HRV larger? Did I get that correct?

To me, the CRV design is the most hedious. The new X-Trail is refreshing though. The CRV may be the best selling SUV in the world but what people don't realise is that these stats cannot be fully represented here. The CRV model you get here for example is not with the Earth Dreams engine unlike say the CX-5 (CBU) has the same Skyactiv engine and same tech as you get worldwide.

I think perhaps you misunderstood me a bit. The reason CRV does well worldwide (even though ugly in my opinion) is because they did offer decent quality and tech. At least the ones sold in the other countries. But our local CRV is anything but. That is why I caution people who blindly read reviews on international websites and take it in good faith that the car they buy here will be as what the international reviewers make them out to be. Instant runaway hit especially since Honda brandname is too powerful locally that people will simply put their thrust because of the brandname unfortunately.

For me, I dislike CVT personally. Give me a conventional auto box over CVT any day.

Everybody has different preferences. Mazda cars are known to be crampy for rear passengers. While having a lot of rear legroom is always nice, small families usually find the CX-5 rear space sufficient. If they don't find the space adequate, then they would progress to something larger. Myself, I choose the Santa Fe because it was one of the very few affordable 7 seater SUVs available that time. The new X-Trail would have given me a hard time choosing if it was available back then but if given the chance to choose again, I'll still choose the Santa Fe and don't regret my choice because the turbo diesel is too addictive to ignore.

For me, the Forester design is a little boxy. The engine and tech is nice but it was a 5 seater just like the CX-5. Plus it's a CVT.

You are entirely entitled to your 2 cents. While you may not find the 7 seater and bigger space as plus points for the Santa Fe, I do. While the 190ps on the turbo diesel might not measure up to the 240ps on the XT, it makes up more for it in the 436Nm torque that kicks in as low as 1800 rpm to 2500 rpm where it matters most in day to day driving.

Say what's the fuel consumption on the XT?

If you're looking at these type of bells and whistles, then perhaps you should be looking at the Mazda CX-5 2.5L CBU instead.