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
Seems like a good idea (in my opinion) for Mazda to diverge their product lines more between normies and buyers with taste, keeping around the CX-50 and CX-5 at the same time is a start. Maybe they could figure out how to pair AWD with the manual transmission in the 3, that’s probably the biggest issue with their lineup right now. 6 speeds is fine as long as the transmission is programmed right and the engine has decently wide efficiency and power bands.
Great article. One question: who is Commander Knob?
I have the first Big Screen Mazda, the 6e. I would be willing to pay an extra $1000 to have the knob and buttons back. But honestly after you get used to it, the screen is fine. Bearable, livable, tolerable since the rest of the car is so pleasant. The vents are fully manual (thank god), and I can map the defrost and heated wheel to buttons on the steering wheel. But my SO really really dislikes the lack of a volume knob, so I guess the next step is to find a USB volume knob on Aliexpress.
So do the Trax/Envista siblings.
And if you opt for the Chevrolet Trax LS or 1RS, you get the smaller screen and analog gauges.
As a bonus, you can save a few bucks, too.
For us, the Trax LS was a no-brainer. We also have two Chevrolet/Buick dealerships within 20 miles of our home. The nearest Mazda dealership is over 120 miles away.
Kind of weird to have both a CX-5 and CX-50.
That said, I’ll defend the screen. I love a big screen, especially if it’s responsive and intuitive (so not what my 2018 Odyssey had). I don’t want one on a Miata, but I want one on a family car.
Big screens are literally the best if you’re navigating in a big city.
Season 2 with Mags Bennet?
You didn’t list the 0-60 time. Jalopnik pegged it at 9.6 seconds. That’s early Prius territory, without the stellar fuel mileage. Why, Mazda, why?
That sounds soul crushing. Wife has a 2023 turbo. Much nicer. A little faster than my Titan to 60. But she’ll never find out.
I’m finding 7.9 (YouTube) to 8.2 seconds (MotorTrend), which is fine for a naturally-aspirated 4-cylinder vehicle.
Jalop probably added in a few tiktok videos and political rants to their time, since they’re not much of a car site nowadays.
I get it- if you’ve had an iPad in your face since the cradle, you’ll love this Big Screen. If you’re an autojourno driving the car in an unfamiliar resort town, you’ll want large-format navigation maps at (your right) hand. But I am neither of those things, and I hate these big screens with a burning passion. I actually prefer to look through the windshield at what’s coming at me. Tis is why my 2014 Mercedes will probably be my last car.
This is very relevant to me, and I have to say I’m not a fan of the new CX-9.
We’re a Mazda household. My last two commuter cars were a Mazdaspeed 3 then a standard 3 hatchback. I’ve known Dave Coleman for years through Lemons racing, and in fact we used his employee discount to buy my wife’s CX-9 back in 2017.
We have no kids and my wife is finally coming to the realization that two people don’t need a 7 seater SUV (especially since I bought an old Toyota Sequoia in the meantime to fill that role) and wants to downsize, so the CX-5 and CX-50 are prime candidates. My wife test drove a CX-50 and liked it but I suggested she wait for the new CX-5.
After reading some articles and watching the Doug Demuro review of the CX-5, I’m out. The touch screen controls for everything are a hard dealbreaker for me. I already dislike how much I have to take my eyes off the road to change the HVAC controls on our current CX-9, and this is worse. Some people hate the center control knob on current Mazdas but we’re used to it. And the relatively low power is a disappointment and will be noticeable compared to the CX-9. Finally I hate Mazda’s choice of spelling out their brand insteada of a logo, but I could live with that. As the article said, it seems Mazda is chasing trends but coming to market with them just as they’re becoming cliche.
So no new CX-5 for us, but we’re not in a hurry so it may be worth waiting for a hybrid version.
First paragraph: did you mean CX-5? The CX-9 has been out of production since the CX-90 production was underway in 2024.
I wish car used names, not alphanumerics. Though Mazda’s usage is at least sensible and they’ve been doing it for decades.
Yes I did, had my wife’s CX-9 on the brain.
Dropped the turbo engine…dang it. Finally make it big enough but not too big, and keep the proper IRS, but then don’t have the turbo. Mazda seems to like almost building exactly what I want…
I lost it!
Bought a 2024 CX-30 turbo premium plus new at 0% interest, after test driving a similar CX-5 (the -50 was just starting to hit lots, and I preferred the smaller size. More space for other toys in the garage!). It replaced a 2014 Mini Countryman All4 S, which had the 1/1/1 rear seat in an even smaller package!
I love the knob. er, I prefer a non-touchscreen method of interaction while driving? Once it’s larger than my phone, I don’t care how big the screen is. I do care if I can’t accelerate when/how I want to. I’ll check back in after a mid-cycle refresh and see if a reworked cockpit HMI & hybrid power makes this a more appealing option, but for now it’s a no from me.
Seems Mazda is taking the evolutionary approach again. The CX-5 is a good car and they’ve addressed most of the shortcomings I had with my wife’s 2016 model (loud interior, cramped back seat) except the powertrain. It was par for the course 10 years ago, but the competition has moved on. Even my wife wanted more power. Note she’s no enthusiast but did appreciate how that car handled.
This with a hybrid and a row of physical buttons (including a volume knob) would put it top of the class. As it stands now it’d be hard to pass over a hybrid competitor for this.
Did I invent in my brain the notion that the CX-50 was intended to replace the CX-5, but because the latter kept selling so well they decided to keep rolling with both? Did I somehow make that up or is that a real thing that happened?
I too remember that being written somewhere. If it keeps Miatas being made though, I really don’t care what other cars Mazda makes as long as they’re successful.
exactly what happened. And I applaud them for that.
I’ve seen way too many good selling vehicles being discontinued, and sometimes replaced by something that doesn’t really ticks all the boxes…
Yes. The -50 was and is meant to be a bit more off-road focused to go against the RAV4 Adventure (now TRD) and subarus. The CX-5 has a wider focus as a typical crossover, but with enough luxury in the top end to compete with the FWD-based offerings from Lincoln and the European stalwarts.
The wait continues for me. My wife is due for a new car and the CX-5 would be on the short list, but we will not purchase any vehicle that does not have physical buttons & knobs for HVAC and stereo power + volume.
Why not let your wife pick whatever car she wants.
What next, voting too?
^A foolish and insufferable comment which makes inaccurate assumptions.
Mazda blew money developing it’s own diesel just to watch VW set fire to the whole diesel ecosystem. Then Mazda blew money developing an inline 6 that went in two cars to date. I’m not sure Mazda is allocating their money very well.
I mean, they are the company that continually shovels money toward rotary engines too. Mazda is just eccentric
Mazda told me they quit rotary engines, but then I found a rotary range extender hidden under their bed.
The rumor always was that the Inline six was developed in cooperation with Toyota and that it would end up in Lexus products eventually. I wonder how much truth there was in that.
Toyota spend untold millions on stupid Hydrogen cars. Porsche and Lambo just full-on cancelled future electric cars. You gotta take that risk!
I’ve only read up to the disclosure, and then sped down here to see if anyone asked the obvious most important question about this article. Matt, where did this pie come from?
I had a rental CX-90 last year that had the knob and I hated it. I only had it for a week but using the knob only with google maps sucked. I would probably get use to it eventually.
I have a CX-50. After living with it for a few years, I find the the knob is better than a touch screen for like 70% of the stuff I do and worse for the remainder. Overall, I don’t really care about getting rid of it. Where the knob is better, it’s just marginally better and where it is worse, it’s so much worse. As a package, it ends up being a meh solution and I’m not attached to it like lots of Mazda-fanboys.
Touch screen only HVAC controls though? Yikes. No turbo and no hybrid (yet)? Yikes. Also, no yellow led indicators like on the CX-30/50 on the front or fog lights is a bummer too.
“Tell Jason, the glovebox is just a normal glovebox!”
Congratulations Torch. The auto industry knows you and respects you!
Finally!
Many OEMs have at least added a knob on the big screen for volume. I expect that Mazda will eventually add that back.
sounds like they didn’t get the memo during development.
They still have a control on the steering wheel, and it can be voice-controlled. But I concur. IMHO all road vehicles should have physical rotary knobs for audio volume (if equipped), HVAC fan speed, and HVAC temperature.
I am reminded of the Consumer Reports Owner Satisfaction metric, where aside from the Miata, Mazda has consistently ranked poorly.. something that has always surprised me. I guess Mazda took away that people don’t like their system which probably isn’t true. My brother-in-law would have considered a CX-5 last year if it came as a hybrid. Instead, he ended up in a hybrid CRV, which was immediately stolen alongside every other CRV in Washington DC. As a replacement he got a Lexus because those don’t get stolen and come with hybrid powertrains. Nobody wants boring cars (=family crossovers) with poor fuel economy. So sadly, I think this will flop until it gets that hybrid.
Additionally, does anyone shopping a crossover honestly care about driving dynamics? Turning radius, yes. Reasonable acceleration, yes. But handling for twisties?
I’m sure some people place handling at the top of their desires list for a daily, but not us. We weren’t willing to live with the tradeoffs a CX5 required in NVH and ride quality. Going straight from a ’21 Outback (which we ended up purchasing) into an equivalent CX5 was night and day.
The transmission is a good one, but it just can’t compete with others in fuel economy.
That surprises me too. I have owned three different Mazdas over the past 10 years and loved them all, and convinced my father to buy a ’23 CX-5 just a few months ago and he and my mom are very happy with it. They all zoom zoom, look great (especially in Soul Red), and were very dependable. I wonder what the poor ratings come from?
I am guessing it’s skewed more by the CX-90/CX-70. They pretty much hint at this in the Mazda overview on their site. Car and Driver seemed less enthused over the -90 at the end of their long-term review too.
The poor reliability ratings largely come from the CX-70/CX-90 twins. They have issues and are dragging the whole Mazda brand through the mud from a reliability ratings perspective. It’s a shame, because they are very pretty vehicles.
I’ve frequently lamented my 2017 Mazda6 purchase on here. Fragile paint, peeling clearcoat on the un-curbed wheels at 4 years, ghost touch infotainment, corrupting navigation SD cards, ghastly NVH, and I recently realized my 2012 Miata handles road imperfections better (WTF!).
The interior is the nicest I’ve seen from a main stream automaker, but I would be hard pressed to consider another one of their vehicles. It took a class action lawsuit to address the ghost touch issue. I still feel guilty for recommending Mazda to a co-worker when I was in the new car honeymoon period. Her CX-5 had he ghost touch issue as well.
thanks! I had missed your comments. I though the fragile paint was a “old mazda” thing. Had no clue about the poor NVH and the other stuff.
I really liked our 2018 Mazda6… until the transmission failed at 109,000. That really pissed me off. Especially because of how positive our experiences have been with the 2020 Mazda3 we bought my daughter and my 2021 MX-5. There were some parts quality issues with the 6 that cost me a lot out of pocket (ex: shitty plastic cooling system parts failed multiple times). And the tires/tire size/wheels were an awful choice by Mazda. And so was the info system which was – eccentric at best (but I liked the knob).
Man, I so wanted to love that car, but couldn’t. The parchment leather interior was beautiful. The seat coolers were awesome. HUD actually worked. It was fun to drive and could haul 2 kayaks, a canoe, 2 e-bikes, and a ton of gear like a champ! But… ultimately… I felt betrayed by the shitty transmission.
And something else… the Mazda dealers in my area suck at both sales and service. The just don’t seem to give a shit about customers (ex: Koons Mazda, Ourisman Mazda – both just terrible at what they do). Don’t ask me why they have that attitude, because you’d think that the dealership experience would be something they could invest in that might really pay brand dividends. Nope. Every single time I have to interact with them it’s painful and infuriating. I’ve got stories.
The Mazda6 was replaced by a 2025 Subaru OBW because we actually do some light offroading at times and the OBW had a lot of capabilities for the price I got if for (at a big discount because the <oof-ugly> 2026s were on the lot and they were looking to move 2025s <I think to avoid the looks comparison>). One big thing for me: the OBW model has a really high load roof rack that was a great option for my kayak and bike racks. And 9.5 inches of clearance.
The CVT? I actually like it’s performance in this model, believe it or not! I’ll also drain the fluid at 35,000… 70,000… 105,000…etc. Lifetime fluids my ass. I’ll also keep an eye on the oil consumption on the boxster engine… but all boxsters are oil eccentric, in my experience (you will never fully drain ’em). I just change the oil <synthetic and OEM filter> at 1,500, 5,000, 8,500, 12,000, 15,500, etc. and that seems to be a HUGE longevity boost on most any engine.
One thing’s for sure: the OBW just plows through snow and bad weather in a way no Mazda6 could ever dream of. That’s been really handy of late! So has the brush bar and lighting I added up front.
I’m not sure how much they changed between 2013 and 2017, but I adored my 2013 6. I had none of the issues you had, and only sold it because I started working remote during the pandemic. Maybe the “ghost touch” thing popped up with a revised infotainment after they launched that generation.
I don’t trust CR’s auto ratings any more than I do JDPower, MT, C&D, Buzzfeed, etc. They don’t weigh responses, faults, and functions very well, and the sample sizes are too low and narrow to really say all that much.
I think the fact they repeatedly rank Subaru as the most reliable brand kinda discredits them. Haha I still like the magazine though
Sigh. I too hate Big Screen, but I have trouble blaming Mazda for this one. There are plenty of things I blame car manufacturers for, but after a few generations of people complaining about Mazda’s alternative to giant screen, what exactly would you expect them to do? This is one of those situations (along with who we choose to represent us in government) where I have to remind people, that maybe it’s not Mazda that sucks, but rather we suck. This is another case of Mazda needs to sell cars, and without that big stupid screen, doofus buyers are going to deem the interior to be so 2012. Does this suck for us? Yeah. Do I blame Mazda for giving up and choosing to focus on other things? Yeah. Could Mazda at least given us some buttons? Yeah, but keeping the price of their cars down probably makes that difficult.
In other news, The rest of the car seems nice, the 1:1:1 folding rear is excellent, and if someone forced me to buy a compact crossover (are these still compact? is anything compact?) this would be the one.
Small crossovers stopped being small a while ago. Even calling my second generation Escape a small crossover was silly, because it only looked small if you parked it next to some three row dreadnought SUV.
I’ll miss the infotainment knob. Mazda made the right call by going mainstream though. It takes more than a 10 minute test drive to get used to it, and I’m sure they lost sales because of that.
Yeah when I see a modern RAV4, the last thing that comes to mind is the word “compact”.
The people I know with Mazdas liked the knob, but you’re probably right in that people who take short test drives aren’t likely to grow comfortable with it. “Why can’t I just touch the screen like every other interface on the planet” is a somewhat fair gripe, though it’s unfortunate that we somehow got to this point.
Came here to get mad at the screen and the weak old engine. But the 40:20:40 rear seatback and full size spare mollified me. Still looks like a decent runabout if you’re OK with economy car acceleration, which most of us are.
That powertrain really is underwhelming, though. The CX5 is too heavy and expensive for that engine. Toyota was offering a 180ish hp naturally aspirated 2.5 and 6 speed in the RAV4 thirteen years and two generations ago. If this new premium-aspirations Mazda is any quicker than that old Toyota I’ll be surprised.
The CX-5 I test drove last summer was certainly underwhelming in performance, but that’s pretty much par for the class. It’s hardly any different than the current RAV4… down 16 hp but up slightly in torque. Similar acceleration.
Personally, I wouldn’t bother with the base raspy naturally-aspirated model and instead hunt down or wait for a hybrid model to become available.
The Mazda would have done well to adopt ZF’s 8-speed instead of sticking with its own corporate six-speed, but it hasn’t hurt them too much in efficiency. And it probably helps them keep costs down.
I would guess the current setup is Aisin and they probably have some deal in place to buy these outdated transmissions from them because of their corporate relationship
The current RAV4 is hybrid only and quite a bit more powerful. The phased out 2.5 wasn’t really any quicker but it was more efficient than the Mazda. The main problem with the Mazda is that the base underpowered engine is the only engine.
Ah, yes, that’s right. And it explains the difference in MSRP (Toyota $1,900 more base price). Mazda’s playing in the cheap seats with Subaru a little bit here, though without the standard AWD.
I don’t know what you would suggest with a powertrain, though. The turbo is great but likes its premium fuel. The hybrid is a kludge (albeit a nice one from Toyota) when they really need their own system. The inline-6 won’t fit and that’s all Mazda has.
I expect the CX-5 to get a hybrid powertrain in one or two model years but for the moment it’s still reasonably competitive and cheaper. A RAV4 will be a challenge to get for a little while and I still might opt for one over a CR-V and certainly a Rogue.
Mazda should have done a smaller displacement turbo but I suppose certification costs meant that had to pick one and stick with it.
Yeah, Mazda is in a tough spot on powertrains. They’re really expensive to develop and so choice is limited.
I believe all Mazda crossovers (in the US) have AWD standard. It’s also a pretty good system.
I suspect Mazda knows they’re playing a losing hand against Toyota perception and pricing.
Thus, they set the MSRP higher so that they can add discounts without cutting the margins too thin. It’s not great, but they’re playing the hand they’ve got.
Whereas Toyota and Honda MSRP will generally have thousands added to it before it drives off the lot. Those thousands buy a lot of gasoline.
“Those thousands buy a lot of gasoline”
Doesn’t make it any less anemic, though.
Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of what Mazda has been doing (or attempting–CX70/90 seems 3/4 baked), but personally thought this engine kicked the legs out of the upscale vibe they are trying to accomplish with the CX-5
To be fair, 187hp is competitive with nearly every non-hybrid in the segment, barring the old RAV4’s ~200hp (achieved by revving to 6k rpm rather than 5.5k like the others) and the Rogue’s 201hp VC engine. The non-turbo torque curve combined with the 6-speed is what’s really holding it back. The hybrid can’t come soon enough, but considering the issues the CX-70/90 are still having, it’s an OK decision to have delayed it to next year to make a clean release.
Yes, and as I think I wrote somewhere else, the problem for me isn’t so much the powertrain as it is being the *only* powertrain for this model. It’s fine as a base engine, but having no upgrade option seems like a miss when introducing a redesign of the model.
I think I read somewhere that they dropped the turbo because it had a <5% take rate, but I think that reasoning was flawed. I can see why people wouldn't choose the 2.5T since the CX-5 turned into a sort of budget model for the past couple years after the CX-50's release, but now that the CX-5 is new and shiny with a slightly higher base price, it's lost the budget model status and will attract 2.5T buyers again. That being said, they probably just wanted the hybrid to replace the turbo as the upgrade option and its delay put them in an awkward spot.
I haven’t seen anything to support this, but I would suspect it’s a combination of factors: low take rate, allocating turbos for other models, cost of ownership (turbos require premium gas), and simplifying the CX-5 lineup before future powertrain updates come out for the new model.
i have consistently, for years, ranted and raved about pop up dashes. I have spent thousands of dollars to get trims that do not have pop-up dashes. The problem is (to me) that there is a group of people who cannot function without screens, and feel almost comforted by the glowing light. Those people cannot get enough screen, and will die happily staring at that glow. Like bugs.
If you need this info in your face, get a fucking HUD.
Don’t be a bug.
My wife’s ’17 CX-9 has a HUD and I like it a lot.
1 million times better than any other option for eyes on the road, and all the info you need if they are done right. My wifes Yukon has a really nice one as well.
I haven’t understood mazda’s thinking for a while.The pricing doesn’t make sense for what you get. They are trying to be something premium. I really thought the interior was a Tesla when I first looked. I can understand why they went with android automotive or whatever Google or alphabet whoever they are this week is calling it. No development costs and it just works unlike some of their old systems they had some bad pr and class actions with.
people love mazda and I cannot for the life of me understand why. They are just blah vehicles that are okay and fine, nothing against them. But they bring out 0 passion. It’s gotta be a huge nostalgia thing from people who didn’t actually drive old Mazdas.
I daily a ’14 Mazda3 we bought new – it was a superior car to the other hatchbacks we tested, with a higher quality feel, nicer interior, better fuel economy, and competitive price. It’s a fun little car that we still love.
It feels as if they’ve done nothing since then other than make the interiors more fancy.
I used to daily a ’13 Mazda3 with the skyactive engine and now daily a ’23 Mazda3 with the turbo. When i bought the ’13 i couldnt afford the Mazdaspeed version, but then they got rid of it for ’14.
I didnt test drive the base engine when i got my turbo so i dont know how it feels, but the combo of the lightyears nicer interior with 95 more HP out of the turbo over the ’13 makes it such a radically different car and still far superior to the other hatchbacks.
All that is a long winded way of saying to my eye, they havent done nothing. They’ve done enough to keep that particular product ahead of the competition by a mile.
Ok, so they’re Audi-lite.
IMO they’re not as competitive when you’re looking at the base model stuff. They ditched the 2.0L engine for the hatch, so the fuel economy’s noticeably worse; it’s on par with the Impreza 2.0L, but that one’s AWD. I don’t want the turbo engine, so the most likely candidate would be a Corolla hatch, or a Prius…or more likely a Sentra sedan, which is a super nice car.
They just don’t offer anything I’m interested any more, because it’s a 10+ year old drivetrain with even worse outward visibility and less usable cargo capacity than my current one. The move “upmarket” has hurt their basic offerings IMO.
Their basic offerings were pretty good for the 3-4 years after launch, but the 3 and CX-30 are now 6-7 years old and haven’t even had a mid-cycle refresh, only minor updates to the infotainment system. There’s so little competition in the compact sedan and especially hatch segment that they’re still ranked in the Top 3, especially if you care about reliability. The CX-30’s sales numbers only started dropping last year as the competition finally brought new gens that matched their quality.
I think by this point it’s OK if they delay their refreshes/new gens by another 1-2 years so they can implement the hybrid system and move away from touchscreen-only controls.
Maybe they arent competitive down market. TBH, when i bought it i wasnt cross shopping with base stuff. I cross shopped the Mazda3 Turbo Premium Plus against the Integra A-Spec and Elantra N.
A buddy let me drive his Veloster N with the dual clutch trans in it and i was sure the Elantra N would be what i bought before test driving it because the Veloster was so good. Somehow the Elantra N had like 40% of the soul of the Veloster N with the same powertrain. I bet i would have had a higher opinion of it if i hadn’t driven the Veloster N first. And it just overall felt cheap. Forgive me for being fussy, but i am dropping 40k on a compact sedan and you dont even give me a motorized driver seat?
The Integra was outstandingly delightful with the manual trans and would have gotten my money if my significant other would have let me buy a manual. It was not even considerable with the stock automatic. Just too much money for what you got. A very nice place to spend your time, pretty exterior, but pricey.
But the Mazda ticked all my boxes. A hoot to drive, a very nice place to be, good looking sheet metal, moar powah than the Integra. Not cheap, but a good bit cheaper than the Integra, right on par price-wise with the Elantra N, and i felt like i was getting a lot more than the Elantra N.
Speaking of people who didn’t actually drive Mazdas… when was the last time you drove an MX-5 or compared a Mazda3 to the other rides in its class? My MX-5, one of my 2 daily drives, is certainly not “blah”. And my daughter’s Mazda3 is a super great ride for the price point. And it drives well with out any “blah”.
I don’t understand it either. They made some sense maybe 15 years ago. They used to be honest little cars and sure the mx5 is always something. But I don’t see the value especially when strange things happen the one they sell the most and they don’t want to do anything. I have noticed cx5 crash alot and often see them in ditches sometime rolled over in a ditch. I really don’t understand why if some kind of automated feature is causing people to crash or they are just more likely too. Maybe there is a subset of their demo that are just terrible drivers.
When you look at them on paper, they don’t seem competitive. When you drive them in real-life is when you realize they are a bit different (mostly better) from everything else in the same segment. They are a bit more handsome (inside and out) than most of their mainstream competition. A little extra thought was given to the control feel, placement, and materials. They drive a bit more sporty. These are things you cannot “see” when comparing spec sheets. You need to sit in them, drive them, live with them.
In the post-Ford years they have been pushing their designs a little more upmarket, but notice their prices are still inline with offerings from Honda and Toyota. They aren’t going for Acura prices, but their designs are decidedly more upscale for the same price.
I too am disappointed by the single powertrain option on the new CX-5. I am excited to see how their new Hybrid will be in the future, but with hybrids come more weight and complexity. People keep comparing the future hybrid to the CX-90/70 (which is having growing pains), but this is a Tranverse-engine model and will likely share nothing with the CX-90/70, so I hope they do a good job. I also hope they offer the 2.5 Turbo again, that seems like a miss though I’m sure it was a slow-seller. All the mainstream brands have dropped their performance-engine options and push you to their luxury brands if you want more power, but Mazda has no luxury brand, so please bring me back a hi-po option!
One thing going for the base powertrain is it is dead reliable. Simple naturally aspirated engine, normal torque-converter trans. They’ve been solid since 2014 and while not the most competitive in power or economy, they just keep going. I sometimes watch engine teardown on the “I Do Cars” channel on Youtube. They did a SkyActiv 2.5L recently and commented on how hard it is to find failed engines to tear down. The one they did appeared to be oil-starved, which is no fault of Mazda’s.
I’ve been buying, and recommending, Mazda’s since the early 2000’s. Among my family and friends there have been over 10 of them in the last 20-years. None of them have had any reliability issues and have served faithfully for years.
Sit in a Mazda and then sit in a Tesla. The interiors are vastly different in fit, form, function, comfort, ease-of-use, quality, and so on.
I don’t like how car companies are ditching their logos. First, the Lexus RX dropped the iconic L badge to say “LEXUS” across the back instead. Then Tesla dropped their T. Now I see Mazda dropping the M.
The logo is still on the front and the wheel center caps.
Tesla allegedly lowered their usage in response to owners saying they were being targeted, but I don’t have concrete evidence to support that.