Why did you choose the Honda CR-V over the CX-50?

I own a 2024 Mazda CX-5 and I really love it. It was my first expensive car. The pricing, style, and great features of the base trim made me a big fan of Mazda. I need to upgrade our second car soon and I’m looking for something slightly bigger but not going into the medium SUV range. I test drove both the CR-V and the Mazda CX-50.

The CR-V has great reviews but I wasn’t too impressed, especially compared to the CX-50. I’m actually curious if I’m missing something about the CR-V!

Here are some pros and cons I noted:

Pros of the CR-V:

  • The boxy shape gives a lot of vertical space and some horizontal space too. The second row is super spacious and the trunk is normal sized. Most of that horizontal space goes to the second row while the CX-50 seems more balanced. I’m 5’7" and don’t want to stack stuff in the trunk much.
  • The hybrid engine in the CR-V feels more refined than the hybrid in the CX-50. There’s less noise and it uses electric power more often at low speeds. Plus, the CR-V has tech to lessen the CVT noise when you accelerate quickly.
  • The lane-keeping assist in the CR-V is more advanced. Mazda’s CX-50 just has lane departure warning. It seems odd that Mazda hasn’t added better lane tech from their CX-70/90 by now.
  • The driver’s seats in the CR-V are really comfy. I loved them right away, while I needed some time to adjust to the seats in the CX-50.

Cons of the CR-V:

  • The exterior is less stylish due to its boxy shape, and the interior has cheaper materials compared to Mazda.
  • The 1.5T gas engine is loud. It has enough power but reminds me of the 2023 Nissan Kicks I test drove before. The non-turbo CX-50 engine is like the CX-5. For the CR-V, it’s too expensive for that noisy engine. I leaned more toward the hybrid trims, but it was more of a necessity.
  • I’ve read reports that the CR-V hybrid’s gas mileage isn’t as good as the Mazda CX-50’s.
  • The price is higher. The ads say one thing, but AWD costs extra and the trims feel basic, pushing you to upgrade for wanted features. The base hybrid starts at $37.5k with just a 7" touchscreen. Why not have a 9" screen by 2025? Meanwhile, the base CX-50 is $36k and has that plus a wireless charger and spare tire. Plus, the CX-50 has lower demand, so you might end even with lower total prices.

I liked the CR-V but it feels like Honda knows they can charge more because they sell well. I think it will hold higher resale value later, but it annoys me a bit since the brand keeps some of that money without offering much in return. If their sticker prices were closer, I might feel differently.

What am I not considering about the CR-V? Besides the extra space for passengers, which could be a big deal if you have tall passengers. At 5’7", I feel okay with the space in the CX-50.

It seems like you didn’t like the CR-V for its engine sound. It’s not a sporty vehicle. Prices are negotiable like all cars. And boxiness can be a pro too. Lastly, the touchscreen size is a matter of choice. You seem to be nitpicking here. The hybrid features are the main concern.

@Zee
I’m not saying I dislike it just because it doesn’t sound sporty. It’s loud, tinny, and strained. The Mazda’s 2.5NA engine doesn’t sound sporty but it’s not cheap sounding.

Plus, boxiness is not just a pro; it’s a tradeoff. I admire Honda’s practicality but they shouldn’t charge more for a boxy design. If they dropped $2k from the MSRP, the CR-V would be a great deal.

I can get used to a 7" touchscreen but I still think it’s unfair that Honda has cheapened important upgrades across their trims to try to make you spend more. They show a lower starting price than Mazda, but with extra AWD, a poor gas engine, and bare trims, you have to pay a lot more before getting a similar trim.

I never checked out the CX-50. For me, it was just Toyota or Honda.

Teo said:
I never checked out the CX-50. For me, it was just Toyota or Honda.

Maybe that’s why Honda can charge more than $2k for their models and still sell more.

Skyler said:

Teo said:
I never checked out the CX-50. For me, it was just Toyota or Honda.

Maybe that’s why Honda can charge more than $2k for their models and still sell more.

Many of us have had great experiences with Honda and Toyota, and that’s why we keep choosing them. I haven’t been loyal to any brand, but riding in Mazdas before, I found them to be stiff for passengers. I didn’t consider test driving a Mazda, especially since their hybrid wasn’t out during my search.

@Shane
I felt the same. I’ve been in a few and wasn’t impressed. In the past, many Mazdas looked like Ford clones. When I got my CR-V, I didn’t want a Ford Explorer. I’m sure it’s improved, but that mindset lingers.

Skyler said:

Teo said:
I never checked out the CX-50. For me, it was just Toyota or Honda.

Maybe that’s why Honda can charge more than $2k for their models and still sell more.

Many older folks like reliable, simple cars. That’s the CR-V. A series of events had me with a CR-V. But I’ve been customizing it over the years with some minor styling and tech updates. I agree with you too. My neighbor has a stock CX-5 and I feel a bit annoyed having to spend $3k on mods just to give my CR-V a better look — and that’s still true if I had a 2025 CR-V.

Made in Canada, I like Honda’s physical controls, fantastic visibility, hybrid setup, and smooth drive with lots of cargo and passenger space.

I believe the CR-V hybrid is better than the 1.5-liter turbo models. It’s quieter and overall more refined, though pricier.

North said:
I believe the CR-V hybrid is better than the 1.5-liter turbo models. It’s quieter and overall more refined, though pricier.

I agree; the upgrades between the CR-V gas and hybrid models are significant. Just trying the gas CR-V almost made me walk out, but they suggested I test drive a hybrid.

I think the extra cost for a hybrid trim is fair compared to the gas options; the base gas models just start too high. I was very disappointed with the $35k EX I tried — beyond the loud engine issue. At least the $37.5k Sport hybrid felt refined.

I owned a 2016 CX-5 and now have a 2025 CR-V Hybrid.

For 2016, the CX-5 was a solid choice with decent performance.

However, over roughly 100k miles, I’ve faced issues like a leaking tailgate, dead batteries, broken windshields, malfunctioning USB ports, a bricked head unit, a messy dashboard in hot weather, clogged sunroof drains, and odd codes about the transmission control unit.

Sadly, none of the three dealers helped much. Fixing everything myself was tough.

When I needed a more reliable vehicle last time my CX-5 stranded me, I started looking around. New CX-5s are nice, but they seem to have the same issues. Then the CX-50 came out, promising improvements. During my search, I tried the RAV4 Hybrid and the CR-V Hybrid (skipped Kia/Hyundai for past issues).

On vacation, I tested a CX-50. Honestly, it felt cheap inside and had a lot of road noise. All the advanced cruise features felt awkward. The seats were uncomfortable, and I didn’t see any advantage over my old car for a higher price. And I’m worried about past issues with the CX-5.

The CR-V Hybrid felt much nicer for about the same price:

  • Quieter
  • Smoother ride
  • Easier to use features, even in the base model
  • More comfortable
  • Roomier in the back seats, similar trunk space
  • It doesn’t come with a spare tire.
  • The CX-50’s AWD system might be better.

Overall, the CR-V was better made.

While researching, I saw issues with the Honda 1.5L engine and some hybrid problems. But it seems Honda has addressed those (for now). Their hybrid system looks well designed without being overly complicated.

Honestly, I miss having a nicer cargo cover and my upgraded stereo from the CX-5.

@Fox
Wow, that’s quite a list of issues. Maybe you were just unlucky, but I get why you’d hesitate to go back to a Mazda.

Did you find the CR-V hybrid to be quieter overall or just less engine noise? I felt that the road noise was about the same as the CX-5 and CX-50 during my drive.

@Skyler
The newer CX-5s are supposed to be quieter. But it’s mostly about road and wind noise.

The CR-V was quieter. That’s part of why we skipped the RAV4 — the highway noise, especially in the back seats.

My 2019 CR-V saved me and my family when a drunk driver hit us after running a red light. We caught some airtime and spun around. The side curtain airbags deployed, and the seatbelt tensioners secured us before we even knew what was happening. We walked away with minor injuries, grateful it wasn’t worse. I said to myself, ‘this is why I bought a Honda.’ My previous CR-V held its value well, letting me put a big down payment on a new one.

Edit: Everyone should do what feels best for them. I trusted my gut with my 2019 and it proved to be the right choice.

@Hollis
The CR-V is definitely safe; really, most modern cars are. Technically, the CX-50 has a higher safety rating, but I didn’t mention it because I assume they’re quite close.

The CR-V has fantastic headroom. I trust Honda and Toyota more than other brands. I’ve had great experiences with both. I know others who’ve struggled with Mazdas. For me, the CR-V topples even the RAV4.

Comfort is key. I live where the roads are terrible, and the CR-V feels like a soft ride over bumps, while the CX-50 makes you feel every little thing. I’m a repeat Mazda customer, and they do make good cars. But for comfort, the CR-V took it for me.

@Harlan
That’s fair. The CX-50 rides like the CX-5 when it comes to bumps. Not sure if the CX-50 feels worse in the second row, but it felt fine in the first.

That sunroof in the CX-50 almost knocked my head off during the test drive.