The challenge Mazda faces is, in many ways, the same one this website does. A part of me would love to be a website that everyone on the planet reads every day, as it would make me immensely powerful and wealthy. At the same time, the sense that people have that The Autopian is this wonderful and unique thing that they enjoy with a select group of in-the-know enthusiasts is a big part of why I also love this website.
Mazda is not Toyota, and it builds cars for exactly the kind of people who, I think, read this website. At the same time, it’s a business and, as the latest Mazda CX-5 shows, the planners would like to grow that business. Unlike most other major automakers in the United States, Mazda is mostly alone. It’s partially owned by Toyota, sure, and while that gives it access to some powertrains, it’s fundamentally its own independent company.
This means Mazda has to be careful. It has to make hard choices because it can neither leverage a larger carmaker for everything, nor afford to make too many mistakes in this suddenly very uncertain environment. That’s how we ended up with Mazda embracing Big Screen. I think it’s one of the best versions of Big Screen, if that matters to you. It may matter a lot, or it may not matter at all.
Mazda still makes the CX-50, a car that’s also a two-row crossover of roughly the same size serving roughly the same market. This either makes a lot of sense or no sense at all.
[Full disclosure: Mazda flew me to Los Angeles, put me up at a beachside resort for two nights, and fed me delicious pie. In retrospect, I should have skipped all the meals just to save room for the pie. -MH]
The Basics
Engine: 2.5-liter inline-four
Transmission: 6-speed automatic transmission
Drive: All-wheel drive
Output: 187 horsepower, 186 lb-ft of torque
Fuel Economy: 24 MPG city, 30 MPG highway, 26 MPG combined
Base Price: $31,395 (including $1,495 destination charge)
Price As-Tested: $40,485 for S Premium Plus (including $1,495 shipping/handling)
How New Is This, Exactly?
The biggest question I had revolved around how much this car counts as a new generation. As with a lot having to do with the 2026 Mazda CX-5, the answer is open to interpretation. It looks different and, mostly aft the B-pillar, it’s 4.5 inches longer, which is obvious when you sit in the back seat or look at the cargo area. It’s also half an inch wider, though if you can feel that much space, you’re either lying or you’re a pair of calipers that’s taken on human form after being cursed by a genie.
Almost every part of this car has been changed to make it friendlier for normal humans. The doors open wider. The cargo area is larger and more accessible. There are more airbags and more standard safety equipment. Curiously, this means it’s got the same wheelbase as the Mazda CX-50, albeit a little shorter and taller.
If you enjoyed the old base, naturally aspirated powertrain, you’ll like the new one, because it’s mostly identical. Because the whole car is heavier, fuel economy has dropped a little bit, although not by much. It even has a six-speed transmission. In 2026! Can you believe it?
It looks like a refined version of the outgoing model, with some visual refinements that do work well here. It’s aesthetically similar enough that I get why people kept asking me if it was a new generation or just a refresh, and I’d argue that this is the least you can do to call something a new generation of a car, but it is a new generation. Toyota does the same thing all the time, and no one complains.
Let’s Just Get It Out Of The Way And Talk About The Screen
Some of you are just not going to be able to deal with this. I know this, you know this, and I think deep down, Mazda knows this as well. Car development cycles take years, and when this car development cycle was happening, Big Screen was the thing. Now that the car is ready, there’s been a huge backlash against Big Screen in some circles. Unfortunately for the brand, the Venn diagram of People Who Like To Talk About Mazdas Online and People Who Hate Big Screen might as well be a circle.
I can’t quite be that upset, and that’s for a few reasons. First, the “commander knob” that some people seemed to love was just never that appealing to me, even if it got better when paired with a small touchscreen. Second, the fine gentleman from Mazda, who showed me the new system (also an Autopian member, so he has great taste), made a point about the system now being updatable over-the-air, and trying to match all new features to what is basically an eight-way input device isn’t going to always result in the best HMI experience. Finally, most people like Big Screen, and I just dont’t think the old system works well when there’s a giant screen in your face.
This is all to say that I’ll leave being upset over a commander knob to the Ken Starrs of the world.
Mazda went for it, though. Maybe too hard. The screen itself is fine, but the lack of buttons is going to make people mad.
Would you like to adjust the temperature? Screen. Would you like to change where the air is coming from? Screen. While there are good, redundant steering wheel controls, it’s almost all screen. Mazda understands most people don’t love this, so the control bar at the bottom is there, no matter what you’re doing (unless you’re parked and watching YouTube or playing a game, where full screen is possible).
In the Premium Plus trim, you get the largest version of this screen, but we were told the smaller version is basically the same interface, just not as wide. In traditional Mazda form, it works better than almost any other big screen from any other automaker I’ve tried. Everything is fast and easy to find. Compared to the Polestar 4 I had, which also featured Google Built-In, this might as well be the cockpit of a 747.
View this post on Instagram
Oh, right, Google Built-In. I don’t like Google Built-In. This is where Google takes over the interface and, in my experience, it’s always a little buggy. This was the least annoying version, but I still prefer using Apple CarPlay.
A lot of the appeal of Google Built-In is that Mazda doesn’t have to develop a whole system, and Google brings AI tools like Gemini (eventually) and Google Assistant (currently). Will people on this continent follow Chinese consumers and decide to utilize voice activation more? Maybe. I’m not sure. Asking the car to do basic things like adjust the temperature, choose new music, and change navigation worked just fine.
If you’re a conquest target for Mazda and are coming out of a Nissan Rogue, or even a gas-powered CR-V, I think you’ll look at the Mazda’s screen and probably think it’s cool. Given the competitive pricing of the CX-5, it is a lot of technology for the money.
If you’re a returning Mazda CX-5 purist who also drives an NA Miata on the weekends, it’ll be a bit harder to adjust to, and it’s hard to argue that the same interface, but with a row of buttons, wouldn’t be better. It would be better. There’s really no argument.
The Mazda rep seemed excited to jump in the car to show me one thing. “Tell Jason, the glovebox is just a normal glovebox!” Points to Mazda for that one.
Does It Still Drive Like A CX-5?
I’ve owned a Subaru Forester. I currently own a Honda CR-V. I don’t think there’s a popular car in this class I haven’t driven. I would still rather have this new CX-5 on twisty back roads, like the ones I drove on this trip, more than any other car in this class.
Because the car got bigger and heavier, this took some tweaking. There’s a guy named Dave Coleman who used to be a journalist, and, for that reason, every car writer credits Dave Coleman with the feel of Mazdas. It’s his job to be keeper of the zoom zoom flame, but not his job alone, so maybe this isn’t fair. Either way, Dave Coleman (and company) didn’t screw this up.
If you ask Mazda, the old steering was a little heavy, and that resulted in less steering feel, so the electronic power steering was tweaked to lighten it a bit. At the same time, the car’s damping force is “front-loaded,” which means you don’t need as much progressive damping on the back end. This is then combined with softer springs, which give it a more forgiving ride without being too floaty. It’s smart. Given that driving the CR-V is like feeling up your romantic partner with oven mitts (totally cool if that’s what you’re into), the Mazda is noticeably more interactive.
It’s not fast, though. While 187 horsepower is totally adequate, and the six-speed has been adjusted to (mostly) hold gears and not annoy you, it feels kinda slow. Select “Sport” mode and try to twist as much power out of it as you can, and it’s not bad, I suppose. At least that naturally-aspired inline-four sounds better than any naturally-aspirated four you can rent at a Hertz is going to ever sound.
I didn’t get to drive the cheapest version of the CX-5 on the launch, but other than wheel size, it’s mechanically the same car. At around $30,000, there just isn’t any crossover this size that drives this well. In this extremely important category, the Mazda CX-5 is a winner.
It’s Way Better At Normie Stuff
I’m a dad. I’m probably a normie. I’ve got my Patagonia fleece. I talk a lot about credit card points. I have a favorite season of Justified. The dad in me deeply appreciates the changes that Mazda made to the interior and overall usability of the vehicle, as well as safety.
As you can see in the image above, the CX-5 gets a lot of airbags, and the Mazda folks on hand made a big deal of pointing out that it had airbags my CR-V lacked. My CR-V Hybrid also has the annoying thing where there’s a little lip between the rear cargo area and the rear seats when I fold them down. The CX-5 is just flat across. Grrr… stop making me jealous, Mazda product experts!
Even better, the CX-5 has the one feature I wish every crossover had:
No, not a Yeti cooler and a surfboard (although…). It has a rear seat that can split down the middle or on the sides. Most vehicles in this class allow you only the 2/1 combo; the 1/1/1 here is aces. While we’re back here, the larger and taller cargo area is easier to load into with a wider opening and has a lower entry point. I’m tall, so I don’t care, but not everyone is tall.
The rear doors open super wide, which means getting a car seat into the vehicle to take advantage of one of the open latch points for a car seat is easier. My kid is now out of the booster seat, but there was a time when this was important. Even subtle things, like there being dark surfaces where little gremlins (or big ones) are likely to smudge everything with their sticky little fingers is just smart.
If you can see past the screen, there isn’t anything about the interior of this car that doesn’t feel at least a little improved. Look, it even has a full-sized spare:
Again, screen aside, this is a better car in most ways, and I think regular people will enjoy those changes.
This Is Probably Not The Best CX-5 There Will Be, It’s Just The Best CX-5 There Is
Mazda wisely did not put all of its eggs in one Egg Basket. If you don’t like the screen, you can just buy a CX-50. It’s basically the same size, it looks just as good, and has the CX-5’s now-abandoned 2.5-liter turbo motor and a hybrid version. Mazda will sell you one. It’s easy. At $38,000, the 2.5-liter Turbo CX-50 is probably preferable in most ways to the CX-5 in top trim.
What I can’t answer is what to do about the hybrid. The current shoehorned version of Toyota’s hybrid system in the CX-50 is a bit of a compromise, whereas Mazda is developing a whole new SkyActiv-Z hybrid system for the new CX-5. I bet that’s good. Taking this basic car, giving it a better hybrid system, and charging a price that’s competitive with the RAV4 and CR-V Hybrids is an alluring idea. I am probably here for it.
If you live somewhere warm, the approximatley $34k you’ll pay for a 2.5 S Select gets you wireless CarPlay and Android Auto as well as just about everything else you’ll need. If you live somewhere cold, the Preferred adds a wiper de-icer and power liftgate, but at nearly $36k delivered, we’re venturing into CR-V Hybrid and RAV4 Hybrid territory.
If you’re averse to either buying a hybrid or waiting for one, the non-hybrid versions of most crossovers in this class are hampered by uninspiring driving and CVTs, which the new CX-5 delightfully lacks. If you want a crossover and care about driving, you really can’t do much better than the CX-5 for the price, unless you hate Big Screen, in which case you can’t do much better than a certified pre-owned CX-5 for an even lower price.
Top photo: Matt Hardgiree
Someone at Mazda is F*#%ing it up!
I repeat ad nauseum, Mazda was great on several fronts: Stying, Reliable Engine, Normal Automatic Transmission, Physical controls for everything and their ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON CONTOL WHEEL SYSTEM.
Who at Mazda had such an ipad addled mind that they designed this shyte? I want names.
We have a ’22 cx5 that was purchased because we couldn’t get a Toyota at the time without donating a major organ. It has been a great car and I became a big Mazda fan. It’s fun to bomb around in, which is a rare thing for a small crossover. BUT the thing I like about it most is the quality interior with a simple, attractive, and intuitive dashboard and controls featuring knobs and buttons you can operate blindfolded. Mazda was the holdout against all the nonsense and look what happened. The article seems to lean in the direction that Mazda had to do it because of consumer preferences. If they paid for consumer research and that’s what moved them to the dark side, it’s too bad they don’t know it’s always expensive bunk.
It’s reviewers and auto journos (not including the ones here) that ruined it, along with taking feedback from test drives as seriously as long-term ownership feedback.
The problem is that everyone knows how to use a touchscreen, so there’s no learning curve. Does that make touchscreens the best control interface in a car? Absolutely not.
But what it does mean is that someone who spends only a day or two in a Mazda will be frustrated by the knob because it takes a bit of time to get used to, and that generates a lot of complaints from people who just haven’t used it long enough.
We were considering a CX-5 last year when we bought a new car. We keep cars a long time though (generally 15+ years), and just couldn’t see owning one for that length of time that gets only low-to-mid 20s mpg around town and 30 on the highway. That’s the same as our 2007 CR-V. For a modern compact crossover, that’s not competitive, and in a decade it will be positively archaic.
Ended up with an oven-mitt (Hah! I think it’s more like a driving glove…) CR-V hybrid that gets 40 mpg city, has significantly more interior space than the previous CX-5, and has a complete set of delightfully analog HVAC controls.
We’re still glad Mazda’s offering the CX-5 and hope they’re successful implementing a more contemporary power train for their next iteration.
Fair points. They need a hybrid system that competes. Or they should bring over the Skyactiv-X engine. Fuel economy is problematic, but the feel and performance of Mazda made me forgive them. No so with the IPAD dash.
The interior of the outgoing CX-5 left a great impression on a test drive. It’s a really nice cabin But when you then hop into a hybrid CR-V or RAV4 it’s immediately apparent how torqueless and weak the Mazda 2.5 engine is in a car that heavy.
My 2014 GLK gets that kind of MPGs with a 3.5 liter 300 hp engine!
When I started my current job I got a handed down ’21 Cherokee. It had plenty of faults, but when it ran it averaged 27mpg with the Pentastar and when you stomped on the gas it moved well – low down torque hit but would rev out too.
It was replaced by an Equinox with the 1.5 turbo, which struggles to get 27mpg, despite being fairly slow. When you catch it in the boost range, it’s not too bad overall, but sometimes you don’t and it won’t get out of it’s own way.
I can’t imagine this CX5 does any better than the Equinox from a performance standpoint, and again the MPG is kind of embarrassing.
I think we possibly need to recognize that the setup in the old CX-5 was legitimately bad.
The big screen feels also bad, but for different reasons.
I have a lot of close family and friends with CX-5s. I respectfully disagree about it being bad. Different? Yes. Not the most modern? Yes. Able to be used without diverting eyes from the road much? Very yes. A bit sluggish? Certainly. But the trade-off with having that and also having a decent gear selector, physical controls, and an electronic parking brake controller in an easy-to-reach spot were fair compromises.
This new setup seems a bit too far of an evolutionary leap. Would it have been so bad and expensive to have some redundant rotary knobs for at least the primary functions (fan speed, HVAC temperature, and volume)? At least they kept hard buttons for the defrosters, so there’s that.
I genuinely could not use it without being massively distracted. It was very unintuitive and irritating.
A decent gear selector and physical controls could be had without the worst infotainment known to man.
I know Mazda pride themselves on being an independent company (and that’s part of what I like about them), but they aren’t the kind of company that SHOULD be independent. They should have a big corporate sugar daddy keeping the lights on so they could spend money on all of the inline six sport sedans and rotary sports cars they’d much rather be making than having to cater to the market of basics who think of cars as transportation appliances.
The problem with doing it that way is it doesn’t take long for the corporate sugar daddy to either 1. get in trouble financially and have to cut costs or 2. decide they’re so successful the shareholders deserve some cost cutting as a little treat.
In either case, the result is that the “fun” cars like the Miata or the Mazda3 get saddled with the blandest parts-bin setups the corporate arm can muster while being starved for development dollars.
“At least that naturally-aspired inline-four sounds better than any naturally-aspirated four you can rent at a Hertz is going to ever sound.“
Well that’s saying something.
I’ve been watching videos about the new CX-5 for a while now, and from them, I felt less than thrilled (though I’ve yet to sit in let alone drive the new one myself). YES, I’m not crazy about the giant screen and lack of physical buttons at all. If that makes me boring and predictable, so be it. The nice part about the previous CX-5 is that the screen wasn’t big, and though it could be a touchscreen w/Apple Carplay, there was no need given the big knob controller (that Matt, and therefore Mazda, must refer to as ‘commander’ though I never heard it called that before). I actually liked that system: you didn’t have to reach out to use the screen, there would be no fingerprints on the screen, etc…
The other stuff in the new CX-5 I do like: I like that it looks similar to the old one… it’s been a good clean and stylish shape as far as mid-size crossovers go. The improved interior packaging and extra 4 inches of length I can utilize are probably a plus, but the fact that the old CX-5 was just a bit on the small side of ‘medium’ was actually a positive IMO. I’m VERY glad it’s still got the NA 2.5 and six speed automatic. The proven and durable NA motor has always felt like ‘enough’ to me compared to the turbo versions… especially for this kind of car, which will spend 0% of its time on racetracks. And the lack of a CVT, as is now utilized by every other Japanese carmaker in the U.S. is a joy and pleasure, and for that alone, Mazda should be praised.
Shame about losing the physical controls and it all now being screen though. I can’t lie about that. I could probably learn to live with it OK, but some part of me would still miss/prefer the previous/traditional dash/controls.
PS: driving home past the Burbank Tesla dealership and Ikea, I saw a very new/shiny Mazda CX-30 in (what I think was a) very dark blue. I know the car is basically the same as it was when it was introduced in the late teens, but shiny and in a dark color, it was really quite attractive IMO.
Two questions. How long did it take to think up the commander knob – Ken Starr connection? How many readers appreciate the joke?
That line was a real Tripp down memory lane.
Except their crappy Mazda6 transmission just failed me at 109,000. They get no praise from me for that POS transmission. And speaking of transmissions… how’s Toyota’s non-CVT 8 speed working out for them? Seems like transmissions, in general, suck of late.
https://www.autoblog.com/news/toyota-transmission-lawsuit-new-jersey
I’ve never heard about a trend of bad transmissions in Mazdas, but anything’s possible. I do know that years back, old Mazdas tended towards rust in places where the roads are salted in the winter. But so did just about every other kind of car, from old Jeeps to W123 Mercedes, so I can’t really hold that against Mazda since it was common to many/all makes of cars.
To be sure, it sucks when something major goes out on a car before a reasonable mileage is reached. A 100Kmile transmission feels like what my dad went through on a regular basis with Plymouth and Oldsmobile cars back in the ’70s. Over the past decade at least, Mazdas always seem to be near the top of the ratings in terms of reliability, except of course for their recent introduction of that new six cylinder engine in their bigger crossovers (not sure if they’ve worked out the bugs with that yet).
I always kind of wanted a Mazda 6 I’ll admit. I pretty much liked them all… from the most recent, to the sporty version, to the earlier hatchback and wagons… they were quite handsome.
Between my wife and I we had 4 first-gen (GG) Mazda6 sedans (though I’d have preferred the 5-door or wagon for mine), and hers got replaced by a series of CX-5s (she just got #4 as a lease).
While I myself have replaced mine with Volvo crossovers, it’s mostly from a “right car, right time” aspect for those, and nothing against the Mazdas. I nearly got myself a CX-50 last year, before realizing it was shorter in height than the -5, and that I was sitting “down” in it ever so slightly compared to the -5.
You managed to kill a modern Mazda 6-speed automatic? Did you regularly drive it cold and immediately floor it? Did you not have the fluid checked regularly?
I just had a customer trade in her 448K-mile 2016 CX-5 with the original engine and transmission. Engine oil changes every 5K miles, ATF and differential fluid changes every 50K. She replaced it with a 2025 CX-5 with the non-turbo.
First off… the Mazda6 manual does not list transmission fluid changes in their manual. You’ll find that:
“For the 2018 Mazda6, the SKYACTIV-DRIVE automatic transmission uses “filled for life” ATF-FZ fluid…”
Second…
Yeah… I used to slam it into gear immediately after starting and rev it as high as I can! Especially with that blue thermometer light is on. That’s the best!
/s
I am meticulous on service windows. I could show you every receipt for that car. I take pictures of them and store them electronically. I fully expected to get to 200,000 miles on it like a bunch of other cars I’ve owned (see? like I actually know how to maintain them!).
Nope… this is on Mazda. They stuck me with a defective transmission. And it wasn’t the only quality issue I faced – as noted earlier. It was just the one that ended my relationship with the car.
109K miles isn’t “defective”. 9K miles would be “defective”. I agree with you that it’s earlier than it should be, but by the same token you were nearly double the powertrain warranty.
“Lifetime” fluids are widely known to be BS. Fluids wear out, and the metal parts they’re lubricating wear away and the particulate has to go somewhere (filters only do so much) and so the fluids should be changed every so often. There’s not a fluid in the industry I personally trust to make it past 100K miles. Some of Motorcraft’s driveline fluids come close, but even then given the workload they’re subjected to I’d rather have fresher fluid than dirtier.
Anyway, it blows that you had a negative experience, especially with such an otherwise good car. No brand is perfect, but some are better than others.
That appears to be a compact spare, not full size. Still much better than a can of tire sealant and a compressor!
Definitely has the words “For temporary use only” inscribed on it. Looks like there might be room for a full-sizer in that well though.
I drive the 2nd-gen CX-5. I won’t be buying the new model. I don’t like the big screen nor the loss of physical buttons, but that’s not what’s putting me off the new one. It’s the size. My CX-5 is plenty big enough and I wouldn’t want it any bigger. Mazda makes bigger SUV for people who want bigger.
I’m the opposite. This is not a fun vehicle class. They are transpo-appliances, so if I’m buying one instead of a sedan or the nonexistent wagon I’d prefer, I expect it to be roomy. When Honda and Toyota and VW and H/K are offering inches of additional rear legroom and 25% more cargo volume from the same price and basic footprint, it puts the Mazda at a big disadvantage for me. I’ve been through the carseat years and am now entering the tall teenager years and the CX-5 has been small enough to not qualify, unfortunately. Mazda3, CX30, CX50, CX70/90, CX9–this company has a stubborn history of poor space efficiency for the class.
What they lack in space efficiency I think they offset with agility and crash ratings. Not to mention some of their competitors – namely the CR-V that my in-laws have – sound and feel akin to driving a cargo van rather than a tall car. If I wanted THAT experience, I’d buy a Sienna or Transit Connect (RIP).
We were going to start looking at CorollaCrosses for the same reason. The new Rav is too much bigger than my wife’s old Rav. She likes the CX30 size as well, and this CX5 will certainly not be on her list.
My weekend car is an NA Miata. My daily has The Screen, and I hate it so very much. Way to call me out, Hardigree.
Actually, it’s an NC, and I will argue…at least with Mazda:
We always get an email from our local dealer when the new CX-5 comes out: “Come trade in your CX-5 for the new one!” it’ll say. “Only when it has physical buttons for HVAC and heated seats!” we’ll say.
Good Review
Shame about the screen.
Any updates to the 3 for us car guys?
Good Review
Shame about the screen.
Any updates to the Mazda3 this year?
Some might complain of an unexciting older drivetrain and lament a mere six-speed automatic, but I see a company that is carefully allocating development dollars to compete on the things that matter to the normies (selling the sizzle) instead of reinventing the already quite decent wheel.
The SkyActiv drivetrain is a proven workhorse, delivers decent fuel economy, and hasn’t suffered the questionable reliability faults some newer drivetrains from other manufacturers have.
If the screen helps sell CX-5s, let there be screen. Every CX-5 that drives off the lot means there’s a better chance that the Mazda3 and Miata live on, because a healthy Mazda Motor Corporation is good for the enthusiasts.
This is a major factor. Mazda always seems to lag a few years behind everyone else, hence why their hybrid offerings are so limited. That said, I find it hard to believe that they conducted the market research, even a few years ago, and determined that consumers actually preferred a television in their line of sight. I find it vastly more likely that they let the bean counters talk them into saving some money by nixing the physical controls and putting everything on the screen. Remember, Honda learned this lesson 10 years ago when they tried to remove the volume knob. Going all in on the giant screen was a calculated risk, and I bet Mazda knew that at the time. Hopefully, customer feedback will demonstrate that it was the wrong decision, and Mazda can course-correct quickly.
I think it’s cost related. They’ve had a couple years to know selling in the US was going to get more expensive, so they’ve made choices to reduce the cost of the car and keep it at a similar price. Fewer buttons is one of the choices… that might not work out if people stop buying the car without buttons.
I think Big Screen is Mazda’s way of trying to get buyers to finally let go of the CX-5 so they can discontinue it for the CX-50 instead. They keep facelifting it because it’s so profitable, but at this point it’s the only CX-# car they have left (other than the decade-plus CX-3 Down Under) and it fits poorly into their lineup at best—even if it does still offer enthusiast benefits like the independent rear suspension. Perhaps they’ll bring us the CX-60 at some point?
The CX-5 and -50 serve different markets, though. The non-hybrid -50 is for those that are cross-shopping RAV4 TRDs and subarus. The hybrid -50 is a placeholder competitor against other compact crossover hybrids. The -5 compares with a spectrum of offerings, even up into the Lexus, Lincoln, and Mercedes-Benz realm, though the lack of a turbo option may limit that level of competetitiveness.
Right, so the exact segment Mazda is targeting with the RWD CX-60.
Yes, the CX-5 does still have a relevant market, but it’s not one that Mazda seems to care about enough to introduce as a new model. It seems like weird way for Mazda to cling on to the CX-5’s relevance by keeping one legacy nameplate while the rest of the range has moved on to a new naming structure.
I agree that it’s an oddball, but it’s an established one.
I wouldn’t mind if Mazda sold the -60 & -80 here in North America, though that would make the -70’s naming structure even sillier than it already is.
I see the higher-trim CX-5s as competing moreso against FWD-based rivals like the Lexus NX, Mercedes GLA/GLB, BMW X1 & X2, Lincoln Corsair, Audi Q3 & Q5, Jaguar E-Pace (RIP), Range Rover Evoque, and so on. The lower trims overlap with the typical CR-V, Rogue, RAV4, Escape, Countryman, Tiguan, etc. market.
Honestly not bad, real door handles, real glovebox. If this had a smaller screen and maybe better gas mileage I would consider it for my spouses next car.
Cmon Mazda!? Ok fine, I understand giving into the touchscreen thing (some newer models have touchscreen capabilities with CarPlay and AA, including my CX-50) – but getting rid of the command knob (or really any sort of physical controls) is maddening to your loyal customers.
I had a Fiata with obviously the Mazda touchscreen and iDrive-alike knob. I never once touched the screen, because the knob is *infinitely* superior in a moving car – and Mazda’s implementation was GOOD. Not as good as BMW, but on par with Mercedes, and better than any other Japanese attempt at it
. If they can’t make it work in this new nonsense, then they have put too much bullshit in the screen to start with. So not that I would have the slightest interest in this car to start with, this user interface is an absolute HARD no.
If the CX-90 PHEV is any indication, the Toyota hybrid system will be far better. Though I guess they do need their own *good* hybrid drivetrain eventually, so I get it.
At *least* give me a fucking volume knob!
If they have access to Toyota drivetrains, why on Earth would they not just use the best hybrid drive system that exists? Even if they bolt their own ICE to it as a differentiator? Baffling. And a mere 6spd autotragic feels decidedly 15 years ago (though it’s probably better to actually drive).
The CX-50 hybrid has a copy/paste rav4 powertrain, but its the least Mazda-y Mazda ive ever driven. I was ready to buy one – until i drove it.
I think they even modified the subframe and bodywork to take the RAV4 powertrain. I’ve noticed that CX-50 hybrids don’t feel very similar to their ICE-only counterparts and look taller and stubbier. It’s very hard to notice in pictures, but weirdly obvious in the flesh.
Toyota hybrids are a completely zero-fun zone – but if you want a hybrid in the first place why would you care? Cars I respect immensely yet have absolutely zero desire to ever own. But if I were interested in fun the very last place I would seek it is a jacked up two-box blob of a CUV to start with, so might as well go with the most dull but worthy powertrain option. At least the Mazda probably had a nicer interior than the equivalent Toyota, and historically they look better on the outside too.
Though now that someone said it has pre-Camry dented bumpers, I will never be able to unsee that, LOL.
I’m on my 2nd Mazda CX-something (a CX-5 and a -50, for those keeping score) as my daily driver. I bought the 2nd one to avoid a CVT. The 6 speed in these is as good as a 6 speed AT can be, in my opinion.
I’m sure the transmission is fine, but it is almost certainly a reason for the less than class-leading fuel economy, if not the reason. But I too would take it over a belt-drive CVT. But I would prefer a “torque-split” Toyota/Ford “HSD” drivetrain over either in something that isn’t a performance car and/or a manual at this point. I have no idea what the generic industry term for that arrangement is.
If you are going to drive a boring normie-blob, you might as well make it as efficient as possible. These are boring, but they sure aren’t very efficient.
I actually really liked the 6spd transmission in our CX-9.
Fewer gears mean fewer chances of being in the wrong one.
Toyota has a fine hybrid system, but the Toyota 2.5L I4 they attach it to (in the CX-50 Hybrid) feels and sounds agricultural in comparison to the SkyActiv-G 4-cylinders.
So use the Mazda motor. Doesn’t matter THAT much what ICE is bolted to the thing, though sans Atkinson cycle it won’t be as efficient.
I wished they would! I was actually surprised when I found out it was a Toyota engine rather than the Mazda – they’re both 2.5L I4s – but it makes sense since the Toyota is already setup on the Atkinson cycle for hybrid duties. They just put the Toyota powertrain in the Mazda body (and is even made in Toyota’s Huntsville, Alabama plant).
I’m looking forward to Mazda’s in-house FWD-based hybrids.
Adjusting anything on a touchscreen on a rough road is annoying. As is looking for those adjustments on said touchscreen. It’s an ergonomic mistake that Mazda, of all companies, really should have known better than to make.
Also, why does it have “Camry Dents” on the front bumper? Seems like they should be on the rear?
And Season 2 is the best season of Justified. Margo Martindale is a goddamn national treasure.
*Character Actress Margo Martindale is a goddamn national treasure.
This is the correct answer.
Since you were in Carlsbad for this trip, did you get some Seaside Market tri-tip for the road? At least a sandwich?
She won’t be in heaven, but her movies will!
Season 2, 3, & 4 are all great. Season 5 is a train wreck.
To me, putting a non-competitive engine in this with poor gas mileage is a head scratcher.
The 2.5 actually LOST 5hp for 2026. It was rated at 191hp in 2025.
10 or so years ago, I rented a few Mazda 6’s. I liked them a LOT, felt they were overall as nice as my ’10 Acura TSX. Was seriously considering buying one to replace the Acura. Ended up with a less plush but more effiecient Toyota Hybrid.
I really liked getting the last couple gens of Mazda 6 as rentals. But we can’t have nice things anymore, evidently. more like 15+ years ago now though.
I’m breezing along, reading this nice review of a car that is fine, eating my dinner, when WHAM! I’m hit with a nsfw metaphor.
I’m either concerned for Matt’s relationship with his partner, or maybe his CR-V. We don’t kink shame here at the Autopian, but, um… brings new meaning to the phrase, “Get your mitts off of me.”
Also, where’s my napkin? Got some projectile mac & cheese to deal with here.
mmm, pie…
For the record, Hertz carries some Mazdas, so at best it’s one of the best sounding naturally aspirated fours you’ll get from them (not better than).
I have strong feelings about the loss of the command knob though, and more importantly, all the physical controls that were lost. I think the command knob is great, it’s a better solution than s touchscreen, but I get there’s a learning curve, however small it is. But no physical controls after years of more physical controls than average being a selling point? Really hoping they’ll at least restore a volume knob or something with a midcycle refresh, or they’re forced into it with government legislation somewhere.
I’m not thrilled about it growing, but it makes sense I guess (long, wide opening doors are great for car seats right up to the point someone parks too close to you), but everything else looks fine. I wish I had wiper de-icers on mine (between how badly the wipers ice up and a single defroster vent for the entire windshield, its cold weather cred is questionable), but more than anything the hybrid option is exciting.
TLDR, I have no plans to replace mine until it’s like 15 years old, but I’d really be holding off until the hybrid comes out and it gets a volume knob.
My last Mazda expeinence was 10 or so years ago, The command knob was similar and better than the one in my ’10 Acura.
Honda took massive hell when they took away a volume knob in the Civic all those years ago. Why did Mazda repeat that mistake?