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
We have a 2016 CX-5 and love it. When we are ready to replace it, this will *not* be it. I can kinda forgive the lack of the knob (the Commander knob *is* superior to touchscreens), but the lack of physical climate controls and the touch/haptic steering wheel buttons(!) are unforgivable. What happened to the Mazda ethos of driving first? I feel like they are losing the plot here. We’ll probably end up buying a CX-50 and calling it good (even though it has a twist beam rear suspension, yuck). Can I call they swap the steering wheel for one with buttons in two years? Also, Mazda was going upscale/premium with the interior. This looks like a step back to me. Pretty, sure. But far less functional/ergonomic. I wish they had a new powertrain too. But if my mom’s CX-90 has taught us anything, rushing their new powertrains to market ends in some really terrible reliability/recalls. This CX-5 makes me sad. This is not the Mazda we know with a driving ethos. This is a company that makes *better* driving typical appliances. *Heavy sigh*
Agreed, and honestly i feel like it’s related to the giant touchscreen with no physical buttons. Tesla somehow convinced OEM’s (and maybe consumers??) that the giant screen “minimalist” look was luxurious, but it just plain isn’t.
Luxury comes in the details, and if you strip everything but a big screen out there’s no more details to make luxurious.
As a Mazda3 owner, I’d say it’s a pretty accurate headline EXCEPT the CX5 is not made for me. It’s made for the average person and needs to be so they can keep making fun cars like the Miata and Mazda3. Putting snow tires on my AWD turbo and ripping down unplowed back roads with a few inches of snow when I was home for Thanksgiving was some of the most fun I’ve ever had driving, and some of the most confidence-inspiring. I hit my limit and it felt like the car kept egging me on because it certainly had more to give.
I don’t mind the aging powertrain because it still manages to be a joy to drive. I will agree that the NA engine and FWD can feel a bit sluggish though, especially if you’ve been driving an AWD turbo model. Mine is pretty much always driven in M though, so there is no hunting for gears.
Really conflicted about Mazda’s new stuff. It’s nice to avoid a CVT but the drivetrains are really ancient now. Last I drove this powertrain (over 10 years ago!), it felt slow and clunky. Even the gear lever is the same! It’s not really acceptable to offer decade+ old carryover powertrains when everyone offers a hybrid.
Not waiting to have the hybrid ready for launch is a mistake, IMO. Early reviews will call the car merely “adequate” (not unfairly) and that’s what people will remember.
I’m with you on the split folding seats. It allows for skis while still carrying 4 people. Plus, the asymmetry of 60/40 deeply bothers me.
I agree that a hybrid is desirable here, but I prefer this engine/transmission combo over most of the other non-hybrid options out there. I’m really not a fan of downsizing and adding turbos and CVTs, since they add unnecessary complexity and reduced reliability with minimal to negative real world mpg improvement. The truth is this 2.5 is an excellent engine and there really hasn’t been any big tech improvements over the last decade that would improve it substantially.
I would take the CRV hybrid powertrain over this, but I would take this all day every day over the 1.5 Turbo with the CVT.
Nice to see a 40/20/40 rear seat split. Every manufacturer of family vehicles needs to do this! So practical for long things like in the photo – or to be able to put portions down with something like a car seat installed on the other side.
Readers will complain about high compression turbo 4 cylinders on other vehicles not being built to last yet don’t understand why Mazda’s offering is behind on horsepower and fuel efficiency.
They don’t want a CVT or 10-speed that wanders through gears yet think Mazda’s 6-speed is holding it back.
Some readers think the CX-5 is getting too large while others think it’s not large enough.
My wife got a ’25 CX-5 NA Preferred after her ’23 Subaru Forester Wilderness was totaled. We didn’t go with a new Subaru because we liked physical controls and Mazda offered more features on lower priced trims. Unless Mazda backtracks on the touchscreen by then, my wife may return to Subaru for the same reason.
I’ll still root for Mazda regardless because I think they’re taking a measured approach that isn’t readily apparent on paper. I’m glad we got the ’25 model, but I see plenty of reason to recommend the ’26 despite its 0-60 time and mpg. I’m sure the hybrid version will fix those complaints anyway.
I think those complaints are fair and not that hypocritical, actually. The carryover powertrains are just disappointing. They’re over 10 years old and severely outdated.
Sure, we want a real automatic and not a CVT, but we don’t want an auto from 2014 with only 6 ratios.
Yes, there’s a middle ground between outdated and unproven, but I don’t think Mazda is as far behind as some are saying. The drivetrain is fine IMO. Some competitors do better but they’re not going to be as reliable.
I suspect Mazda was hoping to have the hybrid release coincide with this redesign but had to delay it for developmental reasons. If that’s the case, I applaud them for taking a step back after the CX-70/90’s hybrid issues.
Did your wife look at the CX-50 as well? I think it already had a hybrid available in 2025 (with a Toyota motor but not like that’s a downside)
I also prefer the CX-5 styling over the CX-50 tbh but I would be happy with either one. Just curious what other people’s reasoning is to choose one over the other.
We actually went in to look at the CX-50 since there was a financing deal at the time. She disliked how low the headroom was. Also didn’t like the visibility. She tried a CX-5 after and found it more similar to her Forester.
We probably would not have gone hybrid for price reasons since losing the Forester left us less financially prepared for car shopping than normal. I actually like the CX-50’s styling over the 5 but the test driving we did made me realize how different it felt.
That’s cool and shows he does have great taste, but I feel I have to ask if this creates a conflict of interest. A PR person is literally paying a publication that covers them. I’m not super bothered by it, but I do wonder if it should be called out in the disclosures section of the article.
I appreciate that they’re still hooding the gauge cluster even if the center screen implementation is hideous, but I’m pretty sure I’d take a CX-50 hybrid over this, both for the traditional center stack and because I don’t care about rear seat headroom in the vehicle this would replace. Climate controls on a screen are pretty close to a dealbreaker for me.
My wife has a 2024 CX-5 with the NA engine, AWD. Car is actually very nice to drive and feels like enough power to me (not fast, doesn’t need to be). My biggest complaint is the rear legroom. A car that big should be able to fit a rear-facing car seat more easily. Hope they addressed that with this lengthening.
We also test drove the CX-50, it was much less engaging to drive and had horrid visibility. I was really surprised and disappointed by how different it was from the CX-5.
I’m a Mazda fan. I’m a Mazda owner.
Do I hate the haptic. Yes. Will I just deal with it? Nope.
Is there an alternative? Absolutely! Honda and Toyota have knobs and buttons on the menu.
I can get over the big screen. Sort of.
I’ll joint the Luddite support group before I’ll accept this haptic nonsense.
26 CX-5 great vehicle ruined by the climate and infotainment controls.
Don’t talk to me unless you have a Commander knob.
There was one major thing that turned us off the CX-30 when we purchased our Toyota Cross last year: the lack of hybrid
There was one major thing that made us consider the CX-30 above all else: the Commander knob.
Frankly, we hate our touchscreen, but we valued having a HEV over some infotainment convenience. Well played Mazda..
Mazda3 owner here. I am fine with the big screen, and I can live without the wheel, but, and this is a big but, I need my separate climate controls. Being able to reach over without looking and adjust the temperature or fan speed.
Maybe this needs something akin to the aftermarket turn signal stalk available for Model 3s – a Bluetooth- or WiFi-connected bank of programmable hard buttons that can be mounted anywhere the owner wants them. Sounds like an easy $500 entry on the configurator’s list of Mazda Authorized Accessories.
187 horsepower, 186 lb-ft of torque, automatic transmission. Ugh, this thing is going to be barely able to get out of its own way. Another rolling roadblock.
1999 Called and wants it’s topical political joke back.