their design which yield about 10% more fuel efficient than its predecessors with lower compression ratio engines, something similar to Honda i-VTEC. To my experience with Honda torque converter CVT vs. Mazda Skyactiv AT, Honda needs to rev up high to get the acceleration since the will be power losses through the torque converter and a peculiar not enough power feeling with CVT, while Mazda has a built-in clutch in the torque converter to transmit 100% power to the gearbox directly when enough speed is achieve (usually 1st gear around 2k rpm the clutch will engage).

One problem with Mazda Skyactiv in foreign countries is their regular fuel is RON92, while Mazda Skyactiv engines runs at RON95, so their consumer needs to pump slightly more expensive RON95 premium fuel. Meanwhile, in Malaysia, our regular is RON95 (the RM1.95 ones), so it is well capable of running the new Mazda Skyactiv engines.

Maintenance wise, of course CX-5 will be slightly higher because it is a segment higher than HRV (it is like comparing City to Civic, of course Civic cost slightly more to maintain). The maintenance is comparable to CRV. The tyre itself can tell the difference in cost: 225/65R17 for CX-5 (bigger) vs. 215/60R16 for HRV (smaller).

Did you buy the GL mid spec model or high spec 2.0?

CX-5 should be compared to CR-V, and if in terms of space when comparing with HRV, CX-5 wins.

Weight wise, CX-5 1,522kg compare to HRV 1,249kg, that is about 273kg difference. So power-to-weight ratio CX-5 74.9kW/tonne vs HRV 84.1kW/tonne. What lost in power is gained in torque, so CX-5 will have decent acceleration as it has 200Nm compare to HRV 172Nm. Power is the one determining top speed (we won't be driving at top speed here in Malaysia, unlike in Germany Autobahn), so torque is a more comparison parameter since it determines whether a car can accelerate fast enough, CX-5 131.4Nm/tonne vs. HRV 137.7Nm/tonne (quite close).

FC wise, CX-5 have i-Stop which stops your engine when you are at a traffic light, while HRV doesn't has this kind of system. So it could be comparable in terms of FC (CX-5 2.0L vs. HRV 1.8L) [only applicable to CBU unit, not CKD and CKD GL version (thanks cucubud for pointing it out)]. As Mazda is implementing Skyactiv in their design which yield about 10% more fuel efficient than its predecessors with lower compression ratio engines, something similar to Honda i-VTEC. To my experience with Honda torque converter CVT vs. Mazda Skyactiv AT, Honda needs to rev up high to get the acceleration since the will be power losses through the torque converter and a peculiar not enough power feeling with CVT, while Mazda has a built-in clutch in the torque converter to transmit 100% power to the gearbox directly when enough speed is achieve (usually 1st gear around 2k rpm the clutch will engage).

One problem with Mazda Skyactiv in foreign countries is their regular fuel is RON92, while Mazda Skyactiv engines runs at RON95, so their consumer needs to pump slightly more expensive RON95 premium fuel. Meanwhile, in Malaysia, our regular is RON95 (the RM1.95 ones), so it is well capable of running the new Mazda Skyactiv engines.

Maintenance wise, of course CX-5 will be slightly higher because it is a segment higher than HRV (it is like comparing City to Civic, of course Civic cost slightly more to maintain). The maintenance is comparable to CRV. The tyre itself can tell the difference in cost: 225/65R17 for CX-5 (bigger) vs. 215/60R16 for HRV (smaller).

Good to know that CX-5 2.0L got I-Stop now.

Mid spec.  So far so good.  Am happy with the car despite it being CKD.

I've read reviews that the cx5 has loud tyre and road noises, is that true with your cx5? How is the NVH levels compared with HRV?

Should I get a proper SUV, or a CUV instead? Boot space wise, horse power wise and fuel efficiency, Mazda leads with only Rm8k extra. I wouldn't mind living without keyless entry and Bi-xenon lamps though. Should I get the 2.0 Mazda CX5 GL (lowest spec) or 1.8 Honda HRV (V Spec)? Rm126k / Rm118k.

Good to know that CX-5 2.0L got I-Stop now.

I-Stop got its own problems too.

Read this article