ASX 2012 Aspire vs CX-5 2013

transplanted on 05/03/2023 - 18:39
Last edited 05/03/2023 - 19:18 by 1 other user

We've been comparing both specs from Carsales website, our budget is just $14k. Both Automatic, both petrol.

From resale standpoint we think Cx5 beats Asx, but were worried about high cost of maintenance AND fuel ,
since it's going to be a work car from GC to BNE fortitude valley everyday. We want only these 2 (possibly an IX35 if we can
find one better than these 2 we have test driven).

Based on fuel consumption stats from Carsales which are pretty consistent with same models listed on their website:

ASX 2012 Aspire 4x4 2.0 LVS
Combined 8.1L/100km
Extra urban 6.8L/100km
Urban 10.5L/100km

CX5 2013 KE AWD 2.5l
Combined 7.4L/100km
Extra urban 6.3L/100km
Urban 9.4L/100km

Why is CX5 seem more efficient given it has a bigger engine and tyres, and heavier by 100kg? Is it because of
SkyActive Technology or something else? Or are these fuel figures just factory assessment and not actual on long distance travelling?

The ASX has 190k odo while CX5 has 210k.

We intend to keep the car for at least 4 years, which do you think should we put our savings on?

Thanks guys.

• 

  Mechz on 05/03/2023 - 19:12

  -1

  Take the train?

• 

  holoz0r on 05/03/2023 - 19:17

  +3

  ~160km a day, and keep it for four years when both already have an average of 200k ?

  I think you'd be wasting $14k on either car with that sort of expectation.

  • 

    slick7 on 05/03/2023 - 20:56

    Yes for sure. I'd probably go smaller size car but still large boot on par with other options if not larger in ASX case (2013-2015 Hyundai i30 Tourer). It'll be hard to find one for your budget with 100K-130K km but you should get lower maintenance and fuel consumption compared to your SUV options. For lots of highway km try to find the diesel version.

• 

  barge-in hunter on 05/03/2023 - 19:42

  worried about high cost of maintenance

  The ASX has 190k odo while CX5 has 210k.

  We intend to keep the car for at least 4 years

  Mmm. These statements don’t usually work well together.
  The honest truth is it’s very risky buying 10 year old cars with high kms, expecting them to be reliable and not require repairs.

  Given what you’re expecting to do with the car, I can’t in good faith recommend either.

  • 

    transplanted on 05/03/2023 - 20:33

    ive seen some cx5 still listed with close to 300kms, how did they survive that high usage and still or might be still jn great condition?

    • 

      barge-in hunter on 05/03/2023 - 20:44

      Well, a couple of things here about high km cars:
      - you don’t know how much has been spent in repairs to keep those cars on the road
      - you don’t know if they’re one or two owner cars, that have been serviced by the book and looked after really well

      Buying a car at 180k kms +, there’s too much risk that it’s been mistreated or poorly serviced. I’m not saying either of these are inherently bad cars just that your expectations are too high.

• 

  brendanm on 05/03/2023 - 20:43

  +2

  You are going to have 0 resale when it has 400,000km after your 4 years usage.

• 

  slick7 on 05/03/2023 - 20:43

  Look for these sort of cars with around 100K km less if you're going to drive them lots over the next 4 years. Dont expect much resale value once you tick over 300K km with that CX-5 you've seen…

  This Mazda CX-5 will seem like a whole generations newer than the ASX if you drive them both. There's a reason those fuel efficiency values come back lower during the official tests even though there's more weight for the Mazda. It's much better put together on the inside too. IX35 of that generation is closer to the ASX than the CX-5.

• 

  Euphemistic on 05/03/2023 - 21:08

  +2

  On face value both would probably be similar in terms of reliability. Just pick the one you like best to drive or look at BUT…

  … I’d be less keen to risk a high km car for lots of kms unless you know it’s history. Spending an extra $2-3k on one with 100,000km would be worth it IMO.

  You don’t really need AWD, finding a 2wd version will save fuel (less weight and drivetrain mod) and be easier on tyres for high km. AWD is only really an advantage in the wet in the acceleration phase, which there won’t be a lot of on the motorway.

• 

  dcep on 05/03/2023 - 21:32

  I won't want a CVT gearbox from 2012 after 10 years with high mileage.

  • 

    pharkurnell on 05/03/2023 - 22:16

    +1

    I won't want a CVT gearbox

    fixed it

• 

  Sinnerator on 06/03/2023 - 07:25

  you are spending $14,000 on 10 yr old SMALL cars with ~200,000KM on them ???

  Mitsubishi is not known for long lasting realibility.
  Mazda is much better but NOT in SUVs.

  If the mazda has a skyactive motor that is why bigger but more economical, heard lots of good things about those motors.

  You are paying a PREMIUM to buy old + high KM problems, these cars will cost you a lot more in the next 1-2 years.

  If you do go ahead ENSURE they have 100% (not 95% or less) PERFECT service histories (I say this knowing that 90% of all older cars never have perferct service histories, but why pay a premium for an uncared for car).

  • 

    Euphemistic on 06/03/2023 - 10:29

    Mitsubishi is not known for long lasting realibility.

    Since when? Lancer is one that pops up regularly as a cheap reliable but boring option. Might be old tech, might be boring, but I haven’t heard mits as being unreliable. Can you name any recurring faults with them please?

    Mazda is much better but NOT in SUVs.

    Can you explain the difference? What goes wrong in Mazda SUVs that doesn’t in hatchbacks when they pretty much use the same drivetrain.