I'm currently co owning the latest brand new CRV and I think it's better than the CX5

Granted, it's not a very fair comparison as the CX5 I driven personally was many years ago and I'm not sure if it has facelift or updates that can improve my experience.

I think the CX5 (I only tested 2.0 NA) is weak on (compared to the CRV)
1) drive train - both engine and transmission
2) suspensions (still basic)
3) steering (VGR is nice to majority of layman fingers drives)

(I'll keep it to just driving dynamics cuz the rest we know Mazda isn't strong at)

CX5 does win on weight if I recall correctly
And latest KPC (not too sure if it trickle down to CX5 too)

Fair enough, the current CX5 is indeed a very old platform

Fair enough you don't want a CVT vehicle
Curious, what's your current sedan?
CVT today are very different compared to cars with CVT back then.

Some SA can offer a little bit more sacrificing their commission a bit
It's a really huge bargain. Official website is between 11+1 =12k rebate, then we gotten extra 2-3k from SA, and of course the extra 3k service vouchers.
So that's like a total of 17-18k in rebates.

Lag and double posted

This post has been edited by Quazacolt: Sep 7 2025, 04:05 PM

Ok, I was both right and wrong - https://kentico.mazda.com.my/Specification/...4/MazdaCX-5.pdf
Right = yes indeed the 2.0 CX5 is lighter - 1616kg Vs 1588kg
Wrong = 28kg doesn't mean a lot for a tall SUV when it comes to driving dynamics or ride and handling

This post has been edited by Quazacolt: Sep 7 2025, 06:22 PM

The 6 speed was pretty slow and too eco focused, comparable with my ancient 1999 Proton Iswara 3 speed auto. It's really bad until you manual override it using paddle shifters.

Mazda 3 was very slightly better on both fully automatic and manual shift speeds. But not by much and most certainly pale with Civic FE CVT.
The same exact story and experiences between CX5 and CRV.

NVH yes, definitely Mazda is better.
But I think, could be a double edge sword where being too quiet results any storage objects rattling or brushing against interior surfaces becomes very pronounced. You end up needing to be very deliberate and thoughtful of your storage management. (Not a bad thing especially if you're generally a very organized person, I'm not as you may have guessed.)

I think both the Civic and CRV, in a way, due to its globalised platform benefits, having modern suspensions, really improved the handling a LOT that it's very matchable against the Mazda, if not even better. Because you get to have your low speed compression (and rebound) adjusted to have more damping and not sacrifice high speed compression, and that's also why the ride (comfort) is so much better compared between both the SUV and Sedan lineup.

In terms of CRV alone, I think the only downside maybe the stock Ori Toyo tires. I've not known what tires are originally fitted to the CX5, nor have I really pushed the CRV hard enough to really know what's the performance and handling of both the car and stock original Toyo tires.
Similarly can be said for the CX5, mainly because it wasn't my car.
So honestly the discussion of its handling and performance is a bit of a waste of time (at least from my end lol)

I'm not into that marketing fluff la. I highly doubt Mazda can survive in EU Countries with the current suspensions lol.
This is what I meant by globalised platform.
Interestingly, Honda did absolutely zero marketing about it ROFL (engineering company, lol.)

And, bold is exactly what I meant.
Honda current gen Civic and CRV is using absorbers with bypass valve or multi valving tech. It's working principle is similar to Ohlins DFV (dual flow valve)
Simply put, Honda absorbers got 2 profiles

Mazda both Mazda 3 and CX5 are still using basic absorbers with single valving. Meaning, can only be stiff or soft.

To give a better example, the first gen HRV Vs the current gen HRV.
First gen too soft, second gen too stiff.
Basic cost cutting, or just lazy engineering lol.
Old Honda Civic FC (I've test driven too) were on basic absorbers. Basic suspensions.

No need variable frequency, just old tech being made more affordable over time, and eventually trickle down to mass market.

oh, from your video, they seriously only just updated the dampers to be modern ones.
and i am really surprised they managed to survive for so long

you're correct, the CX5 being almost 10 years does show its age especially if one looks deeper beyond aesthetics and design.

perhaps, yes, i've misunderstood you thinking you may be referring to active suspensions ("variable" keyword) from the video and your further clarification, yes, it is pretty much the same as a more commonly referred term of "bypass valve" or multi flow valving or multi path valving. or in Ohlins - DFV.
Koni's website provides better clarification on this term (which i'll highlight)
https://group.koni.com/products/car/fsd
Frequency Selective Damping
the FSD valve is added to control a parallel oil flow next to the flow going through the piston.
This parallel oil flow is closed by a feature in the FSD valve, causing a rise in damping forces almost linear to the time that the piston is moving in one direction.
think Ohlins DFV, and if high speed (or high frequency) damping occurs, a bypass or separate oil path (or circuit) opens up to allow the absorber to compress quickly absorbing (but not damping out the compression force) the sudden high speed shock. think of a speed bump
quoting Koni:


i guess we can both thank both Koni and tesla for using the keywords "active", "Variable", and "frequency" to confuse everyone. They are not wrong, just, confusing. (and marketing nonsense.)

Oh I was referring to my experience that it was on basic suspensions, and it only just got updated in this new gen CX5
And therefore my post regarding my CX5 experience Vs CRV, was still very valid and relevent.

I just personally don't buy into the hype and marketing. And very bluntly and very straightforward to call out things for what they are. And was very disappointed with the Mazda 3 after my test drive session considering the crazy hype that it had especially with the disgruntled Civic owners moving over hahaha

Actually, perfectly understandable as the steering rack was, and still is an issue.

To an extent the CRV may be impacted, but from experience and ongoing current events show, the VGR version of Honda steering racks have minimal to no issues
The current gen CRV is on VGR steering rack.

I'm also currently co owning the latest HRV EHEV hybrid, and I think the 1.5 port injection Atkinson cycle NA was "OK". If anything, better than the 2.0 NA CX5 in majority of situations, with only perhaps highway high speed (>170kph) travels.
Yes, I've finally tested the top speed very recently and it exceeded Honda Malaysia spec sheet in both on meter and GPS measurement.

The drive train overall is ok, as the meme goes for Honda - buy engine, free car.
But if you were to compare with the current gen CX5, then a b segment is still a b segment and it's ride comfort on torsion beam and stiffer suspensions leaves a lot to be desired for. Though, the joke is that if you're looking for handling, the HRV EHEV may give the CX5 a run for its money. Uphill Gohtong may struggle with that 1.5NA (lol battery depleted in just the first corner), but I think downhill it can be faster than the much heavier 2.0NA CX5 (1.4 tons only)

I think, larger items, like suspensions, generally it makes more economical sense to just follow the same thing that's used globally.

Honda Malaysia is no different, instead of Bermaz Screens, or UMW Toyota head unit/overall infotainment, I just need to say Lane watch.

Don't hold your breath on a test drive, I was really eager to test drive the X50 when it first came to Malaysia, now a new gen (or was it considered a facelift? Brand new 4 pot engine though) released and I still haven't managed to test the previous X50 And needless to say current brand new X50