It doesn’t feel like it’s been nearly a decade since the current Mazda CX-5 debuted, but that speaks volumes to the refinement of the design. We’re talking about a crossover that’s handsome, restrained, tasteful without being expensive, all attributes that will make it a tough act to follow. However, it’s almost time for a new CX-5, and we just got our first good glimpse of what it’ll look like.
It’s a single blown-out photo posted to the CocheSpias forum with credit to the Car Design News Instagram page, although it appears to have been taken down from Instagram. Regardless, this certainly looks like a photo of a monitor, and not only does the crossover on the monitor line up with spy shots of the next CX-5, all of the set design is very on-brand for Mazda. There’s an overwhelming likelihood that this is a leak of an official photo, so let’s dig into what we’re looking at.
Right out of the gate, this is an extremely evolutionary design, although it does appear to show significant changes compared to the current CX-5. The arc over the front fender has been flattened out, with a single character line running the entire length of the profile.
The biggest changes are up front, where an entirely new down-the-road graphic featuring L-shaped headlights that flow into a filler panel around the grille might take some getting used to. Admittedly, the filler panel is a way of allowing for a narrower grille without making the front end look too tall, and it serves as a place to put the headlight washers. As for the bumper cover of the new CX-5, it features corner reliefs and a far larger lower grille than the outgoing model, although much of that bottom opening is blanked off. Keep in mind, the low-hanging front fascia that may not be used in the U.S. market, as EPA light truck classification requires an approach angle of 28 degrees.
While the limited resolution of this leaked photo blows out details on the hood and in the wheels, there appear to be small rectangles atop the glossy fender cladding, a strong diagonal character line on the lower part of the front door, and play in overlapping the painted and plastic surfaces.
While we don’t know much about what’s under the skin of the next Mazda CX-5, widespread reports suggest a hybrid variant is in the cards. Considering many competitors already offer hybrid variants, and that Mazda’s offering Toyota’s hybrid system in the Alabama-built CX-50 and sells plug-in hybrid variants of the CX-70 and CX-90, it makes sense for electrification to come to the brand’s bread and butter compact crossover.
Given that this looks to be a leak of an official shot, don’t be surprised if we learn more about the next Mazda CX-5 over the coming months. Considering the current model’s been on sale for eight years and is still a competitive product, expect the next one to be a fixture on our roads for a relatively long model cycle.
Top graphic credit: Instagram/cardesignnews
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
Singing
Here comes. . . The Crimson Chin!
I’ll wait for the real thing, cause as it is, I’m hoping this is a really bad angle/photo. This thing looks quite hideous.
So, they took an elegant, restrained, classy and successful design and Toyotized it?
It’s bloated, obese, distasteful, incoherent, derivative, boring. It could as well be a Hyundai or some crappy chinese knock-off.
I do hope this is fake news.
Yawn… Another crossover that resembles a big sneaker. Whoopee.
Great, they kept the beady eyed headlights and and added an underwater. I still prefer the facelifted first generation cars because the front styling was better and the electric parking braked and better integrated screen made the interior as nice as a second generation. I may be biased because I had a 2016 for 8 years and really liked it. My wife grew to hate it, which is why she now drives a Fiat 500.
We had a late-2012 built 2013 FWD CX-5 Sport one of the first ones in our town) that we bought new. Loved it despite the 2.0 being a little down on power.
Traded it for a 2019 Highlander since my wife didn’t like the CX-9. Realized we didn’t need the expensive ass Highlander and went back to a used 2016 CX-5 Grand Touring with the 2.5 and AWD. Both CX-5s were almost completely trouble-free and solid little rides.
My friend has the 2016 now. I sold it to him when we recently got a 2018 minivan. He loves it and uses it as a work commuter to his job 35-40 minutes away. Good gas mileage and AWD for snowy days.
I have a 2016 Mazda6 that’s paid off, so no rush to upgrade (only 91,000 miles on it). But I’ll likely snatch up a CX-5 myself as its replacement someday.
Yeah at the very least it should have a hybrid option.
Personally I think the hybrid should be standard with a plug-in hybrid (with at least 30 miles of EV range) as an option. And if they can offer a plug-in hybrid AND also have space for a spare tire, that would be a winner in my book.
I don’t like this recent trend of having no provision for a spare tire.
Another thing… I thought the replacement for the current CX-5 was supposed to be the CX-50. So with the new CX-5, is the CX-50 still gonna be around in the long run? Personally I think they are redundant and one of these two should be phased out in the long run.
Instead of Mazda having two very similar CUVs, I’d like to see them come out with a new minivan as well as a pickup truck along the lines of the Maverick.
I’m down w/an MPV/Mazda5 reboot.
Ditto!
Agreed, though Mazda’s a relatively small company (compared to most of its rivals) so I’m not sure they’d consider the massive R&D costs of an all-new model to be wise, given the finite sales potential of that sort of small van niche market.
I liked both the MPV and especially the Mazda 5 myself, but I’m not representative of the mass-market car buyer.
I actually saw a tan MPV just the other day and was shocked. First generation model with the standard swing out doors compared to the sliding doors. I spent many a mile in one of those back in the day
I think the CX-5 and CX-50 both have a place in their lineup, as the latter is more off-roady looking and has far worse aero than the former as a result. Replacement might’ve been ths original plan, though.
CX-5 is by far Mazda’s biggest seller and basically prints money for them at this point since it’s such an old platform but manages to still move so well with sales.
I really think they wanted to do CX-30, CX-50, CX-90. And then they sprung the CX-70 on us, which I’ll never understand. But, the CX-5 kept selling like hotcakes. So, they realized it would just be stupid to cancel it.
By contrast, the CX-3 getting dropped in lieu of the CX-30 made sense because the CX-3 was a pitiful seller (not designed or packaged well from the start vs. the competition like the HR-V).
The CX-70 is a bit of a headscratcher for sure. I get what they’re doing with it, and I don’t dislike it. But it should have been called the CX-80* or CX-85.
*Yes I know the CX-80 exists, as does the CX-60. The CX-70 should have been a true bridge in the gap between those two models. Or the 80 should have been the 70 – despite having 3 rows – and the 70 should have been the 80 because of its larger exterior dimensions.
Hybrid has already been confirmed for the CX-5, but with their own setup, not the RAV4 Hybrid’s setup that’s shoehorned into the CX-50 (and that doesn’t fit the character of the vehicle, but it is what it is).
Both the CX-5 and CX-50 have places in the lineup. CX-5 is analogous to – for example – the Ford Escape, where the CX-50 is closer to the Bronco Sport. Similar sizes, but different missions. CX-5 for mass-market straightforward appeal, and CX-50 for the tougher appearance and adventuring set.
A new Mazda5 or MPV would be neat. It’s not impossible given southeast Asia’s adoption of vans, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they rebadged an existing EV from a partner to execute the same thing – much like the EZ-6 sedan.
If I were in the market for one of these – This would make me walk over to the pre-owned section.
Same reason I got a low-mileage used 2008 Mazda3 hatch in late 2009 rather than a then-new 2010 one on the lot. Remember the goofy-ass smiley face design language they did for a while? Yuck.
This is bad.
This is not good. I’ve always liked Mazdas because they look different. This squinty face and sweeping line always made it look like it wasn’t trying to be just another Rav 4 or Explorer. This facedroop kills some of the car’s distinctiveness and makes it look cheap.
Yeah, it really seems like the intent was to make this look less like an interesting, attractive Mazda SUV and more like … all the other SUVs.
I understand part of the reconfiguration of the front was due to changing pedestrian impact laws. It’s also not a flattering photo.
It’s hard to tell from the photo, but does the face look safer? I think the current generation’s face looks less escalade bull-dozey than the refresh. I hope it looks better in person.
Maybe? I know the pedestrian impact laws are a big reason why vehicles are getting slightly blocker-looking fronts, as the upper front of the vehicle has to be able to deform “just so” to get a good grade, which collaterally means the hoods are also more horizontal. There’s not much structure going on in those spaces by design, and it’s not for cooling or taller engines.
That makes sense. So it’s like a crumple zone in front of the car. It’s a byproduct that it turns out looking more intimidating that way. I wonder if they could tuck little airbags in those empty spaces, though if it’s done wrong that might kill you worse….
Thanks for the explanation!
I swear that I read ‘…less escalade bull-donkey…” and immediately agreed with that assessment. 😉
Facelift ?? More like FaceDroop. This is NOT an improvement.
I originally didn’t see it… but scanning between this pic and a pic of a CX-70/90, I can see it. It’s a bigger change from the current CX-5, but more evolutionary vs. the 70/90 IMO. The latest CX-70/90 are amongst the nicest looking SUVs on the market, so it would make sense for Mazda to follow that as far as a FWD layout will let them.
It looks like what James William Bottomtooth III would drive when hes taking the kids to the pool.
I assume/think that James is that guy from Family Guy cutaways, but is ‘taking the kids to the pool’ a pooping reference? If so, kudos! 😀
I agree with the folks suggesting this is just a facelift. That’s what I see here. It’s a minor tweak to put it line with the current Mazda SUV design language and keep it going for a few more years. The current CX5 was a runaway hit for Mazda that’s still selling well and has a ridiculous amount of crossover appeal (pun semi intended). It’s best not to mess with it too much, especially with the CX50 doing as well as it is.
The CX50 covers the folks who want something more rugged looking and/or a hybrid. The CX5 can continue on more or less as is and this is probably enough of an update that current owners of aging CX5s will see enough reason to get a new one. IMHO with how good the CX5 still is despite its age it’s best not to rock the boat too much. Also Mazda needs to continue to focus on the CX70 and 90 anyway because they’re still having a lot of teething issues.
What sort of teething issues are the 70 and 90 having? I’m not currently in the market for either, but the styling and turbo inline 6 make them intriguing.
Peep the forums. Lots of weird transmission behavior, assorted code throwing, unexpected engine shutoff with the mild hybrids, etc. The PHEVs are even worse though.
Sad to hear. Mazda’s reliability has been a great selling point for some time. A company of their size can’t afford to lose that. Hopefully their Toyota partnership will help straighten that out.
The 3, CX-30, CX-5, and CX-50 are doing fine, and I’m sure the hybrid CX-50 will as well since it’s just a RAV-4. But yeah, the CX-70 and CX-90 are buggy (to say the least). They’ve been attacking the issues as quickly and as best as they can, though.
I’ve even read of some owners being given gift cards and other special treatment to assuage frustration over excessive issues and recalls.
First year bugs, that Mazda has been attacking as quick as they can. We bought our 2024 build in February and it’s had zero issues. I understand most of the issues affected 2023 builds.
Ditto this. Yes, the new Mazda models aren’t as relatively bulletproof as the old ones, but that’s not surprising with new platforms, engines, etc… vs. the tried-and-true 2.5 and 2.5 turbo that they’ve been using forever (don’t get me wrong: I LIKE that 2.5 and would definitely choose it vs. the Toyota-sourced hybrid OR Mazda’s own/new six). But they’re sure to get the bugs worked out before too long… they HAVE to, since they’re a small company and can’t just shrug it off and keep churning out buggy cars indefinitely, like some of their rivals do.
AFAIK most of these issues have been worked out on non 2023 build vehicles. Mines a 2024 build, and has had few recalls for bugs so far in it’s life, and 0 issues in the 4 months we’ve had it.
This is useful information because I love the CX90 on paper and my wife wants one
Mazda had the typical teething issues everybody has with a first model year vehicle. But from my research, they have been actively fixing any of those issues. It’s worth mentioning that nearly all of them have just been software issues. The biggest issue is faulty hybrid batteries, but I’ve only seen this affect the non PHEV’s built in 2023.
The entire car got compromised just to fit in the longitudinal I6, arguably for the worse. The overall vehicle is longer than average, but the actual passenger compartment is shorter than average because of the long engine compartment. The engine pushed the transmission too far into the center console/footwell area, so they were forced to use a smaller wet clutch instead of a torque converter to solvage the still poor footroom. Rear cargo area/3rd row space had to be sacrificed to keep the front 2 rows reasonably sized. The PHEV is Mazda’s first and uses a relatively rudimentary (IMO) ‘motor taped on’ style hybrid system, and the 2.5T I4 is hobbled with the packaging compromises from the I6. Cool car in concept, but they didn’t have the budget to execute on it like the German luxury brands.
Very unfortunate. An inline 6 from Mazda sounds like the stuff of dreams otherwise.
The I-6 is outstanding. They really need to shove it into something fun.
Mazda6 Wagon
I’d consider buying it, for sure.
I strongly suspect that they have/had something sedanlike planned for the I6, which might be canceled now in favor of R&D into hybrids and EVs. The Mazda 6e (based on JV partner Changan’s EV/EREV platform) sold in China and Europe suggest they’re not done with midsize non-SUVs yet.
As an owner, I may be a bit of a defender. But the transmission performs really well (we bought ours in February and I know they had some tuning bugs before then) I prefer how it performs compared to a torque converter.
Rear space is on par with vehicles like the X7, Q7, and XC90.
Yes, most people are cross shopping it with vehicles like the Tulluride/Pallisade (I did too). But they just don’t compare well to the CX-90 unless you are really worried about the space, which in my experience has minimal real-world impact. If you want 5+ people and all their stuff for a 2+ day trip. You need a rooftop carrier for any vehicle in this class.
I’m glad its working well for you and you like it! The American mainstream consumer is very accustomed to torque converter behaviour touchscreens, and buying massive 7-seaters for their two (2) children, so the Mazda cross shops fairly unfavorably with mainstream competitors. I guess it’s just a side effect of pushing upmarket while not being quite there yet, but sales seem to be pretty good. I wonder how well it would’ve been received if they released the 2-row CX-70 first, followed by a ‘3-row CX-70’ as the CX-80/90
The sales figures for the CX-90 have been significantly better than the CX-9 ever were. So, I imagine Mazda is pleased with it’s reception. From the way they have marketed the vehicle, they don’t seem to have targeted the mainstream family hauler. They sell the car as premium, and from my personal comparisons it is a noticeably more premium car than the mainstream 3 row suvs.
Well, to be fair comparison wise, the CX-9 was never that popular in the market, though I’ve pondered buying a used one more than once. Pretty much every trusted reviewer of these on Youtube praises them overall. If I weren’t so wed lately to the idea of driving older cars (my current youngest is 21 years old, and my current oldest is 36 years old) I’d definitely think about a late-run CX-9 as a bigger, more plush alternative to a second-gen CX-5. 🙂
This is a great point and I quite agree: a lot of reviewers, magazines (or online equivalent), and shoppers get their comparison choices wrong. As a RWD-based vehicle it has to be compared to other RWD-based vehicles. So Explorer at the “low end” and then more directly the Aviator, X5/X7, GLE, Land Rover Discovery and arguably the Range Rover, Audi Q7 & Q8, and the Lexus GX. One could even conceivably compare it to a Bentayga and Cullinan as those are overkill for what they are, but are also almost certainly unlikely to be cross-shopped.
I definitely wouldn’t say it compares to a Range Rover, but I would say it’s kind of a budget Q7 or X7 type vehicle. I’m a big fan of the GX and we have a couple GX460’s in the family, but that’s a much different type of vehicle than the CX-90. We personally cross shopped it with the Explorer, Palisade, Pilot, new Acadia, and used Q7’s.
We went into our car buying, thinking we were going to buy a Palisade based on all the magazine reviews. But, found the CX-90 to be a much nicer vehicle than everything else in it’s price range. Those cars do have more interior space. But having grown up in a 5 person family, I can attest that it isn’t a functional difference in cargo space.
The PHEV really seems like the one NOT to get which is a bit of a shame. Re: the straight 6 I’d agree that they didn’t manage to execute it like the German luxury brands did…but they’re also Mazda. They don’t have the budget of brands like BMW and do almost all of their engineering in house.
If they knew they could sell the car for $70,000 or whatever I’m sure they could’ve ironed out more of the kinks…but the car had to be built to a price point, and I’d imagine that the majority of the ones that they sell aren’t the Turbo S trim with every option in the book. They’re probably mainly lower trims that are in the $40-50,000 range.
I think with that in mind it’s a bit more successful than you’re giving it credit for. It’s not a true luxury car or an affordable X5, but it gives you enough of that experience combined with great styling and equipment for a fraction of the cost. I think there’s value in that, and people agree because they’re selling pretty damn well.
With all the early bugs being ironed out I’d be willing to bet that the 2026s are going to be pretty well sorted. That being said I do struggle to see the point of the PHEV. It’s more expensive, the PHEVs are having way more issues, it’s not any more efficient than the inline 6 when operating as a hybrid, and the electric range is mediocre at best.
I get WHY they went PHEV. In that class of car it’s a unique and highly marketable offering. But the technology clearly needed more time in the oven, and as we’ve seen with the Jeep 4Xe disaster a less than sorted PHEV powertrain can be a death sentence. If it gave you 60 miles of EV range I’d maybe roll the dice, but not at the 25 or whatever it is that you get.
Also the base 6 cylinder is a mild hybrid and gets 24/28 MPG, it’s a comparably efficient car as is. That’s way better mileage than the Pilot, Telluride, Palisade, Traverse, etc. Going with the 330 horsepower variant only drops it to 23/28 as well, which is still more efficient than the cars I listed. I’m not sure how much of a real world upgrade the PHEV is when it comes emissions and efficiency unless the majority of your driving falls within the short EV range.
Yeah I agree with everything you said. For the PHEV range, 17.8kWh is alright but a little small given the length, but the biggest limitation to range in this vehicle is the aero, which is still prioritized like an ICE car, not like an EV. The long hood & rearward ICE strikes again, and limiting the ability for a sloping roofline and limiting space within the wheelbase for a larger battery. Its mechanical architecture (small 1x68kW motor) and high drag gives it few opportunities for ICE off, which is why there’s little mileage gain; it’s giving late-00s Chevy Tahoe hybrid. The bugs are probably all software tuning, which is pretty difficult and unsurprising. Fortunately, the new hybrid system Mazda is working on sounds like it has far more potential.
Not surprised. As much as I love an I6, it makes no sense here. Most SUV buyers don’t care, if they even know the difference. What they do care about is packaging—it’s largely the whole purpose of the segment!—and packaging is the very reason I6s were largely replaced by V6s and turbo 4s. Even odder is that I6s are not even a heritage thing that they could draw a connection to, like MB or BMW. It’s a weird Mazda thing to make expensive engineering choices it can ill afford and put them in the kind of cars that attract people who don’t care or are solutions that are interesting on paper, but more expensive and not as good as existing off-the-shelf solutions. It’s kind of like a more measured and less pervasive version of Piech-era VW, where he let his engineer fever-mind run rampant. Sure, they came out with some interesting things, but seldom were they good business choices and they seemed to come at the expense of basic reliability, especially dumb when most of the cars in question were ordinary cars bought by ordinary people who just want their cars to work with minimal problems. And even Piech didn’t try to bring back the stupid Wankel!
I kinda get it because they’re doing it to gain prestige as they push upmarket, but it seems like they didn’t expect some of the indirect compromises and costs to make it work well. Audi and Porsche SUVs can get away with V6s due to their incumbency, but even Mercedes moved back to I6s in 2018 to much fanfare. The thing is, I can’t really think of any other vehicles they could put the I6 in, unless they’re considering a larger sedan again. Maybe they greenlit the I6 project when they were seriously considering a sports sedan, years before the realities of the EV revolution hit? Development could’ve started right after they finished making the 2.5T and Skyactiv-X engines in the late 2010s. They might (possibly already) canceled the sedan project now that they’re less desirable as even Ferrari and Lotus make SUVs, and focused that money on developing hybrids. In the past year, they’ve put the Toyota hybrid into the CX-50 and made EV/EREVs based on Chinese JV partner Changan’s existing platform (Mazda 6e and CX-6e) to buy time, which sounds like reality is starting to hit.
MB did it because they were moving away from V8s, so there was some streamlining in production with going to an inline 6 to match the 4s. The V6s originally replaced the inlines partly due to packaging and also for some production commonalities with the V8, which is usually indicated by a 90* V6 (like MB). . .
OK, I just deleted a bunch of junk because I think you got it with the parts commonality and now it actually makes sense (especially if they do/did have plans to use the engine elsewhere). They had been using Ford’s V6 and probably wanted to get away from that, but still needed a 6 for larger applications. Going their own way, it makes more sense to start over with an inline over a V since their only other engine is an inline and I certainly don’t see them going to a V8.
I always found the current one to look a little too visually “squished,” but the CX-50 (I will never understand Mazda’s product planning) mostly solved that, but also went too far in the other direction and made the interior more cramped.
But the fact that over the years I’ve seen just as high a concentration of CX-5 in various parts of Europe as in the US, they seem to have found the perfect size/dynamics combo to appeal to the most people at once. It’s not as prolific as the RAV, but what is?
Very true… nothing is as popular as the Rav4. But every time I drive someone’s Rav4 of any generation, I have to concentrate very hard on staying awake, lest I slip into a post-Chicken-Pot-Pie level coma.
I dunno how many CX-5s Mazda has sold over the years, but it’s GOT to be among their all-time bestsellers, bested perhaps only by the Mazda 3 worldwide.
I know they sold over a million Miatas, and that’s a lot for that kind of car (I bought two and still have one 🙂 ) but that’s just a drop in the bucket over the course of 35 years, when compared to sales of popular models from Toyota, Ford, etc…
Yikes, that’s a facelift, alright. Don’t go to that plastic surgeon.
I wish they wouldn’t use the same camera sasquatch hunters use when snapping shots of yet-to-be-released cars. The clarity is horrible.
Easier to hide only a few pixels than a lot of them.
It comes with Camry dents already in the front bumper?
This looks to have the same stubby blunt nose and flat grille that the CX-70 and CX-90 has which I really don’t like. It’s like they chopped off the nose with a cleaver.
I really like Mazda’s previous generation designs. I like the current CX-5 and my wife drives a 2017 CX-9 which I think is attractive for what it is, and both of these have more of a protruding grille/nose.
Pedestrian impact requirements have caused a lot of changes to front-end design. The flat front is largely dictated by that in order to score well on the tests.
I drive a 2nd-gen CX-5, and if you don’t know where to look, it’s not much different than a 1st gen. This isn’t much different from v1 and v2.
Which aids my theory that we’ve reached a peak in car design. Americans have pretty much settled on the CUV/SUV, in sizes XS/S/M/L/XL. If you took the badges off this, a CR-V, and a RAV4, most folks wouldn’t know the difference.
I didn’t even know there were two gens, to be honest. Proving your point. Although as a car guy I can tell all those crossovers apart pretty easily. Just don’t ask me to tell a Blazer and Trax and TrailBlazer apart from 100 yards away. Or 10 feet.
Also to your point, I still think cars would be fine with incremental annual changes instead of a full re-work every 4-6 years.
I don’t know that everyone has peaked, but I definitely think Mazda made the first CX-5 look so good that it would be hard to improve on it, so most of the changes since then have been more trying not to screw it up too badly.
Yes, at least until now (nosewise).
I hate the hood line!!! One of the nicer aspects of Mazda looks is a sleek hood.
Blame/thank pedestrian impact crash test requirements.
ya IDK, it will probably frow on me but for now it did not make a better design… the current one is so good though that it is hard to beat
This looks like an additional facelift to me. There had been rumors and spy shots circulating the past few months that were saying another update to limp it along for another 4 years or so. Note the D-pillar looks extremely similar, as does the door surfacing, door handles and placement, and general profile of the greenhouse. Nothing here seems similar enough to point to any serious overhaul of the platform or chassis.
While I’m shocked how well the 5 still sells given the 50’s recent release and my strong preference towards it, it would seem foolish to develop a brand new vehicle that directly competes with your other nearly new nearly identical vehicle, when a cheap (relatively) refresh will give it another few years of longevity before merging the two (5 and 50) is feasible. Regardless, should be a good update that’s definitely due.
This is my take as well. The taillights protrude in the same way at the back as the current model. However, they may be taking the Camry route, basically the same on the sides but just a little different.
Doesn’t the ‘all new’ Camry also share door panels with the older gen? Both it and the CX-5 are kinda conservative legacy models being squeezed by higher budget similar models in other segments (RAV4/CUVs for the Camry, CX-50 for the CX-5), so it might make sense to share many parts even if it is a new generation and not a refresh.
Correct the new Camry is effectively a heavy refresh, same platform but all hybrid, I believe the door skins are the same, although they did a fairly heavy overhaul of the interior to coincide. They at least changes the rest of the sheet meal more significantly, while the leaked rear shots of the updated CX-5 show it’s very much just an additional facelift, with the overall core of the sheet metal being nearly identical.
I’m not surprised that the Mazda 5 lives on despite the 50 seeming like it was going to be an outright replacement for it. Someone at Mazda probably looked how decently the 5 was still selling, and had the nerve to suggest updating it instead of killing it. Which I appreciate, since the 50 doesn’t attract me the way the 5 always has, and still does.
But this happens sometimes. The Volvo 700 series was intended to be the replacement for the long-in-the-tooth 200 series (240, 245, etc…) but the 240 just kept selling so well that Volvo decided to keep making them along with the much more modern 700 series cars and wagons. And the 240 actually outlived the entire 700 series by a year, ending its run in ’93, after a whopping 19 years with only modest/incremental changes (a first-year ’75 only differs externally from a final-year ’93 in the hood and headlights mainly).
I know this because I just bought an ’89 240 wagon (aka 245) after watching approximately one hundred Youtube videos about them. They are rather utilitarian vehicles… not nearly as refined as the 700 (I had one of them too) or my ’04 XC90. Despite this, I find them to be charming, and they work pretty well as a local daily driver. 🙂
The front kind of looks like a walrus. We’ll have to wait until we see the real thing, I think. Let’s hope they keep their beautiful red paint color.
That’s probably what we’re looking at, just with major image-color distortion. I wish they’d lose the black wheels though.
why did they give it swollen jowls??
I like the current one, it’s aged very well in looks.
why did they give it swollen jowls??
Don Corleone limited edition.
It reminds me of chonky cat, but less adorable
I had no idea the current one was so old, it has aged VERY well. I’d have thought it was a fairly modern design.
I actually like the look of the current model over the shots of the new one.
Mazda has a tendency to come up with a great design and go with it for a while. The Mazda3 is what, 6 years old? It still looks fantastic as well. When you aren’t as big as Toyota or Honda, that approach makes a lot of sense. It’s hard to tell from one extremely bad pic, but one thing that sticks out to me about this thing is that the proportions seem somewhere between awkward and bulbous, and it’s very hard for surface detailing to make up for that.
For some reason, my first reaction was that front end gives me Acura front end vibes. Maybe it’s the slanted headlights that drop below.
The rear half is giving me 1st Gen Jeep Compass vibes. I’m hoping there is some bad rendering going on here.
Was going to post this. It looks Compass-y. I’m not sold on that front end either.