Having to take your eyes off the road and try to tap tiny buttons on a screen is the opposite of "user friendly." Mazda is 100% correct that having a command knob is much safer and more intuitive than trying to poke around a small screen while driving. It's sad that much of the driving public is being conditioned to think of touch screens as the "modern" way to interact with an infotainment screenIn early March, we went to a Mazda dealer to try out the CX 30, expecting to get one based on the early reviews. I am 5'9" and felt like a contortionist trying to get into the driver's seat due to the low door opening. It was obvious that the CX 30 would be unlivable for us. We then walked over to a CX 5 and found it to be exactly what we had wanted the CX 30 to be. Bought the CX 5 that day and love it. Agree with the video's comments about the touch screen limitations, but, we are adapting after having grown accustomed to much more user friendly systems in our Jeep Cherokee and previous VW Passat.
I agree and this was a main reason I really wanted to buy a Mazda especially coming from an Audi before they went touch screen. We ended up with a Kia Seltos as it was a better fit for us. I find that I rarely use touch screen as the interface and 10.25” screen and location are so good that I manage almost everything with steering wheel controls and very tactile physical buttons. If I need to avert my eyes it’s very quickly as I would when scrolling with the knob. I have very few fingerprints on the screen which is another thing that bothers me about touch screens.Having to take your eyes off the road and try to tap tiny buttons on a screen is the opposite of "user friendly." Mazda is 100% correct that having a command knob is much safer and more intuitive than trying to poke around a small screen while driving
The CX-30 might not be so much the replacement for the CX-3, but rather the 3. With more and more people moving on to SUVs and CUVs, it makes more sense. Then again, the CX-3's option set has been downsized quite a bit with only one trim package available, and many dealers not taking delivery on them.Mechanically the cx30 is a downgrade; cheaper less capable rear suspension shared with the new 3's.
It didn't take me long to get used to it. I do notice I am able to pay more attention to the road more so than I did when I had touch screens. Tactile buttons and click wheels feel and work a lot better than making sure you don't hit something on your screen accidentally. But also having an easy to navigate and understand menu helps immensely too. Another factor is having the right position higher up for the screen. That makes a big difference in safety, imo. I am starting to notice it in more newer cars with touch screens. Although, many companies have yet to make it look integrated into the dash and not look like an iPad glued to the dash as an afterthought. That's one thing that ruins the interior of the Mach-E for me.Having to take your eyes off the road and try to tap tiny buttons on a screen is the opposite of "user friendly." Mazda is 100% correct that having a command knob is much safer and more intuitive than trying to poke around a small screen while driving. It's sad that much of the driving public is being conditioned to think of touch screens as the "modern" way to interact with an infotainment screen
I've commented before that the only time I've used the touch screen in my CX-5 was sitting in my driveway loading addresses into my NAV system. I wonder how Jim might feel about it after having lived with it for a while. On the other hand, those other makes might not disable their touch screens while the car is in motion, meaning that the passenger can still use it while riding down the road...people here have complained about not having that capability. If Jim (or anyone else for that matter) frequently has a passenger and are accustomed to having that capability, I can see them being frustrated every time the passenger touches the CX-5 screen and nothing happens.
Regarding the CX-30...if you read this thread here of CX-30 owners, there are quite a few who came from CX-5s (and likely shopped both models) and who have not voiced any of the negatives cited on the video, nor did they decide to spend the extra money to remain in a comparable CX-5...a model they've got actual ownership experience with. None of them mentioned the CX-30 as a "step down" or "all I could afford at the time." You would think if the differences were that great, a current CX-5 owner would notice it right away and not even consider making the purchase.
When I was looking at replacing my former Jeep Renegade, I briefly considered a cx-30. Was immediately turned off by its visibility, we already had a 2nd Gen CX5 in the family. Personally I hated the enclosed feeling and its sedan-like height. We ended up with a 2nd CX5.....we look like huge CX5 fans to the neighbors lol.
For Mazda North America CX-30 looks like its selling as a replacement for the 3 as its sales have been disappointing since the new generation arrived.
Has plenty of headroom (I'm 6'-4"). Its a comfortable narrow seating for me.
They sold 3750 CX-30's and 3756 Mazda 3s. Together, that is way more than Mazda 3 + CX-3's sold last year.