2022 CX-50?!

I actually do like the look of rav interior, but I put big emphasis on touch, feel, materials, etc. Prob more than most. CX5 seems in reviews to still have enough of an edge for me (But i've not sat in a RAV myself)

And handling. Can't see them taking the RAV and making it dance. For me, speed is important but it's not the primary thing. Nor is fuel eco (I know that isn't a popular thing to admit).



Can't argue against used. I've never gone that route, but for those that do it is a good option.
I've owned new and used, and new is just a waste of money in my experience. The only reason I had to buy new in 2019 was because I wanted the turbo and that's when it came out.
 
RWD based just means that.. RWD based vs fwd.. was have fwd based awd. This means the engine will be longitudinal. FWD is a product of economy and ease of manufacture, not performance..

Bingo. It’ll be RWD-based AWD, like the X5, etc. A distinction that few buyers will notice but auto enthusiasts and reviewers will talk about to death.
 
To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me if it was called the CX-50.
Yeah...Let's not forget the MX-30 (in addition to the CX-30)...It is starting to look like Mazda is a fan of the double digits now, at least for Crossovers and SUVs.
 
Bingo. It’ll be RWD-based AWD, like the X5, etc. A distinction that few buyers will notice but auto enthusiasts and reviewers will talk about to death.
I notice it some, especially in the wet/rain. I punched it tonight and there was a HINT of torque steer at 40mph when it downshifted, and again on the 2-3 shift as it broke the fronts loose a touch.

Still...280hp from a 3.3L i6? Mazda...C'mon...
 
The power numbers are still just rumours and speculations. Another source is hoping for 300+ hp

But honestly, 280 hp from a normally aspirated 3.3L i6 are normal numbers. The fact that it is inline instead of a V doesn't help increase power. You would have to add a turbocharger for it to go any higher. Think about this:

Honda Pilot: 3.5 L V6 : 280 hp
Toyota Highlander: 3.5L V6: 295 hp
Jeep wrangler: 3.6L V6: 285 hp
Toyota Camry V6: 3.5L 300hp
Kia Cadenza: 3.3L 290 hp

I really wish the 300+ prediction are accurate, because this would be awesome in the mazda 6, and I know we all want Mazda to start pumping out huge power number, but this has never been their business model, so let's say my fingers are crossed but I am not holding my breath.

And I don't understand the people who compare the price of new Mazda to the price of used luxury brand. If I am going to buy used, I can get a used CX-5 for way cheaper than a used SQ5.
 
From what I've read a CX-50 or CX-60 could be added to the 2021 lineup, some months ahead of the next generation CX-5. The cars would share the same architecture and engines. It can be thought of as a crossover-coupe rather than an SUV. It will be manufactured alongside a Toyota SUV at Mazda's and Toyota's forthcoming US plant in Huntsville, Alabama.
 
It can be thought of as a crossover-coupe rather than an SUV.

Oh god no! Those are the most stupid mishmash of designs. The worst aspects of a coupe (lack of space) mixed with the worst aspects of an SUV (poorer handling) merged into an ugly-ass design. Whoever though that idea up BMW/Honda/etc, should be shot. Though they're probably laughing their way to the bank.

I guess there's an idiot customer for everything.
 
Why the obsession with 300 HP?

That's an arbitrary objective and you absolutely don't need 300+ HP for a sporty two-row SUV. Especially Mazda, who's secret sauce is their ability to make fun cars that use boring power plants on paper. Besides, isn't there a good chance all new cars in that timeframe will at least be hybrids anyway? If so, electronic assistance makes the HP number even less relevant. The era of the dyno-gazing is almost over, folks.
 
Oh god no! Those are the most stupid mishmash of designs. The worst aspects of a coupe (lack of space) mixed with the worst aspects of an SUV (poorer handling) merged into an ugly-ass design. Whoever though that idea up BMW/Honda/etc, should be shot. Though they're probably laughing their way to the bank.

I guess there's an idiot customer for everything.

Combined, there are only about 10,000 idiot customers for the X4 and X6 in the US each year, which makes me wonder: a) why do they bother? and b) why would others copy it?
 
Why the obsession with 300 HP?

That's an arbitrary objective and you absolutely don't need 300+ HP for a sporty two-row SUV. Especially Mazda, who's secret sauce is their ability to make fun cars that use boring power plants on paper. Besides, isn't there a good chance all new cars in that timeframe will at least be hybrids anyway? If so, electronic assistance makes the HP number even less relevant. The era of the dyno-gazing is almost over, folks.
I think 300hp gives a good p/w ratio in this weight range. And that's NA horsepower, from an I6 so it's gonna be torquey and smooth. 185hp gives you 8-9 second 0-60 and little reserve power at 80mph unless you have like 10 gears. So increase engine power and gear down the trans to give a smoother powerband along with more power.

I don't really agree with the secret sauce part. Until recently Mazda always had some kind of high output offerings (plural) in their line up, even if they were upgrqded FWD based econoboxes. With the skyactive line they pretty much lost them and started moving toward gimmicky vehicles with "great handling" (that these new mazda buyers dont care about because they are an appliance crowd). Except they went and made the mazda 3 with a torsion bar rear and also this CX-30. At least Kia knew better and with their new Koni, puts a multilink on the AWD version, and delegates the cheapo torsion to the wrong wheel drive version.

The idea of a low power/sporty works in the miata because of its weight and maneuverability. In a larger vehicles that is just lame. My cx5 can corner like a mofo, power on but once in get around 80 there isn't much resource available from the engine and the capability of the chassis seems mis matched to the engine.
 
Last edited:
Combined, there are only about 10,000 idiot customers for the X4 and X6 in the US each year, which makes me wonder: a) why do they bother? and b) why would others copy it?

We know what happened to the Honda CrossTour, a coupe/crossover. After 5 years of trying to make a go of it Honda discontinued it in 2015. Maybe Mazda should ask them what happened!
 
First of all...Great discussion going on here but let's have it without the insults, thanks.

About this "Crossover-Coupe" point, we're still not sure what Mazda is going to do but what matters is that it's a success for them. While some may not like the Crossover-Coupe concept, I wouldn't be surprised if people said the same thing about Crossovers themselves years ago...Let's not forget, I believe we went from (roughly) wagons, to minivans, to SUVs, to Crossovers, to now it appears...Crossover-Coupes. People's desires, tastes and needs change over time and auto-manufactures develop their designs to suite those changes.

Aren't there a whole slew of Crossover-Coupes now especially from the German auto manufacturers?

I personally like the concept and look (not every example though, not a fan of the CrossTour) even though there are disadvantages (there are with any design). If the CX-30 is an example of what Mazda can do with the concept, then I'm a fan!

If the CX-50 turns out to be a larger Crossover-Coupe with around 300hp, that would be very exciting and an addition to the lineup that might help Mazda move up the brand ladder.
 
The power numbers are still just rumours and speculations. Another source is hoping for 300+ hp

But honestly, 280 hp from a normally aspirated 3.3L i6 are normal numbers. The fact that it is inline instead of a V doesn't help increase power. You would have to add a turbocharger for it to go any higher. Think about this:

Honda Pilot: 3.5 L V6 : 280 hp
Toyota Highlander: 3.5L V6: 295 hp
Jeep wrangler: 3.6L V6: 285 hp
Toyota Camry V6: 3.5L 300hp
Kia Cadenza: 3.3L 290 hp

I really wish the 300+ prediction are accurate, because this would be awesome in the mazda 6, and I know we all want Mazda to start pumping out huge power number, but this has never been their business model, so let's say my fingers are crossed but I am not holding my breath.

And I don't understand the people who compare the price of new Mazda to the price of used luxury brand. If I am going to buy used, I can get a used CX-5 for way cheaper than a used SQ5.
Dude...bmw made a 333bhp i6 2 decades ago with port injection. There is just no excuse, here, with SA-X / DI, and more electronic finetuning than a space shuttle.

Mazda needs this to be 320bhp or so.
 
Dude...bmw made a 333bhp i6 2 decades ago with port injection. There is just no excuse, here, with SA-X / DI, and more electronic finetuning than a space shuttle.

Mazda needs this to be 320bhp or so.

True, but no one else has since either. including all the other competitors that i listed.

skyactiv x purpose isn’t to increase the horsepower, and actually likely prevent the engine from being tuned for maximum horsepower. At least from what i’ve seen the current skyactiv x in europe.

but we don’t know yet. Car and driver mentioned speculation of 350 hp, so we may all be arguing over nothing here.
 
Reading that article it sounded as if RWD would replace an AWD option altogether. For us automotives noobs can someone pls comment if RWD provides similar rugged traction?

Nightmare in winter. Good luck getting up a small incline.

If this does replace the CX-5, would hope an AWD option is retained, otherwise doesn't make sense as a replacement.
 
I'm hoping that the CX-50 ends up being the CX-4 that Mazda sells in China (basically a crossover'd Mazda 6), but updated with the current Mazda 3/CX30 interior

 
I think there is a lot to be said for a normally aspirated 6 cylinder as opposed to turbocharging a small displacement 4 banger to "punch above its weight" (god I am sick of that phrase lately). As far as an obsession with a minimum of 300 hp figure, that just seems about right after driving a CX 5 with 250 hp which is adequate but for old motorheads like myself, more is always better. AWD, and reconfigured to put more bias to the rear would also be an improvement.
Now if Mazda ever reintroduces a rotary engined sportscar that looks like the concept car from a couple of years ago, I would seriously consider it as opposed to a Jaguar F Type which is on my shopping list if and when the market recovers and I can blow some of my retirement savings while young enough to enjoy it.
 
I could go for one if they offered awd. The CX5 is not bad but it would be nice to not have any torque steer which the longitudinal engine/ awd with bias towards the rear would eliminate.
 
First of all...Great discussion going on here but let's have it without the insults, thanks.

About this "Crossover-Coupe" point, we're still not sure what Mazda is going to do but what matters is that it's a success for them. While some may not like the Crossover-Coupe concept, I wouldn't be surprised if people said the same thing about Crossovers themselves years ago...Let's not forget, I believe we went from (roughly) wagons, to minivans, to SUVs, to Crossovers, to now it appears...Crossover-Coupes. People's desires, tastes and needs change over time and auto-manufactures develop their designs to suite those changes.

Aren't there a whole slew of Crossover-Coupes now especially from the German auto manufacturers?

I personally like the concept and look (not every example though, not a fan of the CrossTour) even though there are disadvantages (there are with any design). If the CX-30 is an example of what Mazda can do with the concept, then I'm a fan!

If the CX-50 turns out to be a larger Crossover-Coupe with around 300hp, that would be very exciting and an addition to the lineup that might help Mazda move up the brand ladder.

Let's not confuse constructive criticism of some of Mazda's thinking, as well as opinion, with being an insult. If I/we had such a disregard for Mazda, as you seem to imply, why would I/we have purchased a CX-5 in the first place. For me I'm on my second CX-5 and love what Mazda has done with their design and engineering over the years. I just question their thinking as how a design like a coupe(for example) might play out in sales if other manufacturers have struggled with the success of this design in recent years. I think my wife would like the look of this this design( which the CX-4 seems to be), but for me there is way too restricted a view out the back window for my liking (as the CX-4 video above would indicate) which I believe is common with many coupes.
 
Let's not confuse constructive criticism of some of Mazda's thinking, as well as opinion, with being an insult. If I/we had such a disregard for Mazda, as you seem to imply, why would I/we have purchased a CX-5 in the first place. For me I'm on my second CX-5 and love what Mazda has done with their design and engineering over the years. I just question their thinking as how a design like a coupe(for example) might play out in sales if other manufacturers have struggled with the success of this design in recent years. I think my wife would like the look of this this design( which the CX-4 seems to be), but for me there is way too restricted a view out the back window for my liking (as the CX-4 video above would indicate) which I believe is common with many coupes.
The CX-4, like the CX-30, is not a coupe. Coupes have 2 doors, while these have 4
 
Back