Cars aren't investments.
True but depreciation is a real factor and ignoring it isn't smart.
The 5-year-old Entourage I recently traded sells for $10-11k while the same MY Odyssey sells for $18k with Odyssey commanding a $2-3k premium when new. Still, that's $5-6k difference that I would put towards a nicer vehicle when it's time to get a new ride.
Between the CX-5 and CR-V. Are CUV's really enthusiast vehicles? REALLY REALLY? And if not, why use enthusiast's approach towards something that puts utility and comfort first? Honda wins hands down.
I do see a lot of CX-5's around, so I would say that Mazda MARKETING did something right. There is no rationale for the underpowered zoom-zoom CX-5. Pure emotion.
And Mazda's commercials are REALLY REALLY annoying. The "We have the technology" line with the "hybrid crushing fuel economy" are the two kickers. About 10years ago or maybe more, I remember the GM commercial that said the EXACT SAME words about the freaking Trailblazer! "We have the technology".... my arse!!!
Hybrid crushing fuel economy? For Pete's sake, Honda's is marginally worse in a heavier vehicle. Crushing? REALLY?
Pure marketing excersize. New MBA's will be using it as a case study