• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Small SUV recommendations

PinnacleJim

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Posts
1,115
Location
Killington/Pico, VT
Yes the new two top trim levels of the 2019 CX-5 (Grand Touring Reserve and Signature) come with the 2.5 Turbo from the CX-9. Not cheap with prices starting above $35,000. Engine good for 250hp with premium fuel and 227hp with regular.
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
Yes the new two top trim levels of the 2019 CX-5 (Grand Touring Reserve and Signature) come with the 2.5 Turbo from the CX-9. Not cheap with prices starting above $35,000. Engine good for 250hp with premium fuel and 227hp with regular.

Major thread drift, but...

Yeah, the turbo option adds a bit of coin to the selling price, but when you compare the CX-5, now with turbo, against the other premium offerings (of similar trim level, drive experience, and power), the bang-for-the-buck of a 2019 CX-5 is readily apparent. IMHO, it blows just about everything else out of the water. Mazda should get a great deal of credit for what they've been able to do since getting away from Ford. I see Mazda approaching a similar niche as where Volvo is. Much more of a premium car brand, but with some additional lower cost options in their model lines. I have been nothing but impressed with my CX-5 for the past year and I was considering some much more expensive cars before deciding that the CX-5 gave me just about everything I wanted/needed without the cost premium. Had the turbo been there then, I would have jumped on it.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,611
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
I switched over to Mazda from GM a couple of years ago. There seems to be a different corporate culture in the service departments. It seems like while GM service was trying their best to get me to buy a new car whle making lots of money off me (compounding problems with misdiagnosis and poor expensive service), Mazda is trying to convince me that my next car should also be a Mazda.
 

pete

not peace but 2 Beers!
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
2,542
Location
Iowa
@mcmary

I'd +1 on the Mazda CX-5 least a test ride. 2017 Daughter got a new 2016 1/2 year model Grand Touring at $27K, this was pretty decent deal as used 2014's were going in at around $23K if in good shape. Her's being a last on lot type deal as the 18 models were arriving but 2017s were still in the $33-34K range.

She "loves" it a lot and while helping her look/search I'd walk up to random people in parking lots and ask how they liked their CX-5, 6 folks all at random loved em. Other than some creepy stranger walking up to them, all positive reviews.

Part of the decision was current reputation for long life and low long term costs, resale, etc.
 

pete

not peace but 2 Beers!
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
2,542
Location
Iowa
@mcmary

Oh, one other item broached above is dealership support ...

Whatever vehicle you choose i'd recommend checking out reviews for your dealership (if buying from one) or at least others that would be used and find one you can trust .. if under warranty and using the dealership.

They vary a lot .. locally I avoid my Ford Dealership having heard close hand personal reviews from Colleagues, use one in neighboring town as they've been great to my spouse. More pricey than independent shop but they're trustworthy, note options, discount the part costs and labor wise quite competitive.

Used my local GM dealership this last week on a sensor repair .. they claimed to be competitive and they actually replaced same but different location sensor 3 yrs back, so I figured I'd just bite the bullet, get it done again by them. They upped the price over 60% and were more than 50% higher than other nearby dealerships ... dumb me ... Argued it down and luckily they dropped it within 10%.

Lesson being, Dealership service and support after sale may be a major consideration.


(course, that was one reason kid picked the Mazda .. hopefully no major needs but shop was good too)
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
While I'm not a fan of turbos, I love the idea of hybrids with two rear motors like the new RAV4 hybrid. I just makes a ton of sense for an AWD to have rear electric motors. You save the weight of the AWD drivetrain and the computer has precise control over the power to the rear wheels independently.

Toyota has shown they can make extraordinary reliable hybrids. It has to help long-term reliability having those motors taking a load off the engine and drivetrain. Electrification is a great way to add extra horsepower without forcing air into a too small displacement engine. With a hybrid, you can use that small displacement engine normally aspirated and get the extra power and economy from electric motors.

There's a reason Toyota, the most reliable brand, makes hybrids instead of turbos.

I love the idea of a RAV4 as several have suggested. If I was the OP, I'd be looking for a used RAV4 Hybrid:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-toyota-rav4-hybrid-first-drive-review
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/toyota/rav4-hybrid/2016/2016-toyota-rav4-hybrid-first-test-review/

The newly designed 2019 RAV4 comes out in a month or so. You can currently buy a new 2018 RAV4 hybrid for $29K or CPO for $27K. I bet they will be dealing on those as the awesome looking new model shows up in showrooms. The kid will have a car that's good for 15-20 years.
 
Last edited:

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
MPG for the new CX5 turbo? I like that premium is an option, but not a necessity. I had a turbo Jetta in the past, and the premium fuel cost got really old after awhile. The turbo manual was a hoot, though.
 

DanoT

RVer-Skier
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,788
Location
Sun Peaks B.C. in winter, Victoria B.C. in summer
I love the idea of hybrids with two rear motors like the new RAV4 hybrid.

I am not sure about the new one but from the Car and Diver article that you posted, one electric motor on front axle, one on rear axle on the 2016 that C&D reviewed:

"so there’s a 150-hp, 2.5-liter, Atkinson-cycle four-cylinder up front, coupled to a 141-hp, permanent-magnet electric motor using the traditional Toyota CVT automatic. This combination powers the front wheels. The rear wheels are powered by a 67-hp electric motor that has no mechanical connection to the front wheels".
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
MPG for the new CX5 turbo? I like that premium is an option, but not a necessity. I had a turbo Jetta in the past, and the premium fuel cost got really old after awhile. The turbo manual was a hoot, though.

I believe it's one less mpg. So 27 for the turbo and 28 for the non.
 

pete

not peace but 2 Beers!
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
2,542
Location
Iowa
I believe it's one less mpg. So 27 for the turbo and 28 for the non.
one less is pretty surprising.

does seem the future is aimed at electric motors whether adders for AWD as I suspect adding an independent motor is a less production change over for options verses drive trains, transfer cases, etc. This trending regardless due to growing electric and hybrid transition in next 10 yrs.

Terms of OP .... Cost adder of Turbo not really needed and while I believe turbos are more dependable than in the past, I'd still not expect one to last 200K more typical base lines.
 

DanoT

RVer-Skier
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,788
Location
Sun Peaks B.C. in winter, Victoria B.C. in summer
MPG for the new CX5 turbo? I like that premium is an option, but not a necessity.

The CX5 might ping on steep hills or if carrying a big load using regular fuel. This would be bad for the engine but likely fixable with a switch to higher octane of premium gas.

My '93 MR2 like most turbos, requires premium fuel but with 91 octane premium it sometimes stumbles and misfires when I mash the throttle. With the slightly more expensive 94 octane that is available at Chevron stations in British Columbia, the stumble is completely eliminated and the car gets better fuel economy, which covers off the extra fuel cost of the higher octane.
 

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
The CX5 might ping on steep hills or if carrying a big load using regular fuel. This would be bad for the engine but likely fixable with a switch to higher octane of premium gas.

My '93 MR2 like most turbos, requires premium fuel but with 91 octane premium it sometimes stumbles and misfires when I mash the throttle. With the slightly more expensive 94 octane that is available at Chevron stations in British Columbia, the stumble is completely eliminated and the car gets better fuel economy, which covers off the extra fuel cost of the higher octane.
Better or worse at altitude? I mean, supposedly we can run 85 octane here but I refuse to. I still put at least 87 in my car. I've noticed when running 85, MPG decreases.
 

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
I believe it's one less mpg. So 27 for the turbo and 28 for the non.
One thing I've not been happy with with my CX5 is my mileage is averaging just around 26.5, and it tanks to about 22 at Freeway speeds above 70. I wonder if the different engine would fare better?
 

tch

What do I know; I'm just some guy on the internet.
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,538
Location
New England
Just 'cuz I'm opinionated...I'll say it one more time: VW 4-Motion Sportwagon. I'm averaging 34+ mpg in all-over driving.
And roomy -- I slept in it comfortably several nights last year on my ski tour, along with all my stuff.
Comes w/Apple CarPlay.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
I am not sure about the new one but from the Car and Diver article that you posted, one electric motor on front axle, one on rear axle on the 2016 that C&D reviewed:
"so there’s a 150-hp, 2.5-liter, Atkinson-cycle four-cylinder up front, coupled to a 141-hp, permanent-magnet electric motor using the traditional Toyota CVT automatic. This combination powers the front wheels. The rear wheels are powered by a 67-hp electric motor that has no mechanical connection to the front wheels".
Yeah, I was wrong and the new RAV4 also only has one motor in the back. I read @neonorchid 's post with the specs incorrectly.

Even with just one rear motor, It will do fantastic in the snow with some good snow tires. Whatever vehicle the OP's kid gets I'd budget for snow tires too, and get a lesser vehicle if necessary. I'd much rather have my kid driving a vehicle with good winter tires than with AWD. Having both is ideal, but tires are more important for safety.

Yes the new two top trim levels of the 2019 CX-5 (Grand Touring Reserve and Signature) come with the 2.5 Turbo from the CX-9. Not cheap with prices starting above $35,000. Engine good for 250hp with premium fuel and 227hp with regular.

It's a lot more, but the MDX Hybrid does have the two rear motors and a total of 321 horsepower, 5.8 second 0-60 and gets 27 mpg!
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-acura-mdx-sport-hybrid-sh-awd-first-drive-review-1

I drove my buddies MDX Hybrid the other day and it's sweet. In "comfort mode" it drives like a Prius. In "Sport+" mode you can't even tell it's a hybrid and the throttle response is instantaneous. From the C&D review:

"The hybrid system also does away with a mechanical connection between the engine and the rear axle. Instead, a Twin Motor Unit (TMU) packages two 36-hp motors together at the rear. They fill gaps in the engine’s torque curve to sharpen accelerator response in the hybrid compared with the conventional model, and Acura engineers boast that the system takes just 90 milliseconds to fully adjust the torque distribution among the wheels versus about 0.2 second in the regular MDX. In front, a third, 47-hp electric motor spins with the input shaft of the seven-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission and has three roles: delivering supplemental torque, helping smooth out shifts, and acting as a generator."​

I wish there was a Sequoia size version. Who knows, maybe the next LC or Sequoia will have dual rear motors.
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
One thing I've not been happy with with my CX5 is my mileage is averaging just around 26.5, and it tanks to about 22 at Freeway speeds above 70. I wonder if the different engine would fare better?

I'm getting the full 28 mpg running back and forth to the mountains. I work from home so it's the only significant travel my car gets. ;)

Turbo does fare well at altitude. Another reason I'm bumming that I missed it by one year. I'll have to wait until at least 2021 before I even consider a new car.

On the VW recommendation, I bought a Jetta for my son and it's been a great car for him. So I trust that VW makes a reliable car.
 

Sponsor

Top