By Kevin Harrison
Marketing is an interesting thing. It can make us want things we’ve never wanted before or think we need things when we really don’t. Take late night advertising for instance. To channel a famous Seinfeld line, have you ever been up late at night and saw a commercial advertising a knife that could cut through a show and thought “I don’t think I have that. I’m going to buy that knife so can cut my shoes up”.
Well unfortunately, in my mind, this sort of silly marketing is taking place in the compact SUV market
Mazda seems to think we all have access to a desert, giving us the freedom of doing massive power slides whiles screaming ‘zoom zoom!’ at the top of our lungs, while Toyota seems to think we all all love shouting the features we have on our cars to our neighbours as they drive by.
In reality all most people really do with their cars is try to get from point B point alive. That’s the ultimate goal. If you have a family, you can likely add getting there reliably, without using much gas, all while hauling all your stuff, to that list.
What us automotive journalist try to do is test out what each car will be like in the real world. So unfortunately for me, I had no desert to power slide the CX-5 in, which is now boasting a new engine for the 2014 model year. Concerned with being issued a noise complaint ticket, I also refrained from yelling at my neighbours that the 2013 Toyota RAV4 is completely redesigned.
I give you the 2014 Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv vs. 2013 Toyota RAV4 LE real world comparison test!
First things first, lets get to style. While most families want to get where their going safely, frugally and reliably, no one wants to be seen in a minger.
So to address that, Mazda has incorporated its fluid ‘Kudo’ design which means sleek, flowing lines, a throwback to old school Mazda design language and it works quite well. The plastic moldings over the wheel arches convey that you may be driving the base model but indeed my tester was the top of the line GT, as evidenced by the 18 inch wheels and the active HID headlights. Otherwise, the CX-5 pretty much resembles the lower trim level which isn’t necessarily a good thing if you coughed up the extra dough for the GT.
The RAV4, on the other hand, is completely redesigned but it has the same issue with the plastic body molding under its chin and over its wheel wells. My tester was the base model however Toyota has included the same look across the line as well. In general, the RAV4’s look is more sculpted with chiseled lines and a more boxy shape. Most notably, Toyota has decided to dump the lift gate mounted spare tire (now found underneath the chasis) and now has a traditional upward lifting tail gate. My tester game with 16 inch steel wheels and hubcaps which were actually decent design.
Overall, the look of both these utes get lost in the crowd and it’s of now fault of their own. The reality is that compact utes are so popular in this country that you could have an alligator driving one of them and still no one would notice.
That said, despite having likely the only completely redesigned RAV4 around, it went rather unnoticed which is a shame because, again, no one would have seen the redesign in person before. Because of that – this win goes to the Mazda.
Exterior Design Winner: Mazda CX-5
Inside the Toyota’s redesigned interior is exactly what you’d expect: sensible and functional. All the controls are exactly where you’d expect them to be and the centre stack is logically laid out. I love the three big dials (note to all auto manufacturers: bring back dials!) and the faux leather stitching on the dash is a nice touch. Personally I didn’t like the mix of beige on dark grey, but it seemed agreeable with most who has some seat time.
The Mazda CX-5 on the other hand is decidedly more sporting in nature and more luxurious. The latter can be attributed to the higher trim level, however. While it may feel more luxuirous, it’s clear that Mazda is trying to appeal to those who are more performance oriented. In that regard, I’m glad Mazda has decided to ditch the red coloured gauges for white gauges which are a lot easier on the eyes.
Both the RAV4 and the CX-5 came with a rather smallish command touch screen. Both were situated at an appropriate level, however the Mazda’s screen was a bit clearer to read and reacted a bit more quickly.
Since both interiors are well laid out, attractive and functional, the intuitiveness of the Mazda’s display screen is ultimately what is giving it the win here, but make no mistake, the RAV4’s interior is much improved.
Interior Design Winner: Mazda CX-5
One of the big reasons, if not the biggest reason why most people buy compact SUV’s is due to its interior room and cargo room. The Mazda is ample of both, however due to its curvacious design, larger items may hit against the rear lift gate when you attempt to close it. That said, it was able to swallow my TV and TV stand while I moved with relative ease. The rear seats are comfortable and rear legroom and headroom is good.
I was able to use the RAV4 to haul a lot more of my stuff (I was moving) and as evidenced in the pic below, the RAV4 was a champ. All that was required was a bit of Tetris skill on my part to get everything in, but all items made it in with no effort in the end. I also really appreciated that the RAV4 now has a upward lifting tail gate. This meant I was able to fit in large heavy boxes without having to move around the now-gone sideways opening tail gate. The seats were firm but comfortable in all rows, and legroom and headroom was even better than in the Mazda. In fact, the RAV4 had more of an ‘airy’ feeling than inside the Mazda.
For that reason and its superior room and cargo room, the RAV4 wins this round.
Interior Functionality Winner: Toyota RAV4
Now, one of the things that both these automakers -well, pretty much every automaker these days, is boasting is their ability to deliver on both power and efficiency. For their cute ute’s, Both Mazda and Toyota have opted for the simple method of using a small engine and tuning it to get the most power you can get.
In the Toyota’s case, that means a 2.5 litre 176 horsepower with 171 pound foot torque, which is the only unit available in the RAV4. Pull from this engine was strong but buzzy and unrefined. On top of that, the RAV4 didn’t quite seem to know which gear it was supposed to be in while on the highway. The six-speed automatic kept changing its mind as it alternated from up shifting and down shifting, even with cruise control engaged and on a flat surface.
The revamped for 2014 engine found in the CX-5 is upsized from last year’s mode to a 2.5 litre four producing 184 horsepower and 185 pound foot torque. That’s 29 more horses and 35 more pound foot torque. And I have to be honest, this is the engine that should have debuted in the CX-5 in the first place. The 2.0 litre (which, by the way is still available) really was lacking in power when pushed. Now, that fault has been addressed and as a result, the CX-5 gains the ‘zoom zoom’ that the brand so famously shoves in our faces.
But there’s more to ‘zoom zoom’ than just straight line performance. It needs to handle in the bends as well. Despite the ride height, it wasn’t particularly a detriment to the CX-5 in the corners. It felt relatively planted and thanks to big wheels and all-wheel drive, more often than not, you felt as though you could easily take a corner without braking. The only time the CX-5 feels as if it’s out of sorts is when you really push it to the limit and then some under steer will show its ugly head. Steering wheel feedback is decent as well and for the most part, it was pointed and direct.
The RAV4 on the other hand was not nearly as nimble in the corners. Granted it had a disadvantage of smaller, heavier steel wheels, but I honestly don’t think it would have made much difference either way. The ride as far from wafty, but I definitely wouldn’t call it sure footed either in the corners. It felt rather basic, rather plain jane car-like that is.
The new and more powerful engine matched with solid handling abilities means the CX-5 takes the performance category by far.
Performance Winner: Mazda CX-5
As mentioned, the Mazda relies a lot of SkyActiv technology and light weight materials to achieve low fuel consumption. In fact, Mazda claims that the 2014 CX-5 is actually lighter than the now one of the few raw performance vehicles left in the line up, the Mazdaspeed3. So that light weight matched with the inherent lightness of SkyActiv technology means the CX-5 gets an official fuel consumption rating of 7.8 L/100 kms in the city and 5.1 L/100 kms on the highway.
The RAV4 on the other hand is rated at 8.7 L/100 kms city and 6.4 L/100 kms highway. The RAV4 uses a smaller 4 cylinder engine, light weight materials and an aerodynamic design to achieve its fuel consumption figures.
I had both vehicles for a week, drove them both relatively the same way and had a mix of highway and city driving. The Mazda averaged 8.2 L/100 kms in real world driving while the RAV4 averaged 9.4 L/100 kms in real world driving.
Real World Fuel Efficiency Winner: Mazda CX-5
In terms of tech, the RAV4 comes standard with some decent features such as a touch screen, computer read out after each trip and an MP3 and auxiliary jack.
Meanwhile the CX-5 gets a new ‘city smart’ system which will automatically brake the vehicle if a crash is immanent, a touch screen and a interface that will read text messages aloud to you as you drive.
It’s obvious that the CX-5 wins this category as well, however we are comparing a top of the line Mazda to a base Toyota here. In the RAV’s defense, if you opt for a higher trim level you can get equipment such as back-up sensors, lane departure alert and blind spot sensors, but even then you need to opt for the absolute top of the line AWD Limited model and even then they are still optional at an added cost.
Given that the CX-5 wins this one hands down.
Innovation Winner: Mazda CX-5
So the Mazda is the clear winner in this comparo, but the truth of the matter is you’d be a winner in my books if you opted to shop outside this segment altogether. If people really cared about getting from point A to point B in a reliable, safe, innovative, performance oriented vehicle that’s good on gas, they’d just buy a wagon or a hatchback. The problem with these compact SUV’s is that they’re jacked up wagons anyway, so you might as well just buy a real wagon which eliminates the weight and ride height issue which immediately increases performance, efficiency and safety.
Winner Overall: Mazda CX-5
Mazda CX-5 GT Price As Tested: $35,345
Toyota RAV4 LE Price As Tested: $24,790
Immediate Competition:
- Chevrolet Equinox
- Ford Escape
- Honda CR-V
- Hyundai Tucson
- Jeep Compass
- Kia Sportage
- Mitsubishi RVR
- Nissan Rogue
- Subaru Forester
- Volkswagen Tiguan