It feels like every week for as long as I’ve been writing about cars, someone’s asked me what new compact crossover they should buy. The answer, if they didn’t want or need hybrid efficiency, was almost always a Mazda CX-5. Throughout its first two generations, it’s been nicer than a Toyota RAV4, a bit less expensive than a Toyota RAV4, and carried a remarkably solid track record of reliability. With frequent incentives and subvented financing, it was where the smart money went. For these reasons, and my recommendation, there are now five CX-5s in my extended family. If you put your granddad and multiple aunts in essentially the same car, it had better be good. Otherwise, it’s your head on the line, and they’ll bring up gripes every Thanksgiving. So far, so good, but for the third-generation model, though, things have changed slightly.
The CX-5 still uses the same proven powertrain as before, and it’s roomier than ever, but a series of decisions have cheapened the model and made many secondary controls more difficult to operate. Is it still shortlistable? Definitely. But is it something I’d recommend to just go ahead and buy? Not anymore. Let’s get into why.
[Full disclosure: I tested this Mazda CX-5 as part of pre-voting proceedings for Canadian Car of the Year voting, a process that I’m deeply involved in. I’m on the board of directors for the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada which facilitates Canadian Car of the Year, along with the Canadian Car of the Year committee, and I want to disclose this in full transparency to give context to the day of testing cars I took part in. The vehicle itself was supplied by Mazda Canada, but the opinions expressed here are purely my own. Plus, I drove up to the test day and paid for my own fuel to get there.]
The Basics
Engine: 2.5-liter naturally aspirated twin-cam inline-four.
Transmission: Six-speed conventional automatic.
Drive: Full-time all-wheel-drive.
Output: 187 horsepower at 6,000 RPM, 186 lb.-ft. at 4,000 RPM.
Curb Weight: 3,856 pounds (1,749 kg).
Fuel Economy: 24 MPG city, 30 MPG highway, 26 MPG combined (9.9 L/100km city, 7.9 L/100km highway, 9.0 L/100km combined).
Fuel Grade: Regular 87-octane.
Base Price: $31,585 including freight ($39,290 in Canada).
Price As-Tested: $41,180 including freight ($50,190 in Canada).
Why Does It Exist?
The compact crossover is now simply the default shape for a car, and for the past 14 years, Mazda has campaigned in this red-hot segment with a model known as the CX-5. Now in its third generation for 2026, it’s still taking direct aim at models like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Tucson, Kia Sportage, Subaru Forester, Volkswagen Tiguan, Nissan Rogue, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, Ford Bronco Sport … you get the picture.
How Does It Look?
If the new Mazda CX-5 looks bulkier than the old one, that’s because it is. To meet demands for extra space, Mazda’s stretched the wheelbase and overall length by 4.5 inches, widened the body by eight-tenths of an inch, increased overall length by 5.5 inches, and raised the silhouette by six-tenths of an inch. The end result from a visual standpoint is more surfacing to fill, and Mazda’s trying something new.
A smaller shield-shaped grille sits within a wider outer bezel that joins both of the L-shaped headlights. The front valence has been stretched out by additional detailing, the wheel arch trims now feature little bumps to break up their semi-circularity, and a diagonal character line on each front door adds a fin-shaped surface that attempts to cheat the dash-to-axle ratio. Around back, a more upright hatch features a Mazda wordmark instead of the brand’s logo. Add it all up, and it’s not quite as sharp as the looks of the old model, but still one of the better-looking compact crossovers on sale.
What About The Interior?
Slide behind the wheel of the new CX-5, and in typical Mazda fashion, you’ll be greeted by a mix of largely nice materials. Stitched textiles across the dashboard and door cards, satin accents on the air vents and center console, matte plastics instead of high-gloss surfaces, and wonderfully smooth leather on the steering wheel and shift knob. However, there’s a whiff of cost-cutting compared to the previous generation model. The tops of the door cards are no longer clad in the same soft-touch material, for instance. Still, a split console armrest is an unusual luxury for this class of car, the front seats are properly comfortable, and there’s more headroom on tap than in any CX-5 before.
Moving to the rear seat, it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, there’s more room back here than ever, and the optional panoramic moonroof really lets some extra light into the cabin. On the other hand, the squab for the middle seat is rock-hard and was already displaying some quality control concerns on my low-mileage production-spec test car. The leather had gone all lumpy, feeling as if it was actually separating from its backing material.
Speaking of separation, the build quality of the A-pillar tweeter pods really doesn’t inspire confidence. Not only do they fit poorly within the jamb, but the fascia of the driver’s side assembly isn’t held to the back panel particularly well. This can result in the unsightly panel gap seen in the photo above, and a relative lack of solidity means trying to clip it back down is best done with a light touch, and it may still not sit properly. Is this a minor detail in the grand scheme of things? Sure, but I haven’t seen this issue on any other model of compact crossover, and how these assemblies fare in the long term is anyone’s guess at this point.
On the other hand, you do get an extra 4.6 cu.-ft. of cargo volume with the seats up compared to the old CX-5, with the new figure clocking in at 33.7 cu.-ft. which is a few cubic feet less than a RAV4 but several cu.-ft. more than in a Subaru Forester. A 40:20:40 split-folding rear seat facilitates through-loading of long items even with four occupants aboard, and a flush load lip makes sliding cargo in and out a breeze.
How Does It Drive?
Mercifully, Mazda’s sticking with what it knows under the hood of the new CX-5. While rivals like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Volkswagen Tiguan offer brawnier standard engines than the CX-5’s 186-horsepower naturally aspirated 2.5-liter unit, this familiar inline-four has a fairly solid track record of reliability and comes hitched to a well-programmed conventional six-speed automatic. It might not be the most efficient powertrain on the market or imbue the CX-5 with particularly swift acceleration, but it’s plenty refined enough and should soldier on for the long haul. Figure zero-to-60 MPH in a shade over eight seconds.
As for ride and handling, this is where the CX-5 excels. The spring and damper tuning’s beautifully judged, offering excellent control without coming across as harsh. Accurate, natural, beautifully-weighted steering makes placement on the road a cinch, and there’s real confidence when the road gets bendy. Mazda’s mainstream compact crossover is still the varsity athlete of the class, the deftest at managing its 3,856-pound curb weight while providing genuinely car-like handling. Even though “Zoom-Zoom” was more than a decade ago, some of that spirit clearly lives on in the chassis tuning department.
Does It Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
Yes and no. Load a CX-5 up to the gills and you’ll get just about every gizmo you could want in a compact crossover. Heated and ventilated power front seats, a heated steering wheel, a panoramic moonroof, a Bose sound system, a 360-degree camera system that even works with the mirrors folded, heated rear seats, leather upholstery, a programmable power liftgate, a front wiper de-icer, a head-up display, and a full brace of driver assistance features. However, to use a bunch of technology aboard, Mazda’s relying heavily on touchscreen infotainment, and here’s where the problems start. Not only does the screen house virtually all the climate controls, but it can be agonizingly laggy at times, even with the top-spec 15.6-inch display. This could be sidestepped with enough redundant controls, but real buttons are few and far between, making operation of secondary functions a hassle.
Let’s start with a simple task: Turning up (or down) the stereo volume. Mazda has included steering-wheel mounted audio controls, but they aren’t arranged optimally. I wear a size-large nitrile glove, but even still, it’s a stretch to the steering wheel-mounted volume switch. If you have smaller hands, you’ll probably go reaching for a volume knob somewhere in the center stack, only to find that Mazda’s left it off entirely.
Instead, the central volume control’s been relegated to the passenger side of the touchscreen’s bottom menu, and it’s not programmed particularly well. The virtual tile for volume is relatively small, and while the CX-5 lets you swipe to increase or decrease volume, the touch input isn’t damped adequately. It’s possible to crank the volume through moving your finger by mere millimeters, so if you go over a bump while adjusting the volume, it might end up absolutely blaring or completely silent. That’s annoying.
Guess what also ended up on the touchscreen? That’s right, controls for the heated seats and heated steering wheel, and not only are they in a sub-menu, but you’ll need fingers like cocktail sticks to touch the skinny little bar that brings up said sub-menu. Once you’re in the sub-menu, the virtual tiles for the heated seats and heated steering wheel are also minuscule, rendering the whole affair hopeless if you’re wearing (touchscreen-compatible) winter gloves.
Three Things To Know About The 2026 Mazda CX-5
- There’s no volume knob anymore.
- Parts of the infotainment are harder to use than the old knob-based system.
- It still drives wonderfully.
Does The 2026 Mazda CX-5 Fulfil Its Purpose?
Sort of. While it still features the same proven engine and gearbox as before, and it’s roomier than ever, obvious cost-cutting measures no longer make the Mazda CX-5 the non-hybrid sleeper of the compact crossover segment. Especially when, if you’re going for a mid-range-or-above model and can live with slightly less refined torsion beam rear suspension, you can walk across any Mazda showroom in America and buy a CX-50. It features either the same naturally-aspirated powertrain or a far punchier turbo motor, real buttons and knobs, nicer interior materials, and sharper styling. Better still, it’s price-competitive with the CX-5, meaning you can get a better car for not much more money.
In Canada, the situation’s more complicated. Tariffs sidelined the CX-50, leaving the new CX-5 as the sole Mazda compact crossover. If you want the best-handling model in its class, the CX-5 is still the one to have, but otherwise, this new decontented model faces some stiff competition. A Kia Sportage has far less fuss to its operation and comes with a ten-year warranty. A Toyota RAV4 has standard hybrid efficiency, a Mitsubishi Outlander feels like a weirdly smart bet for a non-hybrid model, a Volkswagen Tiguan is more richly appointed, a Subaru Forester rides oh-so-comfortably and has fantastic visibility, and that incoming next-generation Hyundai Tucson sure looks slick. It’s still worth driving a Mazda CX-5 to see if you can live with its annoyances, but when it comes to the second-most-expensive thing you’ll likely buy in your life behind a house, it shouldn’t annoy you. You deserve better for $50,190 as-tested.
What’s The Punctum Of The 2026 Mazda CX-5?
A real-life example of how solid fundamentals can be undermined by cost-cutting.
Top graphic image: Thomas Hundal
Mrs. Droid got a 2026 CX-50 a month ago.
we shopped maxda cuz NA engine and NOT a CVT (a conventional torque-converter/planetary gearset transmission instead, unlike their competition who are using CVT’s to suck every last bit of joy from driving).
Her reaction to CX5’s touchscreen UI was “hell, NO!”
her CX50 has tactile controls for everything, just as god had intended.
it drives really nice, she’s very happy with it – she’d been driving mb c300 for the last dozen years or so, cx50 has loosely comparable driving dynamics…
I think a lot of people suspected this was going to happen. Mazda was making one of the best (some might say THE best) in the segment but selling it for cheaper than the leaders. I think they knew they could have sold it for more or cut costs in some ways, but they were building their reputation. Now they’re recognized as one of the best options in the segment and they can start cost cutting and making more money. This is like what Subaru did 15 years ago.
The giant touch screen and deletion of the Driver knob are disappointing. We had a 2016 CX-5 for 8 years and I loved and my 5’1″ wife tolerated it because she couldn’t see out comfortably. I liked the firm suspension and handling although it was less comfortable on torn up dirt roads than my pickup. I also really liked knobs or buttons for everything important. I even used the physical volume knob on the console more often than the steering wheel control and never used the voice controls. This feels like a bad move although I guess everyone is doing it. A friend just bought a RAV4 this summer and it also had a big screen.
Since my wife insisted on a her size car we now have a Fiat 500, with no screen and it’s fun to drive and handles empty nest driving Since both children have family sized vehicles
Not surprising at all. The loaner vehicle came off of the assembly line a few months ago, so the cushioning material they’re using is probably already starting to rust.
The steering wheel controls aren’t discrete buttons either, but a single “button” which pushes a membrane. It’s awful to touch and is a big downgrade over the previous wheel. I also detested the touchscreen layout and interface. What a massive downgrade. But It’S WhAt SeLlS apparently.
If my CX-30 was destroyed today I would look for a used/CPO/whatever 2025 CX-5 like my brother has instead of the new one. I’m so much of a Mazda fanboy I specifically made time to go to the Mazda museum and factory tour when I was in Hiroshima in 2024 and if what’s going on in this car goes into their other ones I can’t see myself buying another one. I hope things get better in six-seven years when I’m in the market for a new car.
I’m mystified about how they managed to all the wrong moves. The CX5 was a volume seller like Mazda had never seen before and it turns out they didn’t know why people liked it. I smell consultants and they don’t smell good.
“Drive: Full-time all-wheel-drive.”
Do you mean actual Subaru-style permanent AWD or the haldex FWD which engages the real wheels when the front loses traction only?
Anway, removing the physical volume control knob is unforgivable.
Sad to say that this feels like a way worse car than the Chinese-based CX-6e, and way worse looking. The electric one would be a clear winner if it wasn’t for the insane assists and terrible software, not to mention the external loudspeaker that will allow horrible people to scream at pedestrians.
The last truly desirable Mazda I drove (and owned) was a 2008 CX-7 (so pretty…) with the 260hp petrol engine, what a fun and comfy car for long distances!
The 3rd gen CX-5 uses the same rear clutch pack to drive the back wheels only when needed, like all other Mazdas. I think you knew this and were being snarky, but just in case you weren’t sure, I thought I should clarify. 🙂
As I never go offroad anywhere beyond a very modest and brief dirt track… one that either of my two-wheel-drive Volvos could manage without fuss, Mazda’s part-time/on-demand AWD system seems fine. If I lived way up a trail, or someplace with regular heavy snow, I’d be more demanding.
I didn’t see “Mazda Connected Services” mentioned in the review. Want to remotely start your car on a cold, snowy day in Minnesota? For the first year, you can do that for free through Mazda’s app. But only for the first year. After that, you have to pay a monthly subscription fee.
Wow, that’s insane.
Ooooh, that’s really going to the darkside ala BMW. One big mark in the ‘cons’ column for the new CX-5.
I haven’t read Thomas’ review yet (that possessive apostrophe for names ending in ‘s’ never seems right to me) but of course I will. I really enjoy and appreciate when Autopian writers review ‘regular cars.’ That is to say, anything up to about $65K MSRP, though of course I particularly enjoy the ‘entry level’ stuff especially. 🙂
The CX-5 has always been a car I wanted to own: it excells in no particular areas except looks and interior ambiance (subjective) and driver involvement (compared to the competition) just as smaller brother CX-30 does. But it’s good enough in the other areas, and I don’t mind the smaller interior, so I’ve always wanted one.
My impression of the all-new CX-5 is what I suspect Thomas states: the changes made are mostly not for the better. The bit of extra size and interior space are appreciated, but pretty much everything else seems to have taken a turn for the worse. Cheapening of interior materials, and a huge screen replacing so many physical controls render the new CX-5 alarmingly un-Mazdalike IMO.
There are so many of the previous generation CX-5 out there that at least I don’t have to hurry up and start shopping for one anytime soon.
Read Thomas’ review now (that damn apostrophe again!) and of course, I appreciate it and agree with pretty much all of his points, bearing in mind that I haven’t driven the new 3rd gen CX-5 myself yet. At the very least, I’m relieved that it still drives well… that is to say: like a Mazda.
A later 2nd gen car seems ideal… say, from 2017 onwards to last year. I’m torn about the turbo vs. NA. I tend to prefer NA for simlicity and longevity, even though Doug DeMuro and numerous other Youtubers decry 187 hp as woefully inadequate for a vehicle of this size. And the 250 hp mark the turbo’d 2.5l reaches in most applications is quite a bump, and I don’t know of any particular issues with Mazda’s turbo over the past decade, so…
Still, I’d probably go with a high-trim CX-5 from the late teens/very early ’00s with the NA motor in anything other than grey, black, or white.
I’ve never like split consoles, and I struggle to figure out how they are considered better. To me it makes accessing the console slightly worse than the whole thing lifting out of the way.
Does it still have laminated/double-pane front door glass? I was pleasantly surprised to discover it on Mom’s 2022 CX-5 Carbon, and also on the one-step-up-from-base 2025 CX-5 I helped a friend get into a few weeks ago.
It’s one of those thoughtful touches most people will never notice on its own, but it helps cut down immensely on highway wind noise entering the cabin.
just got one as a company car like a month ago, it’s a good applience and point a to point b type of deal, the UI is shit just yesterday I had to stop to turn it off and then on again because there was no sound coming from the speakers and no amount of pressing buttons did anything. Also having the odometer burried in the some obscure menu is pretty stupid. Not to mention, the buttons on the wheel tend to lag and sometimes when you forward to the next song it either pauses the music or opens a menu that takes you to all the available inputs, and don’t get me started on programing radio stations.
Many cars have started hiding the odometer and the trip meter, which sucks if—as in your case—it’s a company car and you need to record mileage periodically.
I was unable to figure out how to see the odometer in my ‘25 Golf R for several days.
I can’t help but notice that the screen layout basically apes that of the default layout of Chinese vehicles, with a ribbon on the bottom dedicated to controlling HVAC/seats/comfort items and the rest of the screen for… other things. Just an observation.
That’s the default layout for most brands’ infotainment systems, Chinese or not.
Agreed… aping as it does the GUI default for most popular/modern OSes such as Windows, MacOS, etc…
I googled but am still not sure whether the workstations at Xerox PARC that Steve Jobs saw during his tour there half a century ago also had the bottom ribbon for apps/controls/etc…
My wife has had a 2022 CX-5 from new. There is nothing about it that ‘drives wonderfully’. The steering is meh, the six speed auto sluggish and clunky, the ride is good but not exceptional and the N/A motor is woefully underpowered especially on a hot day going up steep hills. At just over 50,000 miles the interior has entirely lost the mildly premium feel it had when new and the Soul red paint that initially looks great is so thinly applied it scratches and stone chips remarkably easily.
I don’t mind the ‘idrive’ interface but it does not work that well with carplay either
We recently had a 2026 RAV4 on loan while the CX-5 was having a fender bender repaired, and whilst I dislike the interior and looks of the Toyota is a match in the steering and ride departments and the powertrain is definitely superior.
Interesting experience, in that it runs contrary to most I’ve read. Thanks for the info.
Too bad this lost all of the analog controls. Buttons and knobs for everything was tone of the top reasons I bought a Mazda.
Sadly it’s now obvious Mazda was bs’ing us when they said they were committed to analog controls, giving development cycles this was actively being worked on while they were telling us with a straight face they were committed to physical controls because they were safer and more driver centric.
Even worse as car makers get rid of physical controls, the software they replace it with is somewhere between crap and dogsh*t. Between underspec’ed processors, laggy cheap touch screen hardware, poorly designed and built software (see idiotic volume control placement above) why would anyone even want to adapt to touch screens? The whole thing makes me feel like I’m being gaslit as a consumer, if it wasn’t for the hi-res screens most of these touchscreen systems feel 10-15 years behind the curve in terms of UX, speed and reliability. We were actively shopping previous gen CX-5s for my wife before a killer deal for a newer Subaru fell into her lap, but always assumed we’d replace it with a Mazda at some point. Sadly it really feels like we’re seeing the beginning of Mazda’s death spiral at this point, this whole car just feels so underbaked they might as well have not even bothered with a new model.
Well, I dunno that this lukewarm revision of the CX-5 indicates the beginning of a ‘death spiral’ for the brand, but if they don’t listen and pay heed to reviews/feedback of the new CX-5, and just make a habit of decontenting/cheapening/screening their other vehicles as they’re revised (especially the 3 and CX-30) then they’ll just wind up being relegated to average.
Which for Mazda fans like myself would be a sad and terrible fate.
I am boycotting all vehicles with screens. Except for backup camera! We want good old knobs! You what happens when the screen goes out!
We ain’t got no control! Screens are at least $1000! Plus labor. Diagnostic time. Have to order one. You’re gonna love it when you can’t control your HVAC and heated seats!
You’ll have to pull over to control or make adjustments!
That’s it! I’ve had it! You’re going in the soup!
I bought my 2024 with the hopes of running it into the ground (hopefully many years in the future). This does not have me reconsidering those plans.
Well my partners 2018 Mazda3 has the same 2.5 and six speed auto, it just hit 100k miles last month with literally zero issues along the way. None. It didn’t even need brakes till nearly 90k.
Lucky. Mine’s got 171k. Still no issues though.
Seems like the mfrs. are confusing computer and car. I don’t want my car to require me to tap three screens to lower the volume. My 2013 SHO just about has the interface nailed. Temperature, volume, radio presets CAN be controlled via the touchscreen, but also have redundant controls(knobs) on the steering wheel and panel. The voice control is a freaking joke and the TED seat heaters don’t very well.
But seriously, zoom-zoom car place…. It’s been overwhelmingly proven that people hate screens for mundane tasks. Why would you do this now?
This would have to be much cheaper than a CR-V for me to consider one. The Honda doesn’t look nearly as good, but none of these things looks good so looking half shitty vs. 3/4 shitty really isn’t a consideration. I usually put Toyota Honda Mazda in that order from boring to exciting. Mazda is what I want to rent, Honda is what I want to own.
I know Mazda makes lovely cars. I ve rented CX5 and CX90 s in the past. 1000 miles in each. I could never figure out the thumbwheel thingly – ever. Drove me NUTS. Now they ve removed it and replaced it with something else. My hatred of “running everything thru the tv screen” runs deep. Rogue, Rav4 and Forester are the winners