CX-5 vs CX-50 sales year to date

I found this chart which shows the US 2021 sales near 50% of total sales. Add Canada and Mexico and North America accounts for more than 50%! Something to be considered. l'm surprised to see relatively small numbers from Europe and Japan considering their population. Click on the link and scroll down to see the chart.
 
That is whats funny to me about the whole thing. Not trying to tough on sm1ke, but lets look at the statement which was called out:

"Ladies want something cute like a new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeep, etc.

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do.
"

Is this offensive to anyone? Should it be? Why isn't Jack Rabbit allowed to post his opinion on the subject without getting chastised? I guess he could have said "ladies "typically" want something cute", but again, should he have to be worried about posting what he did originally?

I guess at 53 I am considered out of touch, but can't we just allow free speech without all the regulations? I mean, this is a forum, right? Isn't is designed for us to have these types of discussions? It sure would be boring if everyone felt the same way about all topics.

I get into arguments all the time with another member on the CX-5 board on mazdaforum.com. We coexist just fine. I don't care for some of his personal attacks, but it is just the way he is.

Yes, this is a public forum, and we are expected to operate under the Rules, Terms and Guidelines found here, which all members agreed to upon registering for an account. In my opinion, the comment in question could have been interpreted as a personal attack, even though I know the poster did not intend it as such. This is why a reminder was posted instead of an actual warning. The reminder was also posted to ensure that we remain respectful of others at all times - again, I know the poster did not intend to disrespect anyone, I just wanted to get ahead of someone potentially taking offense from the post in the future.

Again, if you have a concern with the moderation on this forum, feel free to send Antoine a PM to discuss.

Unfortunately, it seems the actions I took have derailed this thread. Let's move forward and get back to the original topic.
 
There isn't much in the googleverse about what might be built in Alabama besides CX-50. I did hit on this dealer link stating that CX-70 will be an Alabama build. First and only time I've seen that.


Now, that's an old link talking about CX-70 as a 2022 model and might have been wrong in the first place. I had assumed 70 and 90 would be Japan builds like their 60 and 80 siblings.

If it's true that the 70 is coming from Alabama (along with 90 if that happens to be case), that puts a whole different spin on the discussion with a different Mazda intent--150,000 unit Alabama capacity split among models with no CX-5 sunset in sight.

It was my understanding the Mazda's side of the Alabama plant has a single line, open floor concept not withstanding. If true, that raises the question of whether two or more models can be built simultaneously even if there is a 90% efficiency gain in reconfiguring a line with Mazda's process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm really confused about the misconception about ground clearance on the CX-50. Mazda USA has the CX-5 listed as having 7.9 inches (unladen) of ground clearance while the CX-50 is listed has having 8.6 inches (unladen) of ground clearance.

The overall height of the CX-50 is shorter - 65.6 vs 63.9 without roof rails.

As far as sales in the US go, the CX-50 just started production in a new factory this year, so it's not going to be close to CX-5 figures for a good year or two while production ramps up.
 
I'm really confused about the misconception about ground clearance on the CX-50. Mazda USA has the CX-5 listed as having 7.9 inches (unladen) of ground clearance while the CX-50 is listed has having 8.6 inches (unladen) of ground clearance.

The overall height of the CX-50 is shorter - 65.6 vs 63.9 without roof rails.

As far as sales in the US go, the CX-50 just started production in a new factory this year, so it's not going to be close to CX-5 figures for a good year or two while production ramps up.
What's the confusion? It seems folks are aware of these fact. I would say that 0.7" ground clearance and 2.7" height difference are pretty negligible. It is easy to exaggerate the affect. Now, I will say that for tall folks head clearance getting in a CX-50 along with ceiling height when sitting in vehicle may be an aggravation. Really tall people may have no head clearance in the cabin.
 
Having owned sports-cars, 4 bangers, SUV's and trucks at various point in my life, the CX-50 makes no sense.

For me the CX-50 makes no sense unless you need extra towing power.

But at that point, you just get a truck.

Looking at the CX-5 side by side with the CX-50 at the dealership, the CX-50 looks like crap.

The thing that got me into a CX-5
( before they had a CX-50) was the driving experience, the exterior aesthetics, and the sweet interior.
All that with a gas saving 4 cylinder that could still go off-road.

The CX-50 with it's wide stance and it's plastic cladding is a hot mess. And lower to the ground instead of higher( make it more rugged looking but less able to handle rugged terrain with a lower stance makes no sense.

CX-50 completely missed the mark on form and function. Form and function is diverging. Form is going more rugged looking while function is going more sporty(lower to ground, etc).
You have to wonder who's half baked idea it was to add crappy looking cladding and lower ground clearance??? They should have raised the ground clearance and if they were gonna add cladding, at least paint it to match the whole vehicle.

Most ladies I know have opted for new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeeps, etc. as they wanted a car that looked good and had some off-road ability

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do.

There will not be a large market for the cx-50. If they replace the cx-5 with the cx-50, customers will move to other brands. Some may stay with Mazda but more than likely move to a completely different model away from the cX-50.

I myself, would move to a Ford Maverick or any new small truck that is hybrid electric/gas for main vehicle.

And if the customer really wanted these CX-50, they would be sold out instead of sitting on the lot. Ask someone how hard it has been over the past year to find the new ford bronco.

No, these will not increase exponentially on sales.
the CX-50 does not have lower ground clearance than the CX-5. It's almost 1" higher
 
the CX-50 does not have lower ground clearance than the CX-5. It's almost 1" higher
Yes, Mazda designed it for higher ground clearance and positioned the roof lower and stronger for better ease of rooftop loading. That "squishing" of the passenger compartment is obvious if you are accustomed to a CX-5.
 
the CX-50 does not have lower ground clearance than the CX-5. It's almost 1" higher
By gum your right.

It's 1/2 inch more ground clearance.

Sure doesn't look like it on the lot side by side with the cx5...actually looks closer to the ground.

Still don't like the looks though...

Will just switch out to a Ford Maverick or some other hybrid truck after the CX5.
 
Yes, Mazda designed it for higher ground clearance and positioned the roof lower and stronger for better ease of rooftop loading. That "squishing" of the passenger compartment is obvious if you are accustomed to a CX-5.
Not only does it sound claustrophobic but imo, it still looks like crap.
 
That is your opinion. I absolutely love the look and in person, it looks even better.
True. Opinions vary. Glad you like it. Time will tell what the masses think. Just make sure you look at the CX-5 and CX-50 side by side though before you make a decision. Unless you already have to the 50 then enjoy.
 
What's the confusion? It seems folks are aware of these fact. I would say that 0.7" ground clearance and 2.7" height difference are pretty negligible. It is easy to exaggerate the affect. Now, I will say that for tall folks head clearance getting in a CX-50 along with ceiling height when sitting in vehicle may be an aggravation. Really tall people may have no head clearance in the cabin.
No confusion on my part, but on others, hence my post.

1.7" height difference. :) You'd have to be really tall to notice it inside.
 
True. Opinions vary. Glad you like it. Time will tell what the masses think. Just make sure you look at the CX-5 and CX-50 side by side though before you make a decision. Unless you already have to the 50 then enjoy.
His signature says he drives a CX-9 and CX-5 so he probably isn't currently in the market...
 
No confusion on my part, but on others, hence my post.

1.7" height difference. :) You'd have to be really tall to notice it inside.
From the horses mouth, lets see what the Mazda brochures say. Oddly, Mazda USA's download page does not have any brochures for CX-5 so I'll reference the 2020 brochure which came up in a google search.

2023 CX-50 brochure: 63.5" for 17" wheels; 63.9" for 18" and 20" wheels. It says that's up to the fin antennae, no reference to roof rails or sun roof.

2020 CX-5 brochure: 66.2" for FWD; 66.3" for AWD. It says that's up to the fin antennae without roof rails. There's no reference to wheel size or sun roof.

This raises a first question. Did they really measure at the rear of the car at the fin antennae? If so, what you end up with at the back of the drivers seat could be something quite different as the numbers translate to headroom. Anyway, just using the numbers in the brochures, which may not be real world meaningful, the apples to apples are;

With 17" wheels / AWD, the difference is 2.6". For CX-5 19" wheels / AWD vs. CX-50 18" or 20" wheels, the difference is 2.4" which is what Car & Driver shows. For older CX-5's with 17"/ FWD the difference is 2.7". Choose your poison.

The brochures make no reference to ground clearance or head room. If the entire 0.7" of the CX-50's purported higher ground clearance went into a higher floor and seat, the headroom difference could be as much a 3.4" depending on which poison you choose, antennae business aside. Or if by some magic the ground clearance did not translate to headroom, then it could be as little as 2.4". Reality may be somewhere in the middle or somewhere else entirely depending on the antennae business.

Frankly, if one wants a precise number for driver headroom you'd have go to the dealer with a tape measure and compare the cars after getting the seats into your preferred position. Or better yet, just get in the vehicles, position the seats, and see if either or both afford a good fit.

There is confusion, but only if you parse 1" differences which would be hard to detect for the preponderance of drivers. This is a case of feel trumping numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting figures from the 2020 brochure. When you pull up the Mazda USA page, and look at trim levels, and then look at vehicle height, that's where I pulled the numbers. Doesn't specify where it took the measurements from, but that's more time than I care to invest. :)
 
Interesting figures from the 2020 brochure. When you pull up the Mazda USA page, and look at trim levels, and then look at vehicle height, that's where I pulled the numbers. Doesn't specify where it took the measurements from, but that's more time than I care to invest. :)
This is more time than anybody should invest except to illustrate that the numbers can't necessarily be trusted or even matter in the real world. Just go to a dealer and check out the differences. That may be possible now. The nearest dealer to me has 29 CX-5's and 5 CX-50's on the premises per their web site.
 
I had the chance to do a back-to-back comparison between a CX-5 Signature and a CX-50 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus back in the Spring of this year. Two things struck me before even driving off on the 50: the cabin felt less spacious, specifically the greenhouse above the belt-line... and the quality of the materials came across as more rugged, less premium. The Nappa leather is obviously better and there were more hard surfaces where the Signature featured padding or carpeting.
 
From the horses mouth, lets see what the Mazda brochures say. Oddly, Mazda USA's download page does not have any brochures for CX-5 so I'll reference the 2020 brochure which came up in a google search.

2023 CX-50 brochure: 63.5" for 17" wheels; 63.9" for 18" and 20" wheels. It says that's up to the fin antennae, no reference to roof rails or sun roof.

2020 CX-5 brochure: 66.2" for FWD; 66.3" for AWD. It says that's up to the fin antennae without roof rails. There's no reference to wheel size or sun roof.

This raises a first question. Did they really measure at the rear of the car at the fin antennae? If so, what you end up with at the back of the drivers seat could be something quite different as the numbers translate to headroom. Anyway, just using the numbers in the brochures, which may not be real world meaningful, the apples to apples are;

With 17" wheels / AWD, the difference is 2.6". For CX-5 19" wheels / AWD vs. CX-50 18" or 20" wheels, the difference is 2.4" which is what Car & Driver shows. For older CX-5's with 17"/ FWD the difference is 2.7". Choose your poison.

The brochures make no reference to ground clearance or head room. If the entire 0.7" of the CX-50's purported higher ground clearance went into a higher floor and seat, the headroom difference could be as much a 3.4" depending on which poison you choose, antennae business aside. Or if by some magic the ground clearance did not translate to headroom, then it could be as little as 2.4". Reality may be somewhere in the middle or somewhere else entirely depending on the antennae business.

Frankly, if one wants a precise number for driver headroom you'd have go to the dealer with a tape measure and compare the cars after getting the seats into your preferred position. Or better yet, just get in the vehicles, position the seats, and see if either or both afford a good fit.

There is confusion, but only if you parse 1" differences which would be hard to detect for the preponderance of drivers. This is a case of feel trumping numbers.
Yes. That. Gotta get in it.
Can't tell by numbers.
Looked at a Jeep with a sunroof and when sat inside, my head hit the sunroof. Being an average size guy under 6 foot, that was a no go.

Looked at both of these on the lot side by side but didn't get in the 50 because wasn't interested. Judging by looks though, it looks like it would be as uncomfortable as the jeep was. And don't forget about when you raise up in your seat or adjust positions which may raise your head up momentarily. Or maybe you decide to add a seat cushion., etc.

Always nice to have extra headroom.

Imo, the CX-5 was just about right for headroom, less spacious than our previous SUVs which was a bummer, but not too tight either.
If the CX-5 is less spacious than other SUVs and feels just about right, then am thinking the CX-50 has to be tight.

Again a test drive will tell-all.
 
Last edited:
The CX-50 doesn't have independent rear suspension and the VW ID.4 doesn't have rear disc brakes, it has drums! What's next, carburetors??? :ROFLMAO:
Don’t forget the VW Passat which got customized for the us, they made it bigger and cheaper and it failed miserably! Nowadays even the average American consumer knows the difference between a cheap VW plastic interior and high quality Cabin with soft touch materials. Everybody is going to the internet to watch youtube reviews nowadays - Alex on Autos, Redline Reviews, Kelly Blue Book and others. All of those guys mentioned that the CX-50 suspension and interior is a step backward from the CX-5. The average Joe from the 80s and 90s is gone! Nowadays he watches youtube reviews😂 and if those guys say a car has a bad suspension or cheap interior its well taken into consideration before making a buying decision. If manufacturers think nobody will notice these things they are mistaken! Those are the things which made Mazda what it is today(best in class driving dynamics, near luxury cabin, excellent fit and finish with great reliability and pricing that is less than other Japanese competitors(Honda CRV and Toyota Rav4 lease/buy deals are much more expensive than Mazda.
 
Last edited:
Back