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

I-Stop got its own problems too.

Read this article

The special battery used is not a problem. It is expensive to replace only.
The Toyota Hybrid cars also use the special battery. I am not referring to the battery in the boot, I am referring to the battery next to the engine.

after i checked the hrv, the quality just like local car...it really not worth for rm100k just because H brand...

yes, there is no mini SUV for RM100K but quite many ordered the high spec which cost around rm120k...just add rm10-20k can buy cx-5 or crv normal spec...the quality and space totally worth it...

also having the same dilemma ....
really hard to justify HRV at the price of 118k which is only 8k lesser than GL spec cx5.
i just worry that when cx3 launch, they will hack the GL version of cx5. cause the price will be the same. and cx3 is a comparably smaller sized suv.
but the facelift of cx5 looks so damn nice, too bad only for 2.5L version. make me so hard to decide!!!!

Personally I have to agree with you. I think Mazda will drop out the CX-5 GL spec once CX3 is launched since CX3 indicative price is around 120k only which is not far from 126k CX5 GL spec

Personally I have to agree with you. I think Mazda will drop out the CX-5 GL spec once CX3 is launched since CX3 indicative price is around 120k only which is not far from 126k CX5 GL spec

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.

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?

yup agree on the review.. even change to silent tyre still cannot solve as it NVH not that good.. only slightly reduce, i've change to Pirelli Scorpion Verde All Season at rm650/pc.. same size as original tyre..

17"?

I heard michelin latitude tour is about rm500plus?

So its not advisable using the goodyear wrangler tyres even for some time? Better trade in straight away after collecting car?

I-Stop got its own problems too.

Read this article

finally decided to buy cx5 GL spec instead, got a pretty good discount. hope that it really is better than HR-V. should be picking up the car next week or so.

finally decided to buy cx5 GL spec instead, got a pretty good discount. hope that it really is better than HR-V. should be picking up the car next week or so.

Hi, I am interested to buy cx5 GL. Anyone can I deal with? What his the best offer for me? I am in KL.

Thanks a lot.

finally decided to buy cx5 GL spec instead, got a pretty good discount. hope that it really is better than HR-V. should be picking up the car next week or so.

of coz better.

really happy with this car. feels heavier n more solid.

Hi,
I read that the CX-5 doesn't have rear air conditioning vents. Is that a major disadvantage relative to CRV. Would appreciate comments from buyers. Thank you.

yup, 17'
here's the review..
pirelli scorpion verde all-season
michelin latitude tour hp

just for reference..

Honda quality (now) vs Mazda quality no fight at all. due to cost cutting, honda quality really down the drain. Many ppl i know who have bought honda recently will not buy honda again including me.

Honda quality (now) vs Mazda quality no fight at all. due to cost cutting, honda quality really down the drain. Many ppl i know who have bought honda recently will not buy honda again including me.

I-Stop got its own problems too.

Read this article

Honda quality (now) vs Mazda quality no fight at all. due to cost cutting, honda quality really down the drain. Many ppl i know who have bought honda recently will not buy honda again including me.

Taking delivery of CX5 AWD CBU today.

Here's how I felt after after trying out the following cars.

HR-V - no powah and feels a spec lower - not a fair comparison against CX-5
CR-V - good car dated looks, older transmission.
Ford Ecosport - love the looks, smallish interior and hated the dashboard.
Subaru XV - beautiful engine and love the way it drives. Equipment and trim is sorely lacking.
Subaru Forrester - damn it's huge and expensive.

CX-5 wins in terms of overall technology, safety and fuel economy, love the modern and nicer looking interior.

Some of the other cars tested may be ahead in certain areas, overall the Mazda is a better package.

Didn't manage to test the new Nissan X-Trail 

Agreed. People still buy Honda due to Japanese reliability, other than the cars which look rather nice and sporty on the outside, in this case the HRV. It sure looks quite nice and classy on the exterior, but when you step into the car, the interior of the car is poor, looks like a Proton Saga. No offense. The interior dashboard layout and quality of materials on the dashboard and door panels etc. look cheap. On the other hand, with the Mazda(CX5 or any other model), exterior looks good and interior quality looks much nicer and higher quality than the Honda. It's not only the HRV but the City and CRV as well - the interior dashboard and door panel looked cheap in the layout and quality.

Only the Honda Accord's interior looked acceptable. All other lower-range Honda cars, the exterior of the car may look nice but the interior of the car is of sub-par quality at Proton's level (though reliability-wise the Honda should do a lot better than the Proton).

Taking delivery of CX5 AWD CBU today.

Here's how I felt after after trying out the following cars.

HR-V - no powah and feels a spec lower - not a fair comparison against CX-5
CR-V - good car dated looks, older transmission.
Ford Ecosport - love the looks, smallish interior and hated the dashboard.
Subaru XV - beautiful engine and love the way it drives. Equipment and trim is sorely lacking.
Subaru Forrester - damn it's huge and expensive.

CX-5 wins in terms of overall technology, safety and fuel economy, love the modern and nicer looking interior.

Some of the other cars tested may be ahead in certain areas, overall the Mazda is a better package.

Didn't manage to test the new Nissan X-Trail 

this is the new facelift?

CX-5 facelifted model with 19" rims would be looking very nice.
And reclineable rear seats please.

Yup facelift with the new grill and lights etc...

Agreed. People still buy Honda due to Japanese reliability, other than the cars which look rather nice and sporty on the outside, in this case the HRV. It sure looks quite nice and classy on the exterior, but when you step into the car, the interior of the car is poor, looks like a Proton Saga. No offense. The interior dashboard layout and quality of materials on the dashboard and door panels etc. look cheap. On the other hand, with the Mazda(CX5 or any other model), exterior looks good and interior quality looks much nicer and higher quality than the Honda. It's not only the HRV but the City and CRV as well - the interior dashboard and door panel looked cheap in the layout and quality.

whats your say on the x-trail's cvt transmission?

True. The first time I sat in a CRV I was shocked at so much plastic. This isn't a cheap car but everything from the dashboard to central console to door panels are made of hard plastic.

The FL CR-V has soft touch door panels on both front doors and hard plastic on both rear doors. I find this ridiculous and why on earth did HM plan as such ?

I went to Honda test drive CRV. I asked the Honda SA to point out what is the advantages for CRV which CX-5 lack of. He told me the CX-5 does not have second value compare to CRV, and the maintenance fee is higher. Besides, the CX-5 repair Parts (if car broke down) are difficult to find in Malaysia. He also mentioned there are less mechanic know how to fix a CX-5.

what you guys think about for this statement ?

I went to Honda test drive CRV. I asked the Honda SA to point out what is the advantages for CRV which CX-5 lack of. He told me the CX-5 does not have second value compare to CRV, and the maintenance fee is higher. Besides, the CX-5 repair Parts (if car broke down) are difficult to find in Malaysia. He also mentioned there are less mechanic know how to fix a CX-5.

what you guys think about for this statement ?

I went to Honda test drive CRV. I asked the Honda SA to point out what is the advantages for CRV which CX-5 lack of. He told me the CX-5 does not have second value compare to CRV, and the maintenance fee is higher. Besides, the CX-5 repair Parts (if car broke down) are difficult to find in Malaysia. He also mentioned there are less mechanic know how to fix a CX-5.

what you guys think about for this statement ?

duh...u're asking Honda SA about their rival (Mazda) vehicles RV...wad kinda response do u expect ?

I just received cx5 2 week ago and I appreciate and loved it.... Biasa lah saleman...
Only extra accesories hard to find in my hometown....except KL...but anyhow I bought online...mudah malaysia..just received last week.

If I'm not mistaken. The cx5 is c segment but the hrv is b segment. Quality wise, cx5 has to be better as it is comparable to crv. Correct me if I'm wrong....

When I tested both, I feel cx5 more comfortable driving n backseat more comfy.

Saw in mudah got discount 10k?

Discount 10k, sure bo ? included insurance ? Can send me the link. Thanks

Cx5 gl vs high, so far i only find high got leather + navi. Can anyone share what else extra for high spec with extra rm10+k?

From the brochure:

1. Bi-Xenon headlamps with AFS, Auto Leveling, DRL
2. Front Seat w power adjustment for driver
3. Smart Keyless System

I went to Honda test drive CRV. I asked the Honda SA to point out what is the advantages for CRV which CX-5 lack of. He told me the CX-5 does not have second value compare to CRV, and the maintenance fee is higher. Besides, the CX-5 repair Parts (if car broke down) are difficult to find in Malaysia. He also mentioned there are less mechanic know how to fix a CX-5.

what you guys think about for this statement ?

Pm me best offer for mid 2.0 GL spec ,tq

Taking delivery of CX5 AWD CBU today.

Here's how I felt after after trying out the following cars.

HR-V - no powah and feels a spec lower - not a fair comparison against CX-5
CR-V - good car dated looks, older transmission.
Ford Ecosport - love the looks, smallish interior and hated the dashboard.
Subaru XV - beautiful engine and love the way it drives. Equipment and trim is sorely lacking.
Subaru Forester - damn it's huge and expensive. (Which to update -> Now already got CKD and price is going down to RM13XK-RM14XK for early bird discount)

CX-5 wins in terms of overall technology, safety and fuel economy, love the modern and nicer looking interior.

Forester 2016 -> Standart AWD, better safety (7 air-bags), X-Mode for light off road & lots of gadget to play with the 2.0i-P and price is almost the same as CX-5 after discount.    

To put salt to 2016 Mazda CX-5, now 2.0L high spec no more AWD only 2WD.   

Some of the other cars tested may be ahead in certain areas, overall the Mazda is a better package.

Didn't manage to test the new Nissan X-Trail