2017~2025 How does everybody feel about the 2026 eliminating the turbo and physical buttons?
- Thread starter wlong01
- Start date
- :
- ‘22 CX-5 SIGNATURE
'24 MX-5 RF GT
Although I much prefer the physical buttons on the current model, I could live with the new setup, but until Mazda provides the new model with adequate power, I'll pass.
There's really nothing on the 2026s that's better for me; I like the current size, styling, and turbo power, so I'll see what kind of close-outs the dealers are offering on 2025 Signatures later this year.
BTW, is Hiroshima still producing the current model, or have they begun preparing for the switch to the '26s?
There's really nothing on the 2026s that's better for me; I like the current size, styling, and turbo power, so I'll see what kind of close-outs the dealers are offering on 2025 Signatures later this year.
BTW, is Hiroshima still producing the current model, or have they begun preparing for the switch to the '26s?
In the UK we don't have the turbo anyway so that's not so much of a big deal, but the loss of physical buttons.... that's a definite no.
Was looking forward to the new CX-5 and was likely to have bought one next year but not now. No way. Will keep my 2018 model going for as long as possible. It's at 75,000 miles so relatively young compared to some of the high mileage examples on here!!
Was looking forward to the new CX-5 and was likely to have bought one next year but not now. No way. Will keep my 2018 model going for as long as possible. It's at 75,000 miles so relatively young compared to some of the high mileage examples on here!!
elementCX5
2023 CX-5 S Select-NA 2.5L
If the hybrid system is faster than the turbo as they claim then it is a fair trade imo.
Taking away the physical HVAC controls is bad as well as changing the steering wheel controls if they are capacitive.
Taking a Physical volume/Audio off away is a big no no. There should be one by the screen. My 2015 civic is like this and it sucks.
I don't care they removed the scroll wheel pad though. It works okay most of the time but is annoying when using any type of map application in AA. Also the way it was implemented in the CX-5 meant your elbow was all over everybody's straws when having cups in the cup holders. It was better implemented in the CX-50. I would rather have more center console space/knee space than a control pad.
Taking away the physical HVAC controls is bad as well as changing the steering wheel controls if they are capacitive.
Taking a Physical volume/Audio off away is a big no no. There should be one by the screen. My 2015 civic is like this and it sucks.
I don't care they removed the scroll wheel pad though. It works okay most of the time but is annoying when using any type of map application in AA. Also the way it was implemented in the CX-5 meant your elbow was all over everybody's straws when having cups in the cup holders. It was better implemented in the CX-50. I would rather have more center console space/knee space than a control pad.
I'm not due for a new vehicle anytime soon so this is only my 2¢. I also prefer physical buttons. We know very little about the upcoming hybrid i.e total HP, torque, transmission type (CVT,eCVT, 6 or 8 speed). A full review including a road test will prove Mazda's claim that it's as fast as the turbo. There's a trend towards adding hybrids at the expense of optional more powerful engines; I can think of RAV4 no more V6, Outlander no more V6, Equinox/Terrain no more V6, Forester no more turbo, etc. No hybrids yet for Equinox/Terrain but the new Forester hybrid didn't impress the auto journalists.
I'm also wondering if Mazda will keep 3 different engines for the CX-50...Perhaps the 2.5 NA will be dropped? That would leave the turbo for those missing it dearly in the upcoming CX-5. The Mazda 3 and CX-30 used to have 3 different engines but the base 2.0L was dropped. Mazda is a small company so having only 2 engine choices per model makes sense. The CX-70/90 have 3 different engines but in fact only 2 if we consider the detuned version of the base trims.
I'm also wondering if Mazda will keep 3 different engines for the CX-50...Perhaps the 2.5 NA will be dropped? That would leave the turbo for those missing it dearly in the upcoming CX-5. The Mazda 3 and CX-30 used to have 3 different engines but the base 2.0L was dropped. Mazda is a small company so having only 2 engine choices per model makes sense. The CX-70/90 have 3 different engines but in fact only 2 if we consider the detuned version of the base trims.
They should of kept the turbo in the 2026 until the hybrid arrived. Once you've driven the turbo you don't want to go back.
- :
- ‘22 CX-5 SIGNATURE
'24 MX-5 RF GT
Agreed, walking away from the top 10% of CX-5 sales for the 2026 model year seems like an oversight. Would Mazda have been better off to wait another year to introduce the revised model when they had both the NA 2.5 and the hybrid engine on offer?
- :
- 2023 CX5 turbo
after having my 2023 cx5 turbo I could live with the different control/infortainment set up. not having a turbo is a deal breaker for me..I have been driving since the 70's and this is my first turbo and frankly I Love it...I have had muscle cars and hemi's etc including a 6.4 (392) and I love putting my cx5 turbo in sport mode and running around....
After reviewing the 2026 model, I purchased a 2025 premium plus turbo. With the base engine, which I already have in my 2018, is not really the one to own long term. It is hardly compelling enough to wait for a new model with no more power. The 2026 is a quite a transitional model
I prefer the feel of a well-sorted turbocharged engine. If done right on the right engine design, it can deliver improved fuel economy and stellar performance. Quite likely, my next vehicle will be a turbo.
Though, if the decision has been made to not have a turbo, then hopefully the car will still end up more-responsive and capable even if without one. If not, then boo.
As for physical buttons, I prefer them to all the digital screen electronica that seems to be so popular with cars. But if it's a boost in reliability and durability, it's probably the way of things. Current vehicle is a 2016 CX-5, with the "Commander" control button and 7" touch screen. Works fine, and I've gotten used to it well enough (it being my first touch screen type vehicle).
I don't suppose either feature would be a deal-breaker with me. Anymore, I simply don't push a car hard enough or worry about the performance or feature-laden details enough to nix the car because of it. IMO, extreme reliability, durability and decent handling is key with any vehicle.
As for physical buttons, I prefer them to all the digital screen electronica that seems to be so popular with cars. But if it's a boost in reliability and durability, it's probably the way of things. Current vehicle is a 2016 CX-5, with the "Commander" control button and 7" touch screen. Works fine, and I've gotten used to it well enough (it being my first touch screen type vehicle).
Until the Infotainment system doesn't work. Then nothing will work if you can't access the functions. I had the infotainment screen go out last winter, just stopped, nothing would work not even the backup camera, luckily I could still control heat with the knobs. Next day everything was working normally again. I was thinking about replacing one of my cars with the 2026 but I think I'll wait and see what the hybrid has to offer.
Until the Infotainment system doesn't work. Then nothing will work if you can't access the functions. I had the infotainment screen go out last winter, just stopped, nothing would work not even the backup camera, luckily I could still control heat with the knobs. Next day everything was working normally again. I was thinking about replacing one of my cars with the 2026 but I think I'll wait and see what the hybrid has to offer.
Right. Which is why I prefer a "button" system to the newfangled computerized digital system. A straightforward sensor/gauge display, too. The new way's good enough until, as you say, it punks out.
