The CX-5, by contrast, is more of a wild child. As with other Mazdas, the rear end feels slightly loose, as if it wants to rotate just slightly and point you into corners. The CX-5's center of gravity doesn't feel as low as the CR-Vs, though, and the weight transfer happens much more quickly, so you have to slow down your steering inputs and drive more deliberately. Neither vehicle's front-biased all-wheel-drive system made itself known behind the wheel, nor did either seem to affect the steering much. The Mazda's steering feel is heavier, and the Honda's feels more naturally weighted.
Some will argue crossover buyers don't care about handling. But they do, just for different reasons. No one wants to feel like their SUV is going to tip over every time they turn into a parking lot or swerve to avoid a kid who just ollied his skateboard into the street. Nor does anyone enjoy being tossed side to side by a vehicle with poor body control. Here, the CR-V shines. Its damping provides an impressively smooth ride and minimal head toss. Large bumps and potholes are deftly dispatched and barely felt or heard in the cabin. The CX-5 isn't far behind, but its sportier handling comes with a stiffer ride, so you feel the bumps more.
I preferred the Honda's unflappable stability, but features editor Christian Seabaugh liked the CX-5's playfulness. Regardless, if you thought trading in for a crossover meant you'd never experience the joy of driving again, you're wrong.
One thing anyone can agree on is the importance of good brakes. And here Honda nails it. The pedal itself is appropriately firm, and the brakes respond immediately and linearly. The initial bite isn't grabby, but the braking force ramps up quickly and stops the vehicle with confidence. The Mazda's brakes are plenty strong, but they lack the initial bite, and you have to press the pedal farther before they feel like they're really digging in.
On the speedy side of things, it's a bit less clear. Both engines make roughly the same power and torque, but they do so in very different ways. The Mazda's naturally aspirated 2.5-liter four-cylinder feels much more responsive than the Honda's 1.5-liter turbo-four. We definitely preferred the Mazda's sharply exponential power delivery that seems to pick up velocity as you go faster, building all the way to its high-rpm peak torque and horsepower, compared to the Honda's low-down grunt and steady, locomotive accelerative force.
The characteristics of these engines are amplified by their transmissions. The Mazda's six-speed automatic is an excellent gearbox, shifting smoothly and quickly and never hesitating to downshift and get you more power. In fact, it's nearly impossible to not get a downshift when accelerating from a steady pace. "The CX-5 is not quick, but I'm never left wanting for more," Seabaugh said. "Credit to the transmission—it shifts with speed and purpose. It's happy to hold a gear, too. In Sport mode the transmission even rev-matches downshifts while braking into corners. It's really a sporty car.
"Honda's CVT is one of the best in the business," he continued. "It's responsive, but it isn't tuned to be super jerky off the line, and it surges through the rev range, imitating gears every once in a while when prudent. I kept it in D most of the time; S didn't seem to do much except keep the revs slightly higher. L was actually a better Sport mode than S." I agreeâthe Honda's transmission was slower to change ratios but did so with a smoothness that took any bite out of the engine.
Their characters, though, are deceiving and counterintuitive. On the test track, the seemingly less aggressive CR-V hit 60 mph nearly a second quicker than the sporty CX-5, needing just 7.5 seconds to the Mazda's 8.4, though the advantage narrowed to 0.6 second by the end of a quarter mile. Although both vehicles pulled the same 0.81 average g on the skidpad, the nearly 200-pound-lighter Honda maintained its speed advantage with a 27.9-second figure-eight lap at 0.60 average g. The Mazda—hampered by its aggressive stability control, which couldn't be deactivated—needed 28.5 seconds at 0.58 average g. More predictably, the lighter Honda stopped 10 feet shorter, in just 116 feet.
It's a similar story in efficiency. The CR-V has a superior EPA rating of 27/33/29 mpg city/highway/combined, though it fell short of that in our Real MPG testing with a result of 21.9/34.2/26.1. The CX-5, on the other hand, receives an EPA rating of 23/29/26 mpg city/highway/combined and also disappointed with 18.4/29.9/22.3 in Real MPG testing.
