LINK

 

Looks nice. But what's the difference between that one and the CX5?

 

From the looks of it, it's squattier and shorter than the CX-5.
So, I'm going to guess it's lighter too.

CX-5

 

It appears to me that the Mazda CX-3 and the Honda H-RV (Vezel in many parts of the world) are the real competitors to our OS/RVR/ASX and not the CX-5 and the C-RV or the Juke and the Countryman from the other end as many journalists reported.
Look at the dimensions (LxWxH in inches):
HRV/Vezel: 169.1 x 69.7 x 63.2
CX3: 168.3 x 67.5 x 61
OS/RVR/ASX:169.1 x 69.7 x 64.2
Engine (US/Canada only; the rest of the world enjoys wider selections):
HRV:1.8 L multipoint injection 138 HP 127 lbs x ft, manual trans(2WD only) and CVT
CX3: 2.0 L direct injection 155 HP, 150 lbs x ft, manual trans (2WD only) 6 gear auto
OS/RVR: 2.0L multipoint inj. 148 HP, 145 lbs ft, 5 sp manual (2WD only) and CVT
Ground clearance:
HRV/Vezel: 7.28"
CX-3: not released yet (judging from the height it should be less than 8.5" of the CX-5)
OS/RVR/ASX:8.5"
The Honda H-RV is not really a new car as it has been on the market for a while in the rest of the world as Honda Vezel.
Just wait and see how short the memory of our "esteemed" autojournalists is. They will praise the H-RV and the CX-3 and forgive the lack of power and space in these cars, the same "qualities" they bashed our OS/RVR for. Good reviews on the other hand drive the prices up so, if you like the OS/RVR/ASX this will be a good news for us. I do not wish to hijack this tread but it might be a good idea (and help for those who are shopping for CUVs) to share why we picked the Mitsubishi over the competition. For me the safety (IIHS), controllable 4WD, the compact design, and the price were the top reasons in this order.

 

^
All good keypoints.
Plus, the reasons for buying our O.Sports have been discussed.
But, just to re-emphasize:

O.Sport/RVR/ASX-
1. HID Xenon headlights availability.
2. AWD - with FWD selectable on the fly.
3. 4 wheel independent suspension & 4 disc brakes
4. Hauling room (when needed)
5. Ground clearance (that can actually go over Texas curbs without scraping the underbelly.)
6. Panoramic Roof
7. Structure safety - it was something we thought about as compared to the MINI, JUKE, Rogue (BUT, it proved itself More than capable at taking a severe hit - beyond NHTSA tested speeds. As personal testament, we purchased the exact same vehicle again after the accident.)
8. Overall value as compared to an BMW X1 (or an used X3) which we were strongly leaning toward.

 

The side by side is a dramatic difference in the height of the door and the shorting of the windows. The doors are no longer a straight line either, they have a nice swoop to them. Over all I like the 3 much better they are moving in the same direction as the Evolve from Range Rover, short windows and larger doors keeping the area inside still as large but achieving the lower chopped top look.

 

sexy CX5

 

^
That's different.

 

i like the fender wells alot

 

personal opinion, the screan for the head unit is horible looks like the designer forgot to add one and the owner just went to walmart to buy a gps to slaped it on. the worst part of it is you cant upgrade it, your stuck with this thing. un less thers a hiden hole some where.

 

To be honest, i don't like Mazdas new design language. Everything in their lineup looks awkward with weirdly placed creases and character lines... in many cases they look like Hyundai's/Kias. The rear of this thing screams Kia Sportage. And just like every current small mazda (the 6 is actually a decent value, to a point) it will be way too expensive for what it is.

 

I totally agree.

It use to not be like that... With their original Millenia, 929, RX-7s.
Now all their models have some kind of odd pinch or wave on their profiles. I feel like their designer(s) just looked on the internet at BMW models and just mockey-ed what they were doing.

Sad.