Many could argue that the Mazda CX-5 has been a MAJOR entrant into the crossover game.
The 2014 Rogue is Nissan's response to the rapidly increasing competition in this segment. The question is, which features are more important to you in this class? Does the Rogue's optional third row seat put it over the CX-5? How about fuel economy? The tech packages in each respective vehicle?
Would you select AWD?
I'm asking this because the CX-5 is a serious contender for a purchase for my fiance. I'm encouraging her to shop the new Rogue, but she hasn't seen it yet and I'm not sure when it will hit dealer lots. We have seen and driven the CX-5, and it is quite a fun drive. I wonder how the Rogue will compare.
Cross-shopping the 2014 Rogue and Mazda CX-5
Re: Cross-shopping the 2014 Rogue and Mazda CX-5
I know a little about this since I cross-shopped the 2013 Rogue against the 2014 CX-5 and picked the Rogue. There were trade-offs either way, and I'm basically happy with the Rogue.
My first impression of the 2014 Rogue is that it's extremely similar in styling to the CX-5. They both have rubber moldings around the wheel wells and both have push button start in the mid-trim line and up. The tail lights of the 2014 Rogue remind me of the CX-9 and Lexus, but the CX-5 tail lights look a bit more distinctive to me, perhaps more similar to the 2013 Rav4. The front of the 2014 Rogue looks exactly like a little Pathfinder.
I did not consider a leftover 2013 CX-5 because they all had the smaller 155hp engine. The 184hp engine is new for 2014, while the Rogue's 170hp engine is essentially staying the same.
Comparing the 2014 Rogue SV to 2014 CX-5 Touring, the packages are very similar. Mazda's first package offers only a sunroof and premium audio for $1130 MSRP. Their second package (which makes the first package mandatory) costs another $1430 on top of that and comes with in-dash navigation and a whole laundry list of gimmicky technology garbage that nobody really needs. The only item that I'd find useful is the auto-dimming mirror, not because I'd want to actually use it, but because the power harness that plugs into the back of the mirror can be used as a convenient power source for a radar detector that can be mounted directly below the mirror. I think use of auto-dimming mirrors should be outlawed, since it makes it impossible to see other drivers at night if they're drunk/stupid/distracted and fail to turn on their headlights. Since the auto-dimming mirror is also a stand-alone option, the navigation package should be viewed simply as navigation and a whole slew of unnecessary crap.
The Rogue's packages are far worse in 2014 than 2013 in my opinion. The sunroof on the SV is a stand-alone option for $1320, while the premium package for $1420 adds navigation, around-view monitor, and Bose XM radio. Unlike the Mazda, Nissan offers the navigation package without the sunroof if you're so inclined. Aside from some gimmicky technology garbage of its own, Nissan's premium package also includes a power liftgate, which I hate, because it's more crap that can potentially break/fail/need repairs in the future. I don't even like the hydraulic lifts on my 2013 SV that hold the hatch in the air when it's open, because I know eventually they're going to weaken over time and need replacement. Compared to the 2013 Rogue SV premium package, the 2014 offerings are terrible. In 2013, $1700 got you the sunroof, fog lights, Bose XM radio, and navigation. The sunroof is not panoramic, but I wouldn't really want a roof comprised mostly of glass anyway. The only plus for 2014 is that the around-view monitor is now available on the SV without upgrading to the SL.
Gas mileage between the 2014 Rogue and 2014 CX-5 should be almost identical, with the Rogue supposedly getting 1 mpg more. Keep in mind the mechanical technology used by each manufacturer is drastically different. The Rogue uses a more traditional Japanese engine coupled with its next generation CVT, brand new for 2014. The Mazda uses a new engine with their "Skyactiv" technology coupled with a more traditional six-speed automatic. The jury is still out on which one is going to be more reliable and have better longevity, but I can tell you the CX-5 is almost certainly going to be more fun to drive. It has more power, and as the advertisers like to remind us, it goes "zoom-zoom." I actually took it for a test drive twice, but neither dealer would let me take it on the highway. It had nice pick up at low speeds (20-45 mph) but I didn't have a chance to really feel how it would respond to aggressive stop-and-go action. The Rogue's CVT makes low-speed aggression very smooth and responsive, but don't do it when the outside temperature is above 80 or you'll melt your transmission!
I'd prefer front wheel drive, because I'm very good at driving in the snow, and I'm completely comfortable and feel safe and confident driving my 1985 Toyota with front wheel drive and 13 inch wheels in heavy storms, but that's just me. If you like the security of AWD, go for it. To me, it does nothing more than make the vehicle heavier and more expensive, wastes fuel, and is an extra component that can eventually break and need repair. I ended up taking AWD on my 2013 Rogue because of the 87 2013 Rogues on the dealer's lot, 81 of them were AWD and the other six either didn't have the premium package or were hideous colors. When shopping for leftover vehicles late in the model year, it's hard to find AWD south of Maryland and it's hard to find FWD north of Maryland. For 2014 vehicles, you should be able to order (or at least wait for) exactly what you want.
My first impression of the 2014 Rogue is that it's extremely similar in styling to the CX-5. They both have rubber moldings around the wheel wells and both have push button start in the mid-trim line and up. The tail lights of the 2014 Rogue remind me of the CX-9 and Lexus, but the CX-5 tail lights look a bit more distinctive to me, perhaps more similar to the 2013 Rav4. The front of the 2014 Rogue looks exactly like a little Pathfinder.
I did not consider a leftover 2013 CX-5 because they all had the smaller 155hp engine. The 184hp engine is new for 2014, while the Rogue's 170hp engine is essentially staying the same.
Comparing the 2014 Rogue SV to 2014 CX-5 Touring, the packages are very similar. Mazda's first package offers only a sunroof and premium audio for $1130 MSRP. Their second package (which makes the first package mandatory) costs another $1430 on top of that and comes with in-dash navigation and a whole laundry list of gimmicky technology garbage that nobody really needs. The only item that I'd find useful is the auto-dimming mirror, not because I'd want to actually use it, but because the power harness that plugs into the back of the mirror can be used as a convenient power source for a radar detector that can be mounted directly below the mirror. I think use of auto-dimming mirrors should be outlawed, since it makes it impossible to see other drivers at night if they're drunk/stupid/distracted and fail to turn on their headlights. Since the auto-dimming mirror is also a stand-alone option, the navigation package should be viewed simply as navigation and a whole slew of unnecessary crap.
The Rogue's packages are far worse in 2014 than 2013 in my opinion. The sunroof on the SV is a stand-alone option for $1320, while the premium package for $1420 adds navigation, around-view monitor, and Bose XM radio. Unlike the Mazda, Nissan offers the navigation package without the sunroof if you're so inclined. Aside from some gimmicky technology garbage of its own, Nissan's premium package also includes a power liftgate, which I hate, because it's more crap that can potentially break/fail/need repairs in the future. I don't even like the hydraulic lifts on my 2013 SV that hold the hatch in the air when it's open, because I know eventually they're going to weaken over time and need replacement. Compared to the 2013 Rogue SV premium package, the 2014 offerings are terrible. In 2013, $1700 got you the sunroof, fog lights, Bose XM radio, and navigation. The sunroof is not panoramic, but I wouldn't really want a roof comprised mostly of glass anyway. The only plus for 2014 is that the around-view monitor is now available on the SV without upgrading to the SL.
Gas mileage between the 2014 Rogue and 2014 CX-5 should be almost identical, with the Rogue supposedly getting 1 mpg more. Keep in mind the mechanical technology used by each manufacturer is drastically different. The Rogue uses a more traditional Japanese engine coupled with its next generation CVT, brand new for 2014. The Mazda uses a new engine with their "Skyactiv" technology coupled with a more traditional six-speed automatic. The jury is still out on which one is going to be more reliable and have better longevity, but I can tell you the CX-5 is almost certainly going to be more fun to drive. It has more power, and as the advertisers like to remind us, it goes "zoom-zoom." I actually took it for a test drive twice, but neither dealer would let me take it on the highway. It had nice pick up at low speeds (20-45 mph) but I didn't have a chance to really feel how it would respond to aggressive stop-and-go action. The Rogue's CVT makes low-speed aggression very smooth and responsive, but don't do it when the outside temperature is above 80 or you'll melt your transmission!
I'd prefer front wheel drive, because I'm very good at driving in the snow, and I'm completely comfortable and feel safe and confident driving my 1985 Toyota with front wheel drive and 13 inch wheels in heavy storms, but that's just me. If you like the security of AWD, go for it. To me, it does nothing more than make the vehicle heavier and more expensive, wastes fuel, and is an extra component that can eventually break and need repair. I ended up taking AWD on my 2013 Rogue because of the 87 2013 Rogues on the dealer's lot, 81 of them were AWD and the other six either didn't have the premium package or were hideous colors. When shopping for leftover vehicles late in the model year, it's hard to find AWD south of Maryland and it's hard to find FWD north of Maryland. For 2014 vehicles, you should be able to order (or at least wait for) exactly what you want.
Re: Cross-shopping the 2014 Rogue and Mazda CX-5
It sounds like the 2014 won't be on the lots until next spring.XenonSE-R wrote:Many could argue that the Mazda CX-5 has been a MAJOR entrant into the crossover game.
The 2014 Rogue is Nissan's response to the rapidly increasing competition in this segment. The question is, which features are more important to you in this class? Does the Rogue's optional third row seat put it over the CX-5? How about fuel economy? The tech packages in each respective vehicle?
Would you select AWD?
I'm asking this because the CX-5 is a serious contender for a purchase for my fiance. I'm encouraging her to shop the new Rogue, but she hasn't seen it yet and I'm not sure when it will hit dealer lots. We have seen and driven the CX-5, and it is quite a fun drive. I wonder how the Rogue will compare.
-
Rogue One
- Administrator
- Posts: 7945
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
- Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2022 Honda Pilot SE
2025 Honda CR-V Sport L - Location: Florida, USA
Re: Cross-shopping the 2014 Rogue and Mazda CX-5
Actually it should hit the showroom floors by mid November.darylzero wrote:It sounds like the 2014 won't be on the lots until next spring.
Re: Cross-shopping the 2014 Rogue and Mazda CX-5
my bad I looked at the reservation post a little to quick and noticed it said you have Take delivery by March 31, 2014 so I just figured that is when it would be out.Rogue One wrote:Actually it should hit the showroom floors by mid November.darylzero wrote:It sounds like the 2014 won't be on the lots until next spring.
I just called a dealership and they said first week of November.
Re: Cross-shopping the 2014 Rogue and Mazda CX-5
If you can wait for the 2014 Rogue to hit showrooms, might be much easier to decide which of the two vehicles is a better fit for your needs. Manufacturers make different cars to go after different customers because there's no "one thing fits all" approach.
Both vehicles have pro's and con's ... features and option packages are also different. Without knowing what your priorities are (entry level, spend as little or load it up with everything you've got, must have's, wants), I don't think anyone can really suggest one is better than the other.
If you provide more information on your budget, must have features, what you like/hate about both, you would definitely get more opinions and information
Good luck!
Both vehicles have pro's and con's ... features and option packages are also different. Without knowing what your priorities are (entry level, spend as little or load it up with everything you've got, must have's, wants), I don't think anyone can really suggest one is better than the other.
If you provide more information on your budget, must have features, what you like/hate about both, you would definitely get more opinions and information
Good luck!
-
nissangirl74
- Moderator
- Posts: 13910
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:15 pm
- Car: 2014 Xterra Pro4X, '12 Titan 4x4, '98 240sx, '89 Pao, '77 620, '72 240Z w/RB25, '68 510, '67 WRL411, '67.5 SPL 311, '63 Bluebird, '63 NL320
Re: Cross-shopping the 2014 Rogue and Mazda CX-5
I'll be writing a review of the '14 Rogue as soon as it hits the local dealership.