Welcome to Dude Said, Punk Said — a special series devoted to skewering the automotive ramblings of young punk Nick Tragianis with the infinite wisdom of old dude Brian Harper. This week, the duo see how Hyundai’s ‘warm hatch’ — the Elantra GT N Line — stacks up against the freshly redesigned Mazda3 Sport.Nick Tragianis: Its tough to be a regular car these days, what with consumers flocking to pretty much anything with some body cladding, extra ground clearance, and a higher seating position at the expense of driving dynamics, all because they want something a bit more practical than a car. But what if I told you, most of the time, a hatchback is more than enough?The Hyundai Elantra GT and Mazda3 Sport prove you can have your cake and eat it, too. These two arent quite balls-to-the-wall hot hatchbacks, but they both provide a decent dose of cargo space certainly plenty for day-to-day use in an overall package that wont put you to sleep. Brian Harper: Snore! Wheres the passion, kid, the excitement? Youve pretty much described a couple of appliances. No, neither of the two is a hot hatch, though the new N Line version of the Elantra GT replacing the GT Sport for 2019 is certainly warm. The brand-new Mazda3 Sport, meanwhile, is simply one of the best all-around hatchbacks ever produced.These are two great, affordable cars, highly usable with plenty of zip for getting around city congestion, with plenty of comfort and cargo room on longer drives. The Elantra and Mazda3 are direct competitors in size, intent and pricing structure. Its their trim levels that differentiate them. So, make your case do you prefer the added power and boy racer-ish nature of the N Line or the surprising sophistication of the 3 Sport GT?NT: Lets start with the Elantra, shall we? First things first: Its not a North American-spec i30 N. No, that delicious hot hatch is forbidden fruit for us, and will remain so for the next little while. Still, the Elantra GT N Line ($27,199 as tested) is on the right track its 1.6-litre turbo-four is good for 201 horsepower and 195 lb-ft of torque, and thats sent to the front wheels via a six-speed manual transmission or a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic. It also gets sport-tuned suspension bits and bigger brakes, as well as some visual tweaks to set itself apart from the regular Elantra hatch. Its a nifty little package; the Elantra definitely feels zippier than the Mazda thanks to the extra horses and torques, and it handles quite well. Its a pretty good manual, too the clutch is easy to modulate and the shifter is crisp. But it just doesnt feel like its the complete package, unlike the Mazda3 GT ($28,600 as tested). Its bones are familiar the normally aspirated 2.5L SkyActiv four-cylinder puts out 186 horsepower and torque, and its hooked up to either a six-speed manual or automatic. On paper, its down compared to the Elantra, but Mazda makes up for that with displacement the 2.5 is much smoother, and actually fun to wring out with the manual. And although Mazda now uses a torsion-beam rear suspension setup, much to the chagrin of armchair enthusiasts, the new 3 handles no worse than it ever did. Hell, it rides a lot better wind and road noise are barely noticeable, and it soaks up bumps and rough pavement like a champ.BH: Yes, the 3, especially in topline GT trim, has turned out to be quite the package, hasnt it? Big-time kudos to Mazda for not only sticking with the hatchback segment, but building something that people want to own, rather than having to own. (At the risk of unkind comments by yourself regarding my slide into Seniorsville, most of the hatchbacks I was exposed to in my 20s emphasized economy of operation over amenities and comfort my eventual purchase of a VW Scirocco being an exception.) And speaking of the Scirocco, I think the design of the 3 boasts one of the sexiest shapes for a hatchback since Giorgetto Giugiaro penned the VW coupe more than 45 years ago. The two downsides of fashion over function is that the Mazda3s rear hatch window is the size of a mail slot, hindering visibility and thus making the backup camera a necessity; and its thick C-pillars create a somewhat claustrophobic environment for rear-seat passengers. If either is am primary concern, the Elantra GT is the better bet.NT: The Elantra definitely has the advantage in terms of visibility at least, out the back and cargo space, with 705 litres seats up and 1,560 L seats down, versus 569 and 1,334 L seats up and down, respectively, for the Mazda3. Unfortunately, thats about it for the Elantra GTs interior sure, the layout is logical, with everything placed where it needs to be. Sure, the infotainment is easy to use, and physical knobs and buttons control all the vital functions. Sure, the N Line packaging adds nifty red trim bits on the dash and seats. But the overall look and feel is lacking; where the Elantra GT was near the top of the class when it first launched in
Origin: Car Comparison: 2019 Mazda3 Sport vs. 2019 Hyundai Elantra GT N Line
Comparison:
Comparison Test: 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vs. 2019 Honda Passport
JY: In order to make these midsize crossovers appealing to the most possible customers, it seems like designers have all arrived at an incredibly generic form, car companies sticking close to much the same design. For example, take a look at this new-for-2019 Honda Passport, which revives an old nameplate in a five-seat midsize crossover that slots between the CR-V and Pilot in Honda’s lineup. It’s handsome enough, but so incredibly bland. Then again, compared to some of Honda’s other questionable designs of late, maybe bland is a compliment. The 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe is a bit more distinctive with its slim headlights and odd grille shape, but still follows the same template for a five-seat midsize crossover, tall and upright, making sure that practicality is not sacrificed for some styling misadventure. Clayton: While they both look pretty generic, they’ve gone down different paths in the powertrain department. The Santa Fe uses the most common engine configuration of our time: a 2.0L turbocharged four. Taking a page out of the traditionalist playbook for the segment, the Honda uses a large-displacement naturally-aspirated 3.5L V6. The Santa Fe makes less power at 235 versus the Passport’s 280, but on the torque front it’s practically a dead heat with the Passport making 262 and Santa Fe twisting out 260 lb.-ft. What the numbers can’t convey is the different nature of the two engines. The Passport is high-winding and makes power up top while the Santa Fe makes plenty of down-low turbo torque. The Honda’s throttle is also very slow to react in its Econ mode, while the Santa Fe always seems to have enough pep just off the line with that peak torque available from below 1,500 rpm. It just makes it feel more effortless in acceleration.JY: I hear you. I thought the Santa Fe’s engine was a bit rough around the edges with some coarse sounds coming through, but its performance made easy work of acceleration, and the eight-speed auto was as smooth as I would hope for. The Passport’s transmission was equally smooth, so there’s little to pick apart there, and both have variable all-wheel drive systems that prioritize efficiency, but offer extra traction getting through crappy weather or roads. The Passport, however, goes a step further in the SUV direction, with more ground clearance, accepting the tradeoff in handling. Both vehicles ride well enough in a straight line, and both get a little unsettled over really rough, bumpy roads, but the Santa Fe has better composure in your typical city driving, with steering and handling that feel sharper and inspire more confidence in corners and tight parking lots. The Santa Fe also wins with an excellent 360-degree parking monitor with guide lines and well-measured proximity alerts. CS: I would say that the chief difference between the two of them on the road is that the Honda drives like a truck and the Hyundai drives like a car. The Hyundai feels smaller from the driver’s seat and is easier to drive around town than the bulky Honda. Inside, the Hyundai also has a very nice interior, the materials all top notch, loaded with features, anchored by a well laid-out console and info screen. One party trick of the Hyundai’s info screen is the handy “home” page that displays an active corner of the map screen, your music, and has ready-access buttons for most recently used function, like phone controls. It’s a very well thought out feature and one we both used often while driving. The Honda meanwhile is black, shiny black, and more black inside. Rather cave-like if you ask me and it could use some lighter coloured accents to break it up. The Honda is commendable, however, for its multitude of cup holders and storage cubbies. Your phones, sunglasses, and drinks will never want for a place to stay in the Passport. JY: Definitely, and before I get into the Passport’s practicality, I feel like we need to give Honda its due credit — their new infotainment is very slick, with big app’ icons that you can drag from screen to screen just like you rearrange apps on your smartphone, and it has all the cool gizmos just like the Hyundai. That being said, the Hyundai still wins in that department with just a few inconspicuous buttons that still work better as shortcuts to the most common functions. In terms of practicality, there is no denying the Passport’s edge, and a big part of why it seems to drive bigger is because it is bigger. It’s bigger in every exterior dimension, about 7 centimetres longer, 5 cm more wheelbase, and over 12 cm wider, resulting in 1,430 litres of cargo space even with all five seats available, compared to 1,016 L for the Santa Fe. With the rear seats stowed (both split 60/40 for flexibility) the Pilot’s 2,852 L again dwarfs the Santa Fe’s 2,019. Despite the superior cargo capacity, passengers are not overlooked, and both feature roomy back seats with substantial head and legroom, but the Passport’s width gives it a clear edge in that
Origin: Comparison Test: 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vs. 2019 Honda Passport
Pickup Comparison: 2019 Ford Ranger vs. GMC Canyon vs. Toyota Tacoma
Big trucks are exactly that, and many drivers don’t need something with as much bulk as a full-size pickup. So, we corralled the Big Three of the midsize trucks — the 2019 Ford Ranger, GMC Canyon, and Toyota Tacoma — to sort out which might best suit those who don’t need or want a full-sizer. We would have loved to include the new Jeep Gladiator, which is going to be a serious contender when it arrives, but we were just a little too early for its release. We’ll throw it into the mix another time. To be sure, all three of these midsize trucks are seriously capable, close enough to their bigger siblings that they’ll be enough truck for many, many buyers. Plus they’re easier to park, drive, and manoeuvre around town and off road. Each is able to tow in excess of 6,000 pounds, carry more than 1,100 pounds, and traverse the kind of rough ground few SUVs will dare to tread. That said, each truck has its own unique strengths and one stands taller than the rest. After a day of driving each truck over the same route through a muddy and rutted forest, and after many more kilometres on asphalt, this is what we found. Engines We had ourselves a pair of sixes, and one four. The Canyon’s 3.6-litre V6 made the most horsepower at 308, while the Tacoma’s 3.5L V6 churned out 278 horses. The Ranger uses a 2.3-litre turbocharged four-cylinder engine — Ford calls it EcoBoost — that had the lowest horsepower at 270, but the highest torque at 310 lb.-ft. We like power, but we’re fond of naturally aspirated engines versus turbochargers. Regular engines have fewer moving parts, and we like a simpler design if we’re keeping the truck for a while. The turbo, however, gave the Ranger the best published fuel economy at a combined 10.9 L/100 kilometres in city/highway driving (12.2 for the Canyon, and 12.9 for the Tacoma with off-road package). That’s always a bonus, but be aware that turbo engines can get thirsty if they’re worked hard, such as when towing. Torque, of course, is what provides the feeling of power, and the Ranger leads the way here. Touch the throttle and response is immediate, whereas the Tacoma felt like it needed a hard leather whip to get it to giddy up, with peak torque absent until the 3,500-4,000 rpm mark. The Canyon fell somewhere in the middle of these two. The Ranger also felt smoother and less busy because it didn’t have to work so hard to reach its maximum 310 lb.-ft. Transmission-wise, all were automatics: the Tacoma had six speeds, the Canyon eight, and the Ranger had ten. All of them got the job done, but with those extra gears, the Ford added an additional level of smooth shifting. All three trucks were 44, of course, but the Canyon offered an “automatic” four-wheel setting so it can be driven in all conditions, including on alternating dry/wet/snowy roads. The other two, with manually-activated transfer cases, could only be driven in 44 mode on loose surfaces to avoid binding up the drivetrain. It was no surprise the Tacoma, with its TRD Pro package, proved to be the most off-road-capable and included a drive mode dial to optimize performance in mud, sand, gravel, and other conditions. Both it and the Ranger’s FX4 Off-Road Package for $1,400, included a crawl control feature, which is basically very-low-speed cruise control when you’re off the beaten path. Ride and handling Without question, the Ranger returns the most comfortable ride. The adjustable heated seats are truly comfortable and supportive, and the suspension happily absorbs asphalt fractures, though it tended to be a little less controlled over the big bumps on our off-road route. Noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) in the Ranger have clearly benefited from the F-150, which has seen years of effort to quiet things down. The Canyon isn’t far behind, though, and delivers a smooth ride, if somewhat devoid of feedback. The Tacoma is easily the loudest (more so with TRD Pro exhaust). But the Tacoma also delivers the highest level of feel throughout the truck, which helps to elevate the overall drive experience and makes it feel more truckish than the others — something we like. What we don’t like is the Tacoma’s seating position, which is too low to the floor with no way to raise the seat, and which can result in cramped legs. That said, 2020 models get a power-adjustable seat. Practicality At 7,500 pounds of towing capacity, the Ranger topped the Canyon’s 7,000 pounds. The Tacoma only pulls 6,400 pounds, but Toyota has always marketed this as more of a “lifestyle” truck — ideal for dirt bikes, ATVs, snowmobiles, mountain bikes, and small boats. Inside, all three trucks have easy-to-use controls, with the Tacoma’s taking a slight edge for accessing functions with minimal distraction. The Tacoma and the Canyon bettered the Ranger for small-item storage in its front console. But on the exterior, nothing beats GM’s simple-and-brilliant in-bumper steps for getting into the bed. Quality, features, infotainment All three of
Origin: Pickup Comparison: 2019 Ford Ranger vs. GMC Canyon vs. Toyota Tacoma
SUV Comparison: 2019 BMW X5 vs. 2019 Porsche Cayenne
Welcome to Dude Said, Punk Said — a special series devoted to skewering the automotive ramblings of young punk Nick Tragianis with the infinite wisdom of old dude Brian Harper. This week, the duo squabble over determining if the BMW X5 xDrive 50i or the Porsche Cayenne S is the superior luxury sport-ute. Brian Harper: Timing, so goes that hoary old proverb, is everything. Twenty-five years ago, the thought that two iconic German automakers — BMW and Porsche — would deign to add sport-utility vehicles to their product lineup would have been laughable. Yet, whether astute analyses of future consumer trends or horseshoes up their respective corporate butts, BMW’s decision to enter the upscale SUV segment in 1999, followed by Porsche three years later, was indeed prescient — in Canada, the Cayenne is Porsche’s best seller; the X5 is second only to the X3 as top dog for BMW. For 2019, both companies introduce refreshed versions of their SUVs. And we have lined up a pair to compare, very closely equal in power and as close to a price match as we could arrange. The topline X5 xDrive 50i ($102,700 as-tested) comes with a 456-horsepower, turbocharged 4.4-litre V8. The mid-level Cayenne S ($120,010 as-tested) counters with a 434-horsepower, 2.9L twin-turbo V6. Both engines are hooked up to eight-speed automatics. Both five-seat SUVs are within 10 millimetres of being the same length. Both have features and content coming out the wazoo. In short, this is going to be a very interesting comparison. Yet, and I think you’ll agree, kid, the two don’t follow the same path when it comes to this decidedly upscale sport/luxury SUV segment. Nick Tragianis: Why yes, both the Cayenne and the X5 interpret the upscale sport-ute formula very differently. Let’s start with the Porsche, shall we? True to the crest on the steering wheel, the Cayenne drives as well as you expect it would — it’s bloody fast, making very quick work of highway on-ramps. And in the same breath, it behaves well in stop-and-go traffic, the eight-speed automatic operating smoothly and nearly invisibly. Shame about the gear selector, though — shifting between Drive and Reverse can be finicky, resulting in some less-than-graceful attempts at parking. Despite its size, the Cayenne handles incredibly well. Steering is swift, and on particularly tight on- and off-ramps, body roll is well-controlled. It belies the fact that it’s a huge SUV. Road manners are mostly on point, too — wind and road noise barely make it into the cabin, and it only takes the roughest of rough pavement to truly upset the Cayenne. My only nit-pick in this department, though, is with the sunroof. Even going just 60 km/h creates a fair bit of truly irritating wind buffeting. Regardless, the Cayenne shows its true colours fairly quickly, at least in terms of outright driving dynamics. What about the X5? BH: You forgot to mention the Cayenne’s optional rear-axle steering, which really makes it handle like a much smaller vehicle, Still, dynamically speaking, the fourth-generation X5 knows its way around a twisting road as well. Is it as sharp as the Cayenne? No, the primary reason being it tips the scales at a decidedly hefty 2,420 kilograms — 400 more than the Cayenne! So, while its turbo V8 has the punch to actually pip the Cayenne S from rest to 100 km/h — 4.7 seconds versus 4.9, according to the respective manufacturers — its extra avoirdupois is definitely felt in the corners … and at the pumps, particularly city driving. Those wanting as close to a sports car driving experience as can be achieved in a mid-sized BMW SUV should wait for the X5M to arrive; the xDrive50i is more a balance of sport, luxury and utility. And as a family hauler, the X5 is available as a seven-seater — though only in the six-cylinder xDrive40i flavour. But each luxo-ute was well optioned out; the $16,000 Premium Excellence package for the X5, and the $9,650 Premium Plus package for the Cayenne. Which of the two wins the battle of the bling? <img
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 BMW X5 vs. 2019 Porsche Cayenne
SUV Comparison: 2019 Jaguar I-Pace vs. 2019 Hyundai Nexo
Two similar but different new electric vehicles that represent two probable, and competing, futures of zero-emission motoring, the Hyundai Nexo, left, and the Jaguar I-Pace.Andrew McCredie Welcome to the main event of the evening. Introducing first, in the BEV corner, weighing in at 2,170 kilograms, it hails from Graz, Austria and is the current reigning AJAC Vehicle of the Year — the 2019 Jaguar I-Pace. In the fuel-cell corner, weighing in at 1,873 kilograms, all the way from South Korea and incorporating a distinctively orthodox means of propulsion — the 2019 Hyundai Nexo. Vehicles, let’s get ready to charge! Thanks to a steady stream of all-new electrified vehicles coming to Canada, we’re beginning to be able to put together comparisons like this. Previously, any new EV contender was put in the ring with a vehicle from the Tesla gym, an unfair fight from the opening bell, in most cases due to that company’s near decade-long track record, its cutting-edge battery technology, and in founder Elon Musk, the ultimate promoter (with apologies to Don King). But now, legitimate prospective ‘Tesla-killers’ are climbing into the ring with regularity and in a number of key segments, most notably utility vehicles. Which brings us to this electrifying matchup, pitting one of the best battery-electric vehicles against one of the most intriguing hydrogen fuel-cells to ever to come to the Canadian market. Noting the obvious, this comparison is both apples-to-apples and apples-to-oranges. Both the $89,800 Jaguar I-Pace and $73,000 Hyundai Nexo are zero-emission SUVs that derive all their power from onboard electricity. However, the former’s battery pack stores electricity derived from plugging in to an external power source, while the latter mixes hydrogen gas from its storage tank with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce an electric current, resulting in an electricity-on-demand system. That said, this head-to-head match-up makes for an intriguing battle in the bigger war of which zero-emission tech will ultimately wear the carbon-reducing championship belt. For the moment, though, we’ll put aside that big apples-to-oranges question and focus on just the apples. We’ll start with looks. Each vehicle’s exterior has a number of ‘forward-thinking’ design features one has come to expect in EVs, including flush door handles (hat tip to Tesla), state-of-the-art headlights and taillights, funky aerodynamic wheels and slippery surfaces. The Nexo has a unique, jewel-like bar running along the top of its grille, while the I-Pace features a front air dam that pushes oncoming air under the front of the hood then out through a large gap to run over the windshield. The Nexo has a far more traditional SUV look; the I-Pace captures more of the futuristic ‘performance pod’ aesthetic we’re seeing more and more of in the luxury space. Judge’s scorecard on exterior: I-Pace. Those differing exterior designs translate into much different interiors, without even taking into consideration dashboard and control designs. The I-Pace’s cabin feels not unlike a sports coupe, with a distinctive driver-centric cockpit, while the Nexo’s is airy and full of light and space. The Jag’s controls and gauges don’t veer far from it’s gas-powered stablemates in terms of standing out, which isn’t a bad thing as the current generation of Jaguar interiors is top-notch (of course, even in its darkest days, Jag always had stellar cabins in terms of style and luxury). The Nexo’s dashboard and centre console, on the other hand, resemble nothing in the current Hyundai lineup. That’s also not a bad thing, as the design is fantastic and reflects the Nexo’s futuristic ethos — super clean and super intuitive. Both vehicles have large and easy-to-read horizontal display screens that can be formatted to display more than just one feature (i.e., a map, along with radio options). The Nexo’s traditional SUV look pays dividends in rear seat space and in rear cargo capacity, though. Judge’s scorecard on interior: Nexo. A hallmark of new EVs is at least one cool techy feature, and these two are no exception to that unwritten rule. In the case of the Nexo, it’s an industry first blind-spot monitor that uses the wide-angle surround-view cameras to show the blind spot in the instrument cluster screen while changing lanes in either direction. Expect to see that in many vehicles in the coming years — for instance, it’s already in the Kia Telluride. The I-Pace’s neat tech is a Range Impact screen that shows in real time the impact using things like the heated seats, headlights and A/C has on the current vehicle range. Judge’s cool tech decision: Nexo. But enough of this static stuff; let’s put these babies in
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Jaguar I-Pace vs. 2019 Hyundai Nexo
SUV Comparison: 2019 Subaru Forester vs. 2019 Toyota RAV4
Welcome to Dude Said, Punk Said — a special series devoted to skewering the automotive ramblings of young punk Nick Tragianis with the infinite wisdom of old dude Brian Harper. This week, the duo see just how far the Subaru Forester and Toyota RAV4, two vehicles that arguably kickstarted the crossover segment, evolved over the course of two decades. Brian Harper: Gearheads might think Camaro versus Mustang or Porsche 911 versus Corvette are epic throwdowns, And, from a historical standpoint, they’d be right. But, these days, with the proliferation of crossovers on the automotive landscape, Toyota’s RAV4 versus the Subaru Forester is an ideal comparison. Think about it, more than 20 years ago the first-generation versions of both of these models, along with the Honda CR-V, were the originators of what is now a very full and very competitive compact crossover segment. And our two combatants are very evenly matched in size, powertrain, pricing and intent. In one corner, the topline Limited version of new, fifth-generation RAV4 ($40,945 as-tested). In the other corner, the equally new, loaded, Forester Premier ($39,495 as-tested), also the fifth generation. I’m sensing a very close battle here. Nick Tragianis: This isn’t going to be a runaway victory for either the RAV4 or Forester, I can tell you that much. Let’s start with the Subaru — on paper, the Forester is familiar. It’s still powered by a 2.5-litre four-cylinder boxer engine, sending power to all four wheels (of course) through a CVT. But the engine is new for 2019; now direct-injected and equipped with an automatic start/stop system, it pumps out 182 horsepower and 176 lb.-ft. of torque. The good news is, it’s an efficient unit, officially rated at 9.0 L/100 kilometres in the city and 7.2 on the highway. For the record, the trip computer settled at 8.8 over our week with the Forester. But the bad news is, the 2.5 is now the only engine offered. Pour one out for the Forester XT because you can’t get a turbo anymore. Disappointing for sure, but the 2.5 is peppy enough — OK, it doesn’t accelerate with the same vigor as the previous-gen XT, but it doesn’t break a sweat on the highway. The CVT also does a fine job of mitigating that “motorboating” sensation under hard acceleration. Subaru has even seen fit to do away with its hypersensitive throttle pedal, so it’s now quite well behaved and smooth in the city. Speaking of smooth, the Forester rides incredibly well. I was blown away by the Crosstrek’s ride quality when we pitched it against the Kona, and the Forester is more of the same. It soaks up bumps and rough pavement — and manages road and wind noise — in ways that belie its price tag. Not that the RAV4 is any rougher. BH: No, it’s not. One of the things I really like about the Canadian-built RAV4 is its ride quality. It’s firm without being harsh over rougher pavement. It helps that the new RAV4’s unibody structure is 57 per cent more rigid than the previous model, providing a stronger foundation for the front strut and rear multi-link suspension. And that’s on top of a very quiet cabin. Unfortunately, said quiet exposes the one disappointing feature of the high-compression, 203-hp Dynamic Force 2.5L four-cylinder. And that would be a rather discordant growl when the Toyota is under heavier load, such as passing acceleration or when climbing steep inclines. That said, under light acceleration or at cruising speeds it’s as smooth an engine as most crossovers in the RAV4’s class and, let’s face it, Subaru’s boxer engines have never been known for whisper-like operation. Another plus is the RAV4’s eight-speed automatic transmission, which makes excellent use of the 2.5L’s power. Not that anybody is taking these two to the dragstrip, but the RAV4 (its 203-hp engine significantly up on power from the previous generation’s 179) is almost a full second quicker to 100 kilometres an hour than the Forester. I will grant the Forester one solid “attaboy,” though: Considering there’s just a 12-kilogram difference in weight between the two, the Subaru felt much lighter and livelier in the curves and turns. Now, when it comes to styling, I think you’ll have to agree that normally conservative Toyota’s decision to blend design elements of its pickups into the RAV4’s new sheet metal is a bold one. Yes? <img src="/uploads/img/road-test/33-suv-comparison-2019-subaru-forester-vs-2019-toyota-rav4.jpg" alt="SUV Comparison: 2019 Subaru Forester vs. 2019
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Subaru Forester vs. 2019 Toyota RAV4
SUV Comparison: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Signature vs Lexus NX300 F Sport
David Booth: At first blush, this comparison didn’t seem fair at all. After all, the NX300 is the spawn of Lexus’ RX, the best-selling Asian luxury SUV in Canada, while the CX-5 is, well, a Mazda, a marque hardly renowned for its leather and wood trim. I was going to mention the silliness of such a comparison, but Mazda recently introduced a Signature version of its hot-selling, mid-priced crossover with turbocharged engine liberated from the upscale CX-9. The hot-rodded 2.5-litre four boasts 250 horsepower — when juicing on 93 octane; 227 hp when feeding on the low-grade stuff — which is actually 15 more ponies than the more expensive NX300 can manage. Game on. Jonathan Yarkony: Makes sense, right? I keep thinking of the Mazda CX-5 relative to mainstream cute utes like the Honda CR-V and Subaru Forester and find that while it drives well and is luxurious on a level they don’t even approach, it’s just short on practicality and value. Buuuuut, if we set it against something from the luxury segment, which is not known for generous cargo, it would be interesting to see just how far Mazda has come in terms of luxury and whether this Signature trim and that engine truly take it to the next level. Now, we could have compared it to an X3 or Q5, but those would probably cost $30K more for the same features, so that’s a little ridiculous. Plus, I couldn’t get past the irony of it – for years we would look at the pricing and say, “Why spend $60K on the German option when you can get all the same stuff and usually better practicality and definitely better reliability in a Lexus?” Well, looks like Lexus needs to start looking over its shoulder with Genesis coming to the luxury market, but right here, right now, Mazda is absolutely creeping in on the luxury class in a way that Buick and Acura have failed to do. DB: I will grant you that Mazda, in general, and the CX-5, in particular, has come a long way. Besides the upgrade in power, the Signature is also more luxurious inside, the Cocoa Napa leather supple, the Abachi wood decorous and the 10-speaker Bose sound system sonorous. But there remains, in those parts of the cabin that are not easily upgraded, a middle-classness, if you will, to the CX-5. The infotainment screen, for instance, is tiny, almost an afterthought. And the rearview back-up monitor is just plain dated. The actual camera has the requisite pixels, but unlike virtually all modern backup cameras, it has no artificial lines reflecting your steering angle to show your projected path while you’re backing into a parking spot. Totally useless. I ended up reversing the old fashioned way: You know, using the bumpers as feelers. JY: Well, that’s reassuring remind me never to loan you my beloved personal car. But yeah, you’re right, the Lexus NX does have a pretty sweet parking system. Not only is there a standard rear view with guidelines, there is an excellent overhead 360º view, and parking sensors to make sure you don’t ding the luxurious dark beige paint. (Random tangent: C’mon Lexus, a crossover as funky and cool-looking as the NX deserves a better colour than this drab, blend-into-a-dreary-background grey.) But what I especially liked is that the front parking sensors automatically come online as you creep close to a garage wall or other frontal obstructions – visibility has become so difficult in modern crossovers, so every little bit of exacting parking assistance is appreciated. Also, you may have found some cheap plastics and materials where no one else looks, but Lexus’ flaws are front and centre, literally. The steering wheel leather is lovely to the touch, especially the perforated portions, but the seam is a travesty. The edges of the leather are exposed, so pretty much every time you touch the wheel – which I hope is always since I will go out on a limb and assume NX owners aren’t in the same phylum as Autopilot-testing idiot Tesla owners – you feel the rough edges and shoddy workmanship. You can stack a dozen analog clocks on your dash for all I care, but the constant contact with this poor finish undermines any claim to luxury. A shame, because I like the look of the funky Lexus interior, and the seats and materials are all on par with the class expectations. The infotainment system on the other hand. the Mazda’s screen may be small, but at least the controls are reasonably easy to use. The Lexus trackpad is pure frustration in its inconsistent responses and lack of accuracy. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the NX’s release dates back to when Toyota still resisted the supremacy of Apple CarPlay, but I’m sure that will be rectified in the near future. DB: The issue is that, when viewed on a specification sheet, the CX-5 looks to be in the NX’s league. Leather? Check. Back-up camera? Check. Even the powertrain is the same turbo-four cylinder with six-speed automatic transmission. At 250 horsepower — when fed 93 octane gas, at least — the CX-5 is more powerful than the Lexus.
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Signature vs Lexus NX300 F Sport
All about car 