2025 CX-5 vs New 2026 model!?

[RedBaron]

But the steering was already lighter than the CX-5.

That's the bizarre thing. All those early reviews bitched about how heavy the CX-50's steering was, yet with mine it was fine and I didn't think it heavy at all. I could not tell the difference between it and the CX-5 (and my wife said the same). And now you, having driven a '23 CX-50, say it was lighter than the CX-5. This all does not compute!

I wonder if there is just that much car-to-car variance?

 

[N7turbo]

Yep I've lived with the 2nd Gen CX-5 since 2017 and know it well. The 2023 CX-50 has lighter steering by 10-20%. At the same time, the ratio is different; it takes 10-20% more turning of the wheel to navigate a parking lot. I was not a fan of that.

 

[Charmer383]

Same 6 spd. and no turbo. Relatively minor changes on body. As mentioned, one that doesn't even know the Mazda brand wouldn't be able to tell. Didn't even bother to hide the rear wiper up yet. I'll probably be done with the Mazda brand after this ride.

 

[taran1900]

And for about the same 13yrs, folks have complained about the cramped back seat of the CX-5 compared to other competitors. It appears to be the same platform - again- but has been stretched to give more legroom and cargo space. They are keeping the independent rear suspension from what I have read.

The biggest fail to me is not having the new motors ready at launch. How they could put so much time into this and use a motor that was introduced in 2014 is beyond me. Of course it has been tweaked over the years, but it is the same basic motor. The 6-sp auto is also the same since 2014 (I mean they designed a new 8-sp for the CX-90, why not get one ready for the FWD based cars as well?). The turbo has been axed and there is no upgrade model available at launch. We are promised an upgraded hybrid which will supposedly exceed the 2.5T's performance and economy, but this remains to be seen.

To me Mazda has been having some pretty big fails of late (CX-70 that is just a 4-5 seat CX-90 was the first). The CX-5 is not an all new car. They weren't designing a new CX-5 from the ground up. Heck, it even looks like the current car with a mid cycle refresh. Most uninformed folks wouldn't even notice the difference between a 25 and 26. The CX-90 didn't come out with an incomplete range of engines and the CX-5 shouldn't have either with it being Mazdas best selling car in the US.

CX-90 works better as a two row for my wife and I. Bench seating comes in all trims so you can seat five adults. They just call it CX-70. We upgraded from a CX-5 signature because we wants the same setup with more space. Seeing what Mazda has done to the cockpit, I am so glad we went for the CX-70. My wife and I are rotary dial and button people. Anyway, it's fantastic. Like our former CX-5 Signature, the CX-70 has been trouble-free. 16 thousands miles it we like better than the day I drove it off the lot.

 

[chickdr]

I like the CX-90. If I were getting one, it would be a CX-90 Turbo S Premium so I would have the second row bench and have 8 person capability if needed. The issue I have is, the CX-90 is too long for my taste. I wanted a CX-70 which cut 10" off the length of the 90. Alas, no dice. It makes no sense to me the 70 costs the same as the 90 when you get less for your money (no third row). The CX-60 would have been the perfect replacement for the CX-5 to make it a bit bigger and remain unique in the segment with RWD, 8-sp auto, an I-6 turbo (the 280hp version would be plenty of power and nice upgrade from the current 2.5T) and PHEV variants from the get-go. The length is only 2" bigger than what they are doing with the CX-5 anyway.

 

[Snake]

I'm running out of options for a good old fashioned NA powered car with an auto trans. Mazda was about all I was considering until I found out that most of the 2025 models use cylinder deactivation. That's a deal breaker for me.