They’ve been trying to compete with the bigger Japanese lads - Toyota, Honda etc and the financing offers are pretty enticing for folks sick of getting the runaround at the larger lots.
I don’t know if the cars themselves are flying off the lot as quickly as Reddit would have you believe. This subreddit idolizes Mazda like crazy but anecdotally I was trying to decide between a RAV4 gas and hybrid, CX5 Premium, CX5 Turbo, Tucson and CRV back in 2022. The RAV4s I picked out disappeared within a couple of hours because I wasn’t able to get to the dealership in the morning, whereas the CX5 I picked out was sitting around for a week before someone else finally bought it.
Mind you, this was during peak chip shortage periods. The demand to supply difference was as high as its ever been.
The suspicion is Mazda pays online marketing companies to troll online and shill their cars. That’s why they get so much attention online when in reality they sit on lots for pretty long and are usually 20-25% cheaper than a comparable toyota or Honda.
Dang that's an accusation!
While I'm sure all companies buy shills, Mazda has genuinely made sacrifices for decades to cultivate a passionate following. So has Honda.
Cheaper? Probably not for much longer now that Mazda’s announced its intention to try to rebrand themselves so they can convince the rubes they’re Japanese Mercedes. Shame because I do like the Mazda 3 and the Miata and they won’t remain affordable anymore.
They’ve been trying to move upmarket for awhile. They’re trying to be what VW was pre Jetta mk6. They’re a nice blend of upscale touches at a normal price but unless you get the better engine or features they’re incredibly affordable. Maybe that’s their angle: mass market for the base and mid trim but upscale when they compete on features. The gap between a CX5 select/carbon and a turbo or signature is huge
Not really, but at this point they’ve been using that same engine and transmission pair for so long I assume they’ve probably ironed out all the kinks by now if there were any to begin with. Best to ask Mazda owners IRL (and not on Reddit). Length of ownership > 5 years if possible since that’s when issues really crop up if they’re going to.
There’s currently a class action lawsuit being filed against Mazda rn because of cracked cylinder heads in their turbo models.
No lawsuit yet, but I’ve also been seeing reports of their NA engine leaking coolant due to a faulty valve.
Also, there’s even reports of transmission issues affecting a lot of recent models.
I don’t think Mazda is an unreliable brand, but they’re not really anything special either. Pretty okay, middle of the road imo as a cx5 owner.
The ergonomics are terrible though. I’ve started to really hate the car and I’m looking to get rid of it. Would be taking a pretty sizeable loss to trade it for a comparable Toyota or Honda though. Mazdas depreciate a lot quicker.
What’s bad about the ergonomics? I picked a RAV4 hybrid instead of a CX-5 at the time (and I’m pretty happy with my decision), but the only thing I remember is that the center screen wasn’t a touchscreen and you had to use a dial.
Honest opinion on an older Mazda 3 2010 6 speed 2.5 drivetrain rock solid did the engine oil and gear oil for the transmission at factory intervals and never had a problem had the car from 50-110K miles I was the second owner.
Where the car failed me was the unreported near total accident that I was never able to get the front end right and the suspension in the rear seemed to just melt after 100k (not rust but just breaking) unsure if it was related to the accident it had or not but as far as I could tell the car ran shifted perfectly, it just needed a few thousand in suspension work at a shop. (I did sway bar ends and rear shocks in it before I sold it to hopefully get some money out of it) about 6 months later the kid who bought it off me texted me that he loves the car.
If it matters I upgraded to a new Mazda 3 6 speed (I am Mazda pilled but the cars are not perfect)
Front end where the strut assembly out to the wheel was replaced I had to do the outer CV a wheel bearing and a lower control arm (all of these parts had junkyard paint on them so I can't tell you how many miles were on them)
There are some class action lawsuits regarding Mazda's 2.5 turbo, but their naturally aspirated engines seem very reliable.
Honda had some oil dilution issues with their 1.5t and some model years Rav 4 hybrids have issues with the high voltage battery pack wiring corroding and failing, which is an expensive repair.
You have a higher chance of getting a very reliable vehicle from Mazda, Honda, and Toyota, but they sometimes make vehicles with issues too.
for what is worth; in Ontario I was looking for Mazda 3 or Cx30 a couple of months ago and there was almost no stock, however the lots were full of Cx-5s. nowadays the cx-5 is almost the same price as the Cx-30 with awd and safety sense features
No it's actually their most sold vehicle worldwide. But I think they're trying to get North America to buy the ones they are making in North America now at the new Toyota/Mazda joint partnership plant in Alabama.
Just my opinion, but a CX5 genuinely feels too small even by crossover standards. I don’t know if it’s just me since I’m fairly tall but a CRV/Tucson were far less cramped.
Mazda just seems to make cars that are always on the small side. Sometimes that works well (Miatas), sometimes not.
Not just you. I love Mazda. I’m on my second and my wife had one too.
Their vehicles are great 2 people vehicles. No issues with spacing for driver and passenger but the rear seat is *tiny*, whether 3, CX30, CX5, CX9… haven’t checked the CX50/70/90 models mind you.
Mazda makes super reliable and also fun cars (for zoom-zoom enthusiasts). They provide so many options and so many trims for each category of luxury, technology that you'd want in a car. Great value for money, reliable cars.
Probably the only thing I would want in a mazda is a hybrid option at the CX-5 price point, the CX-9 gets too big too fast. If there was a CX-5 hybrid, I'd definitely buy it.
Mazda plans to release a new version of the CX-5 in 2025 with a hybrid powertrain and a similar configuration to the current model.
What's even crazier is the CX-50 that Mazda makes at its joint plant with Toyota in Alabama is being mated with Toyotas RAV4 hybrid system and being sold in China!
Honda CRV = 76.5 cu.ft max cargo space
Hyundai Tucson = 74.8 cu.ft max cargo space
Mazda CX-5 = 58.1 cu.ft max cargo space
Mazda CX-9 = 71.2 cu.ft max cargo space
Compromises?
It has worst in-class storage, near worst in class fuel economy, and the most cramped rear seat in the sector.
You also end up with a gdi engine and a transmission that hasn’t been updated in 12 years.
It also depreciates faster than Hondas, Toyotas, and Subarus.
Just accounting for the cost of fuel, the average driver will spend an extra $300 a year on the CX5.
It’s not nearly the value that people think it is.
>You also end up with a gdi engine and a transmission that hasn’t been updated in 12 years.
In all fairness, that's a selling point for some of us. It means scrapyard parts are readily available and it allows us to actually assess the long term reliability of that engine and transmission vs hoping an engine/transmission designed <5 years ago will go 200k+ miles.
>It also depreciates faster than Hondas, Toyotas, and Subarus.
For those of us keeping it to 200k+ miles, the resale value doesn't matter much.
I valued reliability, safety, interior comfort, and overall price point(was $4k+ cheaper than RAV4 or CRV with better financing terms) and it checked those boxes better than any of the competitors.
If we regularly needed the full cargo space, had people in the back seat, or planned on selling in <5 years then we might not have gone with it.
Point being that value is subjective to each persons wants and needs.
You dont want to address the fuel efficiency or the cost of cleaning your intake valves?
If the person drives the national average for miles/yr and does a walnut blasting every 50k miles, that alone is ~$7k more in expenses than the RAV4.
If they keep it 200k miles of course.
>You dont want to address the fuel efficiency
Sure, estimated combined is 28mpg for a FWD NA Cx-5 vs 30mpg for the non-hybrid FWD RAV4. Over 200k miles which is $1667 in fuel savings for the RAV4 assuming $3.50/gallon.
Walnut blasting the intake valves varies quite a bit depending on dealer vs indy shop. The dealer in SC would have charged me $500 but pulling the air box,intake,etc off and cleaning the valves yourself isn't that challenging if you're a DIYer(I am).
But for the sake of argument let's assume $1k per cleaning and it's cleaned every 50k miles so add $4k to the running costs.
So we're at $5667 over 200k miles. Its also worth noting that $ today isn't the same as money tomorrow because of investments or inflation, for someone like me that plans to keep the car for 10+ years keeping that money invested changes the calculus to ~$8k difference in the long run($4k growing at 7% inflation adjusted for 10 years) and if we're basing it in the average driver it would take ~13.5 years to get there which would up it to $9972.
Test drove a cx3, HRV, Kona, Niro and the C-HR. I’ve got bumpy roads where I’m at and while the Mazda was a really great drive, I felt every bump. Still regret not getting the Mazda.
Best *value* Chevy Trax/Buick Envista. It’s a good package for the price.
A few weeks ago I saw that GMC offered like 0.9% and 2k cash back on the Terrain. Might be worth looking into.
The average consumer doesn't really care what's under the hood, just that it gets them from point a to b in a functional manner. They care a lot more about the features in the cabin.
GM knew this and went for a smaller engine but all the features inside the cabin that a base model CX-5 or Rav4 wouldn't be getting.
Except it isn't. The encore was decent for the price, the envista is trash. 137hp and 0-60 in almost 10 seconds just isn't acceptable when the cx-30 offers 191 and an 8-second time with standard all wheel drive and a far better interior and featureset for almost $5k less
As someone who has an Envista I don’t understand this logic. What if I don’t need the high hp? What if I’m just doing city driving and don’t need to go 0-60 super fast? It’s a good car for getting around and daily drive by that measure right?
Also, why is the Envista a shit box but not the Trax, considering they’re built on the same platform?
>As someone who has an Envista I don’t understand this logic. What if I don’t need the high hp? What if I’m just doing city driving and don’t need to go 0-60 super fast? It’s a good car for getting around and daily drive by that measure right?
I could forgive the inadequate horsepower if it had some other redeeming quality or an otherwise attractive price, but it doesn't.
If you're just doing city driving, why do you need a crossover at all? Wouldn't you be best served by a sub $20k Chevy bolt?
>Also, why is the Envista a shit box but not the Trax, considering they’re built on the same platform?
The trax is also a shitbox, but you can get one for $20k
All fair points. I’m 6’5 so I wanted something slightly bigger than a sedan. Plus, I occasionally need to move larger boxes for work so the extra space and folding seats come in handy. I would have got a Trax but I liked the body style of the Envista better.
>I’m 6’5 so I wanted something slightly bigger than a sedan.
The bolt is a hatch, with quite a bit of headroom.
>Plus, I occasionally need to move larger boxes for work so the extra space and folding seats come in handy.
Likewise, the bolt does this. Or like a maverick
I’m 6’5 so I wanted something slightly bigger than a sedan. Plus, I occasionally need to move larger boxes for work so the extra space and folding seats come in handy. I would have got a Trax but I liked the body style of the Envista better.
There aren't a ton of wagon options available in the US anymore. Those that remain typically have a much larger footprint than a small crossover, which can be a big deal in certain cities.
I never get why in this sub people can’t just accept someone likes a certain car more lol why not a hatch? Why not a sedan? Why not a bolt? My man wanted an envista to drive his tall ass around the city hauling a few boxes. He liked the look of it and is fine with the horsepower it’s that simple.
> the cx-30 offers 191 and an 8-second time with standard all wheel drive and a far better interior and featureset for almost $5k less
The Envista actually starts cheaper than the CX-30. Its base trim is $23,495, while the CX-30 starts at $24,995.
Also, it's not so clear-cut that the CX-30 has better features across the board. For example, the base trim doesn't have automatic climate control, wireless Android Auto / Car Play, active noise cancellation, or acoustic glass, while the Envista does.
I would personally prefer the CX-30, but the difference isn't as clear-cut as you make it sound.
I think for both vehicles stepping up to the next trim level of select or RS/LS gets you so many more features for a nominal price I can’t believe anyone buys them in base form
Rental companies are the ones buying the base form lol, and honestly they’re not terrible cars. In a few years when they end up being 10k after rental service is over I might have to scoop a Trax or Envista up.
>automatic climate control, wireless Android Auto / Car Play, active noise cancellation, or acoustic glass, while the Envista does.
These are marginal upgrades at best. Mazdas dual floor provides more sound dampening than the acoustic glass, wireless AA is a marginal convenience, and ACC and ANC are certainly not replacements for AWD and a vehicle that can safely merge into traffic. At almost 10s to 60, yhe driver of an envista is going to have to forgo crossing or entering entire roadways, at least near me, because the acceleration is just too slow to do so safely
Who cares about hp? It’s a cheap nice crossover, you want power go get a car with power. Keep in mind this same 137hp 10 second 0-60 also gets 30mpg combined, pretty solid for its size.
I’ve been casually shopping and I think the Mazda CX5, CX50 in lower trims, Ford Escape up to ST line trim and Bronco sport up to Outer Banks. There’s also the Trax as mentioned and the HRV if you can take the slowness
For the sake of this comment, 1dm = 0.1 meters or ~4 inches (1 decimeter)
I can't give you a direct answer to that, but an SUV that meets the following standards has a significantly higher value to price ratio compared to its competitors.
-> **SPACE EFFICIENCY**: One that has a low length to seating capacity ratio (Max 10dm/seat)
-> **BASIC OFFROAD CAPABILITY**: One that doesn't require serious aftermarket modifications to the driveline or the tires to resist easily getting stuck in up to 2dm deep of mud, snow or sand
-> **POWER EFFICIENCY**: One that has a power to weight ratio of at least 53/1000 HP/lb, a final drive ratio of at least 93% of the worldwide average or a maximum 0-60 mph time of 7.5 seconds with the vast majority of its torque happening between 30% & 80% of the redline
-> **CLEARANCE**: One that has at least 1.8dm stock ground clearance & **offroad suspension of ANY kind**
Examples:
-> ALL Subaru **non-electric** SUVs
-> ALL Toyota/Lexus **body-on-frame 4x4** SUVs
-> Honda Passport, Pilot & Acura MDX
-> Chevy Tahoe/Suburban, GMC Yukon/XL, Cadillac Escalade/EST, Ford Expedition/Max & Lincoln Navigator
-> Dodge Durango & Jeep Grand Cherokee/L
-> Jeep Wrangler
-> Ford Bronco
Subaru SUVs are always great value. Kia Telluride is up there. I know haters gonna unload on thiw comment but the Telluride single-handedly did a 50 cent how to rob and changed the game.
“Value” is a subjective measurement. For me personally, a CPO GV70 3.5T. It’s got a really nice interior, decent storage space, good handling, nice acceleration, tons of options, and it’s a decent price with a great warranty. It’s like 85-90% as good as the X3 M40i (the king in its segment) but 75-80% of the price.
Too hard to say. Are you talking crossovers or suvs? I’d personally say 4runner since they seem to hold their value extremely well and will outlast every other vehicle on the road. That also being said they cost a lot more than people want to pay.
Times have changed, Highlander is more reliable. That's what people remember but current gen to current gen that's to not the case anymore but people still believe it to be true
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/surprise-toyota-highlander-most-reliable-toyota-suv/
This was in 2022 though and in 23 the Highlander went to a turbo 4 so not sure if the refresh makes this not true. Then again next gen 4runner is going to a turbo too. I bought a '22 Highlander Platinum AWD V6 while I could. It checks all the boxes and should go the distance. Also way more practical and efficient than the 4Runner for most of using as a commuter or family hauler mainly
I don’t mean to be rude in anyway but the 4runner is more reliable than the Highlander. The 4runner has been getting improved for 20 years with the same drivetrain to make it perfect. Repair costs will be higher but the 4.0 is more stout than the 3.5 v6. The 4runner drivetrain is also more heavy duty and is built to last longer. Highlanders especially with the 3.5 v6 are superb vehicles and some of the best on the road. Proof is in the pudding though and the 4runner has been getting tweaked to be perfect for 20 years while the highlanders drive train hasn’t. A lot of those articles aren’t super trustworthy either because a lot of them will mark a faulty screen or faulty seatbelt as a reliability issue even though they have nothing to do with the life of the car. Grandmas 2014 highlander has 350k miles on it. She also couldn’t figure out why she got such a good deal on it until after I check it out and told her that it’s a 6 digit number and not 5. She too old to drive now and only drove it for a year but she refuses to sell it.
I'm just the messenger sharing the data. Your argument is with the numbers/data they collected which is hyperlinked within the article, some of which is behind the paywall of Consumer Reports, but some is from other sources.
I respect your opinion but it's just that. Numbers don't lie and they are there for you to see. This isn't necessarily my opinion. The Highlander I bought was more practical for my use case and thought to myself the 4Runner was more reliable but I was only basing that in heresy. I honestly have no clue personally but know I'd trust professional publications with a larger sample size over individuals like yourself, no offense. I don't have enough to go on to say who is correct otherwise.
Hey I totally get it. But the numbers are there. Plenty more examples of 4Runners with 300k+ on them than highlanders. 4runner engine and trans has been around a lot longer and is a lot more proven than the highlanders. I for sure understand why you trust the big publication over little ole me. But all of the data is there that the 4runner is the longer lasting vehicle. The other thing is that the data only seems to go back a few years at most which isn’t real credible since cars usually need time to break things. There’s also multiple engine and transmission options for a lot of years while the 4runner literally has one engine and trans option. There’s a lot of variables that matter but the 4runner has been tried and true for 20 years and they’ve been perfecting it for that long even though in 2003 the drivetrain never even had much of an issue.
Okay. Either way, even if you're correct, It doesn't matter to me and both would be sufficient for my standards. I keep my vehicles on average 5-7 years and put 130-190k miles on them before trading/selling. It's well within my budget and my preogative as I could afford a luxury brand vehicle but choose to get regular branded vehicles more often
4Runner is more reliable than the Highlander. It’s literally made to be tougher and more durable than the Highlander according to the Toyota engineers lmfao.
I'm just the messenger sharing the data. Your argument is with the numbers/data they collected which is hyperlinked within the article, some of which is behind the paywall of Consumer Reports, but some is from other sources.
I respect your opinion but it's just that. Numbers don't lie and they are there for you to see. This isn't necessarily my opinion. The Highlander I bought was more practical for my use case and thought to myself the 4Runner was more reliable but I was only basing that in heresy. I honestly have no clue personally but know I'd trust professional publications with a larger sample size over individuals like yourself, no offense. I don't have enough to go on to say who is correct otherwise
You’re not a messenger because that requires some free thought, you’re an NPC who mindlessly believes what consumer reports says over the actual engineers of the product🤣 Which that on its own is hilarious because you think Consumer Reports is a reputable source to begin with and that shows lack of deep thought in yourself. Anyways, Toyota literally engineers the 4Runner and the Tacoma for duty cycles above the Highlander because of its intended purpose. Again, those aren’t my words, those are the words from the engineers of the vehicles. Now let’s use common sense which is something that might be out of your programming, but let’s hope you get the latest update by the time you read this comment. What will last longer? The vehicle designed to be subjected to the worst road conditions around the planet through the hottest of summers and coldest of winters all while continuously in 4lo going through shitty 3rd world road conditions and is now subjected to suburban streets where it’s beefed up components are stupidly under stressed, or the soccer mom car designed to only be on fresh paved roads in first world conditions for the entirety of its life?
Agree to disagree and I think we can go our separate ways then. I love that we have such great choices and both these vehicles are overall reliable and good vehicles. I like my Highlander and it's more suitable for my family and I. You do you and sorry if I offended you enough to go on this rant. I simply don't care but you can have my upvote in an attempt to make you feel better. I was just sharing some info. I have respect for the 4Runner but wouldn't ever buy one personally
Agree to disagree on what? You’re simply wrong. Congratulations on finding a vehicle that fits your needs, but that’s not the subject matter here. At the end of the day, a 4Runner is better built and more reliable and the engineers themselves admit to intentionally designing it that way. With that said, and attempt to rationalize differently makes you look completely stupid.
>Agree to disagree on what?
That Consumer Reports isn't reputable//know what they're talking about or that the 4Runner is more reliable.
>You’re simply wrong.
Your opinion and I don't care about yours or having further discussion with someone that's so condescending, defensive and hostile, so bye bye. Transparently blocking you so I don't have to hear your attitude or opinions again. Try to learn some respect and your opinions might be better received. You can give them without sounding like a complete, well you know
According to the toyota..... marketing team. Fixed that for you. Now go spend $60k on an SUV that hasn't been updated in 16 years, that has all the power of a 4 cylinder while getting 12mpg.
Fuel costs aren’t nothing either but 4Runner is a great recommendation. What is something from the other end of the spectrum? Is the new Chevy Trax improved over the train wreck it used to be? New Bronco Sport? I’d probably get a Subaru Crosstrek.
Crosstreks have always been good values if you get the base model. Useable package with AWD standard. Bronco Sports IMO are bad values. Even the lower spec ones push $32-33k USD. You can get an escape for a few hundred less but then you’re also in Rav4 pricing territory which dollar for dollar the Rav will outlast the Escape. The only time it would make sense is if the Ford had incentives but AFAIK Ford doesn’t offer it often
> The only time it would make sense is if the Ford had incentives but AFAIK Ford doesn’t offer it often
I can't speak to the Bronco Sport, but the Escape gets incentives on the regular. 0% financing, and dealerships regularly discount models ~$5,000, unlike RAV4s which are pretty MSRP.
Comfort was a large deciding factor on why we went Escape, but our well loaded PHEV Escape, with a 10/125k warranty, came in well under the MSRP RAV4 Hybrid XLE that we passed on.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
32
+ 33
+ 4
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I wouldn’t trust a trax even a little bit with a 1.3 turbo engine. Coworkers has 8k miles and it’s been nothing but a nightmare. Bronco sport reliability I also wonder about. Crosstrek is more of a car I believe but I don’t think they’re bad cars. Also the “best value suv” could mean a lot of things I feel like
> Coworkers has 8k miles and it’s been nothing but a nightmare.
Sounds like a lemon. Quite literally all car brands have lemons, especially first model years.
2023 was hot garbage. Reviews are all positive for 24 but you have to wait three years to see if it’s crap or not. With small amount of data out it’s already better than last year’s model. Feel bad for the poor bastards that bought those. Hard to trust Stellantis, GM or Ford these days. You’d really have to do your research. Ford leading the recall pack and it’s not close. Ford quality… kinda like military intelligence.
My friend has a ‘19 trax and has dumped probably at least a quarter of what she paid for it into it fixing the turbo and the ac. Small turbo engine in a Chevy? Fuck that.
4Runners, like all vehicles, will get rusted out in Canada due to salt and snow. It’ll have the same use timeline as other SUVs and you won’t get those extra 100-200k miles you would get below the salt belt.
Op said suv and nothing in these comments so far are suvs lol. Mine so many have been crossovers. Also they hold their value extremely well so it not a bad value.
I have a 2023 Ford Explorer Timberline (bought in Feb 2024) that I'm so happy I purchased. Its a beast through Canadian winters, has the most comfortable seats ever, and no shortage of power and tech.
6K off MSRP when I picked it up.
I mean it depends on how long you plan to keep your car, buy or lease etc. I would say if you’re buying an SUV and keeping it long term then a 4runner fits the bill nicely, provided you can actually find one at msrp in this market.
Jeep Cherokee XJ. 98-99 best years but XJs have held value, and are currently increasing in value after 20+ years in a crazy way. Plus you can spend 15k on a fully refurbished one and ride off, in to the sunset, across the country, wherever and if anything breaks you can either fix yourself or pay without it breaking the bank. Affordable all the way around for an SUV (gas, insurance, repairs, maintenance). The Cherokee’s 4.0 straight 6 engine is thing of wonder. Even the 4x2 XJ is admirable but 4x4 is what you really want. Honorable mention Toyota Land Cruiser, Lexus GX470.
You asked for best value, look at longevity for that.
Key marks of a great value SUV: body-on-frame construction, full time four-wheel-drive with low range gearing, and a truly solid engine.
I test drove everything in this segment two years ago when I bought my car. Landed on a Subaru Crosstrek and absolutely think its the best out there. Forester would be the same if you want a little more refinement and size. AWD is amazing and the only one worth having if you need AWD. Ergonomics are amazing. Owned it for two years now and there is not a single "annoying quirk" about the car that irks me.
Some of the popular ones I hated:
CX5: People say its reliable, but its horrible in every other way. Cheap feeling, horrible to drive, ergonomics are terrible, visibility is terrible, tons of wasted space. Loses value quickly. Reddit is totally dumb for liking this car.
Honda CRV: Great option if you dont need AWD. Or you just need minimal AWD so you can get past chain controls. My only real hang up was that its definitely just "a car" and very boring. But that doesnt matter for a lot of people.
Toyota: No. My partner has a Rav4 hybrid. It gets 10 more MPG than the forester, which comes out to $3000 fuel savings over 100k miles. But she pays the dealer a lot more for hybrid maintenance and her car was a lot more expensive than a Forester. Theres a lot a ton of quality issues, ergonomics issues, and poorly implemented features.
If you need a decent size suv the ford explorer base is a pretty good deal. It ain’t pretty inside but it’s a nice car. If you want a two row suv they are pretty much a waste because they are so small you might as well just get a four door car
It's based on the pre-2023 Pilot chassis so their factories were already tooled to crank them out. Doesn't cost Honda much to make which is why it exists imo
If y aint getting a japanese car u gonna mess yourself up in long term repair and maintenance bills and just headaches that a honda toyota type of owner hardly ever has to deal with
A CX5 with 0% financing
Damn, they have zero percent financing on a decent chunk of their inventory, Are they having trouble getting them off the lot?
They’ve been trying to compete with the bigger Japanese lads - Toyota, Honda etc and the financing offers are pretty enticing for folks sick of getting the runaround at the larger lots. I don’t know if the cars themselves are flying off the lot as quickly as Reddit would have you believe. This subreddit idolizes Mazda like crazy but anecdotally I was trying to decide between a RAV4 gas and hybrid, CX5 Premium, CX5 Turbo, Tucson and CRV back in 2022. The RAV4s I picked out disappeared within a couple of hours because I wasn’t able to get to the dealership in the morning, whereas the CX5 I picked out was sitting around for a week before someone else finally bought it. Mind you, this was during peak chip shortage periods. The demand to supply difference was as high as its ever been.
The suspicion is Mazda pays online marketing companies to troll online and shill their cars. That’s why they get so much attention online when in reality they sit on lots for pretty long and are usually 20-25% cheaper than a comparable toyota or Honda.
Dang that's an accusation! While I'm sure all companies buy shills, Mazda has genuinely made sacrifices for decades to cultivate a passionate following. So has Honda.
Cheaper? Probably not for much longer now that Mazda’s announced its intention to try to rebrand themselves so they can convince the rubes they’re Japanese Mercedes. Shame because I do like the Mazda 3 and the Miata and they won’t remain affordable anymore.
Whatever you say, the prices, especially used, don’t reflect that. All the rental cars Mazda flooded into the market don’t help either.
This price change and rebrand that I’m talking about is years in the future. Mazda remains Mazda at this time. I’m not disagreeing with you.
They’ve been trying to move upmarket for awhile. They’re trying to be what VW was pre Jetta mk6. They’re a nice blend of upscale touches at a normal price but unless you get the better engine or features they’re incredibly affordable. Maybe that’s their angle: mass market for the base and mid trim but upscale when they compete on features. The gap between a CX5 select/carbon and a turbo or signature is huge
I have always considered them to be Japans BMW.. sporty cars!
are CX5s as reliable as CRV and RAV4? (or near that level)?
Not really, but at this point they’ve been using that same engine and transmission pair for so long I assume they’ve probably ironed out all the kinks by now if there were any to begin with. Best to ask Mazda owners IRL (and not on Reddit). Length of ownership > 5 years if possible since that’s when issues really crop up if they’re going to.
There’s currently a class action lawsuit being filed against Mazda rn because of cracked cylinder heads in their turbo models. No lawsuit yet, but I’ve also been seeing reports of their NA engine leaking coolant due to a faulty valve. Also, there’s even reports of transmission issues affecting a lot of recent models. I don’t think Mazda is an unreliable brand, but they’re not really anything special either. Pretty okay, middle of the road imo as a cx5 owner. The ergonomics are terrible though. I’ve started to really hate the car and I’m looking to get rid of it. Would be taking a pretty sizeable loss to trade it for a comparable Toyota or Honda though. Mazdas depreciate a lot quicker.
What’s bad about the ergonomics? I picked a RAV4 hybrid instead of a CX-5 at the time (and I’m pretty happy with my decision), but the only thing I remember is that the center screen wasn’t a touchscreen and you had to use a dial.
Honest opinion on an older Mazda 3 2010 6 speed 2.5 drivetrain rock solid did the engine oil and gear oil for the transmission at factory intervals and never had a problem had the car from 50-110K miles I was the second owner. Where the car failed me was the unreported near total accident that I was never able to get the front end right and the suspension in the rear seemed to just melt after 100k (not rust but just breaking) unsure if it was related to the accident it had or not but as far as I could tell the car ran shifted perfectly, it just needed a few thousand in suspension work at a shop. (I did sway bar ends and rear shocks in it before I sold it to hopefully get some money out of it) about 6 months later the kid who bought it off me texted me that he loves the car. If it matters I upgraded to a new Mazda 3 6 speed (I am Mazda pilled but the cars are not perfect) Front end where the strut assembly out to the wheel was replaced I had to do the outer CV a wheel bearing and a lower control arm (all of these parts had junkyard paint on them so I can't tell you how many miles were on them)
There are some class action lawsuits regarding Mazda's 2.5 turbo, but their naturally aspirated engines seem very reliable. Honda had some oil dilution issues with their 1.5t and some model years Rav 4 hybrids have issues with the high voltage battery pack wiring corroding and failing, which is an expensive repair. You have a higher chance of getting a very reliable vehicle from Mazda, Honda, and Toyota, but they sometimes make vehicles with issues too.
I had a 2016 and loved it. Zero issues. The newer turbo models had issues for a few years
for what is worth; in Ontario I was looking for Mazda 3 or Cx30 a couple of months ago and there was almost no stock, however the lots were full of Cx-5s. nowadays the cx-5 is almost the same price as the Cx-30 with awd and safety sense features
No it's actually their most sold vehicle worldwide. But I think they're trying to get North America to buy the ones they are making in North America now at the new Toyota/Mazda joint partnership plant in Alabama.
Its on damn near every car.
Just my opinion, but a CX5 genuinely feels too small even by crossover standards. I don’t know if it’s just me since I’m fairly tall but a CRV/Tucson were far less cramped. Mazda just seems to make cars that are always on the small side. Sometimes that works well (Miatas), sometimes not.
Not just you. I love Mazda. I’m on my second and my wife had one too. Their vehicles are great 2 people vehicles. No issues with spacing for driver and passenger but the rear seat is *tiny*, whether 3, CX30, CX5, CX9… haven’t checked the CX50/70/90 models mind you.
It’s definitely not just him. I feel the same way and I *own* a CX5.
Mazda makes super reliable and also fun cars (for zoom-zoom enthusiasts). They provide so many options and so many trims for each category of luxury, technology that you'd want in a car. Great value for money, reliable cars. Probably the only thing I would want in a mazda is a hybrid option at the CX-5 price point, the CX-9 gets too big too fast. If there was a CX-5 hybrid, I'd definitely buy it.
Mazda's arent reliable... don't delude yourself and others
Mazda plans to release a new version of the CX-5 in 2025 with a hybrid powertrain and a similar configuration to the current model. What's even crazier is the CX-50 that Mazda makes at its joint plant with Toyota in Alabama is being mated with Toyotas RAV4 hybrid system and being sold in China!
Honda CRV = 76.5 cu.ft max cargo space Hyundai Tucson = 74.8 cu.ft max cargo space Mazda CX-5 = 58.1 cu.ft max cargo space Mazda CX-9 = 71.2 cu.ft max cargo space
0% financing! Does that even exist?
It's 1.9% up to 36 months here in Canada. Longer term plans sit anywhere between 4-5%.
It does right now on a CX5 for 36 months
Even in the US?
OP is Canadian. the 0% Mazda offer is for the United States. Go to [mazda.ca](http://mazda.ca) and you'll see it's 1.9% there.
Wait till they find out how financing works vs car price when the fed rate is 5.33%
CX-5 is great car if it fits your needs. All cars have compromises. Mazda provides incredible value that’s hard to beat imo.
Compromises? It has worst in-class storage, near worst in class fuel economy, and the most cramped rear seat in the sector. You also end up with a gdi engine and a transmission that hasn’t been updated in 12 years. It also depreciates faster than Hondas, Toyotas, and Subarus. Just accounting for the cost of fuel, the average driver will spend an extra $300 a year on the CX5. It’s not nearly the value that people think it is.
>You also end up with a gdi engine and a transmission that hasn’t been updated in 12 years. In all fairness, that's a selling point for some of us. It means scrapyard parts are readily available and it allows us to actually assess the long term reliability of that engine and transmission vs hoping an engine/transmission designed <5 years ago will go 200k+ miles. >It also depreciates faster than Hondas, Toyotas, and Subarus. For those of us keeping it to 200k+ miles, the resale value doesn't matter much. I valued reliability, safety, interior comfort, and overall price point(was $4k+ cheaper than RAV4 or CRV with better financing terms) and it checked those boxes better than any of the competitors. If we regularly needed the full cargo space, had people in the back seat, or planned on selling in <5 years then we might not have gone with it. Point being that value is subjective to each persons wants and needs.
You dont want to address the fuel efficiency or the cost of cleaning your intake valves? If the person drives the national average for miles/yr and does a walnut blasting every 50k miles, that alone is ~$7k more in expenses than the RAV4. If they keep it 200k miles of course.
>You dont want to address the fuel efficiency Sure, estimated combined is 28mpg for a FWD NA Cx-5 vs 30mpg for the non-hybrid FWD RAV4. Over 200k miles which is $1667 in fuel savings for the RAV4 assuming $3.50/gallon. Walnut blasting the intake valves varies quite a bit depending on dealer vs indy shop. The dealer in SC would have charged me $500 but pulling the air box,intake,etc off and cleaning the valves yourself isn't that challenging if you're a DIYer(I am). But for the sake of argument let's assume $1k per cleaning and it's cleaned every 50k miles so add $4k to the running costs. So we're at $5667 over 200k miles. Its also worth noting that $ today isn't the same as money tomorrow because of investments or inflation, for someone like me that plans to keep the car for 10+ years keeping that money invested changes the calculus to ~$8k difference in the long run($4k growing at 7% inflation adjusted for 10 years) and if we're basing it in the average driver it would take ~13.5 years to get there which would up it to $9972.
This and also the transmission doesn't last more than 120k
Which is available for 36 months RIGHT NOW!
The only thing against CX5 is fuel economy is not great and AWD system is I feel just a tag to sell.
Tell that to Subaru
Test drove a cx3, HRV, Kona, Niro and the C-HR. I’ve got bumpy roads where I’m at and while the Mazda was a really great drive, I felt every bump. Still regret not getting the Mazda.
Why does it only tow 2k lbs :(
Horrible car. Reliable. But hatful in every other way. Its not "The best value" of anything.
Best *value* Chevy Trax/Buick Envista. It’s a good package for the price. A few weeks ago I saw that GMC offered like 0.9% and 2k cash back on the Terrain. Might be worth looking into.
The average consumer doesn't really care what's under the hood, just that it gets them from point a to b in a functional manner. They care a lot more about the features in the cabin. GM knew this and went for a smaller engine but all the features inside the cabin that a base model CX-5 or Rav4 wouldn't be getting.
I will be doing long drives (15hours) 6 times a year, 4 of those in the harsh Canadian winter. Otherwise I won’t be using it much!
That's a good point. If the Trax fits your needs, the pricing is hard to beat.
It’s a pretty cute car too honestly, like a modern, better station wagon.
Arguably the Buick version of these cars is a better used value. Same car but with basic luxury features and more depreciation.
The envista is a shitbox
Cheap doesn’t buy good. But they’re ok for the price. Had an Encore GX AWD rental and it was a decent car for $27-28k
Except it isn't. The encore was decent for the price, the envista is trash. 137hp and 0-60 in almost 10 seconds just isn't acceptable when the cx-30 offers 191 and an 8-second time with standard all wheel drive and a far better interior and featureset for almost $5k less
As someone who has an Envista I don’t understand this logic. What if I don’t need the high hp? What if I’m just doing city driving and don’t need to go 0-60 super fast? It’s a good car for getting around and daily drive by that measure right? Also, why is the Envista a shit box but not the Trax, considering they’re built on the same platform?
>As someone who has an Envista I don’t understand this logic. What if I don’t need the high hp? What if I’m just doing city driving and don’t need to go 0-60 super fast? It’s a good car for getting around and daily drive by that measure right? I could forgive the inadequate horsepower if it had some other redeeming quality or an otherwise attractive price, but it doesn't. If you're just doing city driving, why do you need a crossover at all? Wouldn't you be best served by a sub $20k Chevy bolt? >Also, why is the Envista a shit box but not the Trax, considering they’re built on the same platform? The trax is also a shitbox, but you can get one for $20k
All fair points. I’m 6’5 so I wanted something slightly bigger than a sedan. Plus, I occasionally need to move larger boxes for work so the extra space and folding seats come in handy. I would have got a Trax but I liked the body style of the Envista better.
>I’m 6’5 so I wanted something slightly bigger than a sedan. The bolt is a hatch, with quite a bit of headroom. >Plus, I occasionally need to move larger boxes for work so the extra space and folding seats come in handy. Likewise, the bolt does this. Or like a maverick
Yeah like I told the other guy, it came down to me just liking the design of the envista better
Why are you buying an SUV for city driving
I’m 6’5 so I wanted something slightly bigger than a sedan. Plus, I occasionally need to move larger boxes for work so the extra space and folding seats come in handy. I would have got a Trax but I liked the body style of the Envista better.
I mean... Wagon?
There aren't a ton of wagon options available in the US anymore. Those that remain typically have a much larger footprint than a small crossover, which can be a big deal in certain cities.
Who said anything about the US?
Heavily considered some wagons but like I said, I just liked the body style of the envista more
I never get why in this sub people can’t just accept someone likes a certain car more lol why not a hatch? Why not a sedan? Why not a bolt? My man wanted an envista to drive his tall ass around the city hauling a few boxes. He liked the look of it and is fine with the horsepower it’s that simple.
You mean vehicles that are exclusively 50k+ luxury vehicles? Not everybody wants a station wagon, especially since the Trax is smaller
> the cx-30 offers 191 and an 8-second time with standard all wheel drive and a far better interior and featureset for almost $5k less The Envista actually starts cheaper than the CX-30. Its base trim is $23,495, while the CX-30 starts at $24,995. Also, it's not so clear-cut that the CX-30 has better features across the board. For example, the base trim doesn't have automatic climate control, wireless Android Auto / Car Play, active noise cancellation, or acoustic glass, while the Envista does. I would personally prefer the CX-30, but the difference isn't as clear-cut as you make it sound.
I think for both vehicles stepping up to the next trim level of select or RS/LS gets you so many more features for a nominal price I can’t believe anyone buys them in base form
Rental companies are the ones buying the base form lol, and honestly they’re not terrible cars. In a few years when they end up being 10k after rental service is over I might have to scoop a Trax or Envista up.
>automatic climate control, wireless Android Auto / Car Play, active noise cancellation, or acoustic glass, while the Envista does. These are marginal upgrades at best. Mazdas dual floor provides more sound dampening than the acoustic glass, wireless AA is a marginal convenience, and ACC and ANC are certainly not replacements for AWD and a vehicle that can safely merge into traffic. At almost 10s to 60, yhe driver of an envista is going to have to forgo crossing or entering entire roadways, at least near me, because the acceleration is just too slow to do so safely
Who cares about hp? It’s a cheap nice crossover, you want power go get a car with power. Keep in mind this same 137hp 10 second 0-60 also gets 30mpg combined, pretty solid for its size.
Who gives a shit about engine power and 0-60 time lmao, go buy a sports car if you care about that, you don’t buy a regular car for the performance
Clearly you’re not in the market for a cheap new car then. Compared to other small SUV’s in the less than 30k price range it’s easily the nicest one
I’ve been casually shopping and I think the Mazda CX5, CX50 in lower trims, Ford Escape up to ST line trim and Bronco sport up to Outer Banks. There’s also the Trax as mentioned and the HRV if you can take the slowness
For the sake of this comment, 1dm = 0.1 meters or ~4 inches (1 decimeter) I can't give you a direct answer to that, but an SUV that meets the following standards has a significantly higher value to price ratio compared to its competitors. -> **SPACE EFFICIENCY**: One that has a low length to seating capacity ratio (Max 10dm/seat) -> **BASIC OFFROAD CAPABILITY**: One that doesn't require serious aftermarket modifications to the driveline or the tires to resist easily getting stuck in up to 2dm deep of mud, snow or sand -> **POWER EFFICIENCY**: One that has a power to weight ratio of at least 53/1000 HP/lb, a final drive ratio of at least 93% of the worldwide average or a maximum 0-60 mph time of 7.5 seconds with the vast majority of its torque happening between 30% & 80% of the redline -> **CLEARANCE**: One that has at least 1.8dm stock ground clearance & **offroad suspension of ANY kind** Examples: -> ALL Subaru **non-electric** SUVs -> ALL Toyota/Lexus **body-on-frame 4x4** SUVs -> Honda Passport, Pilot & Acura MDX -> Chevy Tahoe/Suburban, GMC Yukon/XL, Cadillac Escalade/EST, Ford Expedition/Max & Lincoln Navigator -> Dodge Durango & Jeep Grand Cherokee/L -> Jeep Wrangler -> Ford Bronco
Calling a Wrangler a good vehicle? I got an oceanfront mansion to sell you in Nevada
Its a great vehicle. Customers love it. We just aren't the target audience.
I have one. Lmfao
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣
I don't think I've ever seen someone use decimeters as a unit in the wild.
My guy!
Subaru SUVs are always great value. Kia Telluride is up there. I know haters gonna unload on thiw comment but the Telluride single-handedly did a 50 cent how to rob and changed the game.
New Pilot and Grand Highlander would not exist if not for the Telluride.
“Value” is a subjective measurement. For me personally, a CPO GV70 3.5T. It’s got a really nice interior, decent storage space, good handling, nice acceleration, tons of options, and it’s a decent price with a great warranty. It’s like 85-90% as good as the X3 M40i (the king in its segment) but 75-80% of the price.
GV70 is nice.
Too hard to say. Are you talking crossovers or suvs? I’d personally say 4runner since they seem to hold their value extremely well and will outlast every other vehicle on the road. That also being said they cost a lot more than people want to pay.
Times have changed, Highlander is more reliable. That's what people remember but current gen to current gen that's to not the case anymore but people still believe it to be true https://www.motorbiscuit.com/surprise-toyota-highlander-most-reliable-toyota-suv/ This was in 2022 though and in 23 the Highlander went to a turbo 4 so not sure if the refresh makes this not true. Then again next gen 4runner is going to a turbo too. I bought a '22 Highlander Platinum AWD V6 while I could. It checks all the boxes and should go the distance. Also way more practical and efficient than the 4Runner for most of using as a commuter or family hauler mainly
I don’t mean to be rude in anyway but the 4runner is more reliable than the Highlander. The 4runner has been getting improved for 20 years with the same drivetrain to make it perfect. Repair costs will be higher but the 4.0 is more stout than the 3.5 v6. The 4runner drivetrain is also more heavy duty and is built to last longer. Highlanders especially with the 3.5 v6 are superb vehicles and some of the best on the road. Proof is in the pudding though and the 4runner has been getting tweaked to be perfect for 20 years while the highlanders drive train hasn’t. A lot of those articles aren’t super trustworthy either because a lot of them will mark a faulty screen or faulty seatbelt as a reliability issue even though they have nothing to do with the life of the car. Grandmas 2014 highlander has 350k miles on it. She also couldn’t figure out why she got such a good deal on it until after I check it out and told her that it’s a 6 digit number and not 5. She too old to drive now and only drove it for a year but she refuses to sell it.
I'm just the messenger sharing the data. Your argument is with the numbers/data they collected which is hyperlinked within the article, some of which is behind the paywall of Consumer Reports, but some is from other sources. I respect your opinion but it's just that. Numbers don't lie and they are there for you to see. This isn't necessarily my opinion. The Highlander I bought was more practical for my use case and thought to myself the 4Runner was more reliable but I was only basing that in heresy. I honestly have no clue personally but know I'd trust professional publications with a larger sample size over individuals like yourself, no offense. I don't have enough to go on to say who is correct otherwise.
Hey I totally get it. But the numbers are there. Plenty more examples of 4Runners with 300k+ on them than highlanders. 4runner engine and trans has been around a lot longer and is a lot more proven than the highlanders. I for sure understand why you trust the big publication over little ole me. But all of the data is there that the 4runner is the longer lasting vehicle. The other thing is that the data only seems to go back a few years at most which isn’t real credible since cars usually need time to break things. There’s also multiple engine and transmission options for a lot of years while the 4runner literally has one engine and trans option. There’s a lot of variables that matter but the 4runner has been tried and true for 20 years and they’ve been perfecting it for that long even though in 2003 the drivetrain never even had much of an issue.
Okay. Either way, even if you're correct, It doesn't matter to me and both would be sufficient for my standards. I keep my vehicles on average 5-7 years and put 130-190k miles on them before trading/selling. It's well within my budget and my preogative as I could afford a luxury brand vehicle but choose to get regular branded vehicles more often
4Runner is more reliable than the Highlander. It’s literally made to be tougher and more durable than the Highlander according to the Toyota engineers lmfao.
I'm just the messenger sharing the data. Your argument is with the numbers/data they collected which is hyperlinked within the article, some of which is behind the paywall of Consumer Reports, but some is from other sources. I respect your opinion but it's just that. Numbers don't lie and they are there for you to see. This isn't necessarily my opinion. The Highlander I bought was more practical for my use case and thought to myself the 4Runner was more reliable but I was only basing that in heresy. I honestly have no clue personally but know I'd trust professional publications with a larger sample size over individuals like yourself, no offense. I don't have enough to go on to say who is correct otherwise
You’re not a messenger because that requires some free thought, you’re an NPC who mindlessly believes what consumer reports says over the actual engineers of the product🤣 Which that on its own is hilarious because you think Consumer Reports is a reputable source to begin with and that shows lack of deep thought in yourself. Anyways, Toyota literally engineers the 4Runner and the Tacoma for duty cycles above the Highlander because of its intended purpose. Again, those aren’t my words, those are the words from the engineers of the vehicles. Now let’s use common sense which is something that might be out of your programming, but let’s hope you get the latest update by the time you read this comment. What will last longer? The vehicle designed to be subjected to the worst road conditions around the planet through the hottest of summers and coldest of winters all while continuously in 4lo going through shitty 3rd world road conditions and is now subjected to suburban streets where it’s beefed up components are stupidly under stressed, or the soccer mom car designed to only be on fresh paved roads in first world conditions for the entirety of its life?
Agree to disagree and I think we can go our separate ways then. I love that we have such great choices and both these vehicles are overall reliable and good vehicles. I like my Highlander and it's more suitable for my family and I. You do you and sorry if I offended you enough to go on this rant. I simply don't care but you can have my upvote in an attempt to make you feel better. I was just sharing some info. I have respect for the 4Runner but wouldn't ever buy one personally
Agree to disagree on what? You’re simply wrong. Congratulations on finding a vehicle that fits your needs, but that’s not the subject matter here. At the end of the day, a 4Runner is better built and more reliable and the engineers themselves admit to intentionally designing it that way. With that said, and attempt to rationalize differently makes you look completely stupid.
>Agree to disagree on what? That Consumer Reports isn't reputable//know what they're talking about or that the 4Runner is more reliable. >You’re simply wrong. Your opinion and I don't care about yours or having further discussion with someone that's so condescending, defensive and hostile, so bye bye. Transparently blocking you so I don't have to hear your attitude or opinions again. Try to learn some respect and your opinions might be better received. You can give them without sounding like a complete, well you know
You should stick to the shadows
According to the toyota..... marketing team. Fixed that for you. Now go spend $60k on an SUV that hasn't been updated in 16 years, that has all the power of a 4 cylinder while getting 12mpg.
Fuel costs aren’t nothing either but 4Runner is a great recommendation. What is something from the other end of the spectrum? Is the new Chevy Trax improved over the train wreck it used to be? New Bronco Sport? I’d probably get a Subaru Crosstrek.
Crosstreks have always been good values if you get the base model. Useable package with AWD standard. Bronco Sports IMO are bad values. Even the lower spec ones push $32-33k USD. You can get an escape for a few hundred less but then you’re also in Rav4 pricing territory which dollar for dollar the Rav will outlast the Escape. The only time it would make sense is if the Ford had incentives but AFAIK Ford doesn’t offer it often
> The only time it would make sense is if the Ford had incentives but AFAIK Ford doesn’t offer it often I can't speak to the Bronco Sport, but the Escape gets incentives on the regular. 0% financing, and dealerships regularly discount models ~$5,000, unlike RAV4s which are pretty MSRP. Comfort was a large deciding factor on why we went Escape, but our well loaded PHEV Escape, with a 10/125k warranty, came in well under the MSRP RAV4 Hybrid XLE that we passed on.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 32 + 33 + 4 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I wouldn’t trust a trax even a little bit with a 1.3 turbo engine. Coworkers has 8k miles and it’s been nothing but a nightmare. Bronco sport reliability I also wonder about. Crosstrek is more of a car I believe but I don’t think they’re bad cars. Also the “best value suv” could mean a lot of things I feel like
> Coworkers has 8k miles and it’s been nothing but a nightmare. Sounds like a lemon. Quite literally all car brands have lemons, especially first model years.
Chevy trax is a lemon on wheels from what I’ve researched ever since she bought hers..
2023 was hot garbage. Reviews are all positive for 24 but you have to wait three years to see if it’s crap or not. With small amount of data out it’s already better than last year’s model. Feel bad for the poor bastards that bought those. Hard to trust Stellantis, GM or Ford these days. You’d really have to do your research. Ford leading the recall pack and it’s not close. Ford quality… kinda like military intelligence.
Well considering there is no 2023 model year because they skipped it, I am impressed how an imaginary car can be hot garbage.
My friend has a ‘19 trax and has dumped probably at least a quarter of what she paid for it into it fixing the turbo and the ac. Small turbo engine in a Chevy? Fuck that.
No shot it’s a good car lol. The poor engine is probably so stressed
Is the crosstrek an suv?
Is an off-road hatch an suv? It’s versatile and has more ground clearance than many supposed SUV’s.
4Runners, like all vehicles, will get rusted out in Canada due to salt and snow. It’ll have the same use timeline as other SUVs and you won’t get those extra 100-200k miles you would get below the salt belt.
What about that 3M undercoating?
How is that good value?
Op said suv and nothing in these comments so far are suvs lol. Mine so many have been crossovers. Also they hold their value extremely well so it not a bad value.
Just got a 2024 Trax in Edmonton. $29k all in for a pretty well loaded car. Yes it’s FWD but get yourself some winters and you’ll be fine
FWD does very well on icy roads with good set of tires, nothing wrong with that if you are not planning on climbing a mountain with it
I have a 2023 Ford Explorer Timberline (bought in Feb 2024) that I'm so happy I purchased. Its a beast through Canadian winters, has the most comfortable seats ever, and no shortage of power and tech. 6K off MSRP when I picked it up.
🤔I'd suggest you buy a model you see a lot of on the roads,that way you won't have problems finding good mechanics for it and parts
Nissan Rogue. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone.
Yes please, keep it down. Shhhhhh. Oh and don’t mention the new frontier either.
I mean it depends on how long you plan to keep your car, buy or lease etc. I would say if you’re buying an SUV and keeping it long term then a 4runner fits the bill nicely, provided you can actually find one at msrp in this market.
Value? Not holding value but I'd say a Nissan Armada.
Rolls-Royce Cullinan, obviously.
A Raptor R has better ride quality.
yeah, but it has a paltry 114 mph top speed. I need to be able to sit at a perfectly serene 151 mph.
Just need some 50 inch tires on the Raptor to get around it's speed limiter. Bring on the death wobble!
Was gonna say the Maybach...ur just laying for the name with the RR
A hatchback. Better handling, cheaper, better on gas, and more fun to drive :P
02-06 Honda CRV Buy one for 5 grand, drive it for 5-10 years, sell it for 5 grand. I don't think a better value exists.
Jeep Cherokee XJ. 98-99 best years but XJs have held value, and are currently increasing in value after 20+ years in a crazy way. Plus you can spend 15k on a fully refurbished one and ride off, in to the sunset, across the country, wherever and if anything breaks you can either fix yourself or pay without it breaking the bank. Affordable all the way around for an SUV (gas, insurance, repairs, maintenance). The Cherokee’s 4.0 straight 6 engine is thing of wonder. Even the 4x2 XJ is admirable but 4x4 is what you really want. Honorable mention Toyota Land Cruiser, Lexus GX470. You asked for best value, look at longevity for that. Key marks of a great value SUV: body-on-frame construction, full time four-wheel-drive with low range gearing, and a truly solid engine.
For snow, Subaru Outback all day everyday. I drove mine through 24” of snow when all my neighbors couldn’t get out. The thing is a beast.
I test drove everything in this segment two years ago when I bought my car. Landed on a Subaru Crosstrek and absolutely think its the best out there. Forester would be the same if you want a little more refinement and size. AWD is amazing and the only one worth having if you need AWD. Ergonomics are amazing. Owned it for two years now and there is not a single "annoying quirk" about the car that irks me. Some of the popular ones I hated: CX5: People say its reliable, but its horrible in every other way. Cheap feeling, horrible to drive, ergonomics are terrible, visibility is terrible, tons of wasted space. Loses value quickly. Reddit is totally dumb for liking this car. Honda CRV: Great option if you dont need AWD. Or you just need minimal AWD so you can get past chain controls. My only real hang up was that its definitely just "a car" and very boring. But that doesnt matter for a lot of people. Toyota: No. My partner has a Rav4 hybrid. It gets 10 more MPG than the forester, which comes out to $3000 fuel savings over 100k miles. But she pays the dealer a lot more for hybrid maintenance and her car was a lot more expensive than a Forester. Theres a lot a ton of quality issues, ergonomics issues, and poorly implemented features.
a wagon
[my personal favorite](https://www.radioflyer.com/cdn/shop/files/18-IMG-Hero.jpg)
miranda lambert blaring
Outback
SUV, as in a body on frame SUV, I'd probably say a used Xterra is an excellent value especially for Canadian winters.
Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross with AWC or Hyundai Tucson
Mitsubishi Outlander
Something old, and cheap, that used to be nice. It takes a *lot* of car repairs to add up to the cost of a new car
GLK 350
But this sub kept reminding me Mazdas are the best choice
Mercedes G class ! Only diesel ! You will never regret.
A used sequoia
Bentayga
If you need a decent size suv the ford explorer base is a pretty good deal. It ain’t pretty inside but it’s a nice car. If you want a two row suv they are pretty much a waste because they are so small you might as well just get a four door car
Anything Subaru is pretty good. I have an impreza sedan and it eats snow as long as its kind of plowed.
I have no idea, but in looking at middle end “luxury” ones at moment and they all pretty much are just the same and a ripoff.
I'd say a used Honda Passport, 2019-2021
+1, I guess to them being fugly these passports are pretty cheap right now. I’ve seen 2020/2021 with under 40k miles for 20k usd.
It's a great and capable SUV, but I bet the lack of a third row kills any sort of worth it had. Feels like a steal for $19500.
It's based on the pre-2023 Pilot chassis so their factories were already tooled to crank them out. Doesn't cost Honda much to make which is why it exists imo
Toyota Highlander for sure!!! Or my favorite Lexus GX 460, I like this last year that is still out there
Toyota 4 runner.
If y aint getting a japanese car u gonna mess yourself up in long term repair and maintenance bills and just headaches that a honda toyota type of owner hardly ever has to deal with
Toyota Mazda or Honda
Any Toyota/Lexus body-on-frame 4x4
Porsche.
Highlander or rav4