CX-5 vs CX-50 sales year to date

:
2019 CX-5 AWD

Mazda CX-5 US Month Sales

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2012-7143629352139734551420846654468377842135956
2013524454517116626271286856782585066280583363236720
201449989353118556835929179439109107098097599172207721
20155949744510899896010717937395301003391079264875611417
2016706375798965882699519227108311061293858942886511989
201780687836847011334118199550114021163112440103061061014097
201813463132161613811312141731271012208129701053892711088213741
201910652133771346595921405713242133911559210332109701413915734
20201290814462784152201214012501118781374513582118901229917954
2021135831208715080148832059516393162991532913094101771050910419
202212604164042164516404809366541100912920102169441--
Total945321079241251031031491219371090001176901267121075399586393816115748



Mazda CX-50 US Month Sales

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2022--561700146515662983278328232630--
Total0056170014651566298327832823263000
 
Last edited:
:
2018 AWD GT Premium Red/Black
Interesting. The two models together in 2022 don't add up to CX-5 numbers in 2021. Hopefully that is due to supply and logistics rather than demand.
 
:
2019 CX-5 AWD
Going to need more than 3K a month to make the factory worthwhile. For context, Mazda sold 1,287,548 cars in 2021.

Some manufacturers are holding up better than others. The RAV4 has sold almost as many as last year, but CR-V sales are down a lot.


 
:
'20 CX-5 GT PP AWD
Some manufacturers are holding up better than others. The RAV4 has sold almost as many as last year, but CR-V sales are down a lot.

Makes sense. I read somewhere Toyota had more parts on hand than most of the other manufacturers.
 
:
2018 AWD GT Premium Red/Black
BTW, strange table. The "total" should be across the row, not down the column. Who cares how many CX5s have cumulatively been sold adding all Septembers together?

The "total" should be a column next to "Dec" to see the yearly, or year-to-date, numbers.
 
:
2019 CX-5 AWD
BTW, strange table. The "total" should be across the row, not down the column. Who cares how many CX5s have cumulatively been sold adding all Septembers together?

The "total" should be a column next to "Dec" to see the yearly, or year-to-date, numbers.

I had the same thought. Maybe it's for people that are fans of statistics by month!

Here's the total U.S. sales by year.

YearSales
2021168448
2020146420
2019154543
2018150622
2017127563
2016112235
2015111450
201499122
201379544
201243676
Total1193623
 
:
2019 CX-5 AWD
Can Someone post the numbers for mx-30? Lol

Mazda​

MX-30​

2022​

January33
February46
March101
April78
May35
June23
July8



100% predictable.
<100 mile range (in optimal conditions)
$35,000.00

It's "sold out!"

 
Last edited:
:
2019 CX-5 AWD
Recall that someone was saying CX50 will replace CX5....

You have to think that was the plan if sales were sufficient. But if buyers are still choosing the CX-5 3 or 4:1, it's highly unlikely the company would discontinue the best selling model.

The beam rear suspension saves the company several hundred dollars per unit, and freight costs are far less from the factory in Alabama than from Japan, yet destination charge is the same $1,275. Finally, the engine is produced in Mexico, where wages are obviously substantially less, rather than Japan. All this, and the price is $850 more to start. That is a big deal when people are actually paying MSRP.

You can choose between 100 years of Mazda manufacturing experience in Japan or a vehicle with a beam rear suspension, for more money. I'll keep my control arms and 4-wheel independent suspension. Note that Mazda actually calls the torsion beam an "independent suspension" on the CX-50 specifications page, even though it isn't, because there is no legal definition of what constitutes an independent suspension.

Reposting these excellent graphics from wapcar.my that illustrate the difference in performance. In fewer parts and lower cost, the beam does have a control arm setup beat.

1665658048105.png


1665658057410.png




Rather than cost cutting and stretching the CX-30 platform into a larger model solely for the North American market, perhaps it would have made more sense to increase production of the (by far) global best selling model and produce it for the North American and export market.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
You have to think that was the plan if sales were sufficient. But if buyers are still choosing the CX-5 3 or 4:1, it's highly unlikely the company would discontinue the best selling model.

The beam rear suspension saves the company several hundred dollars per unit, and freight costs are far less from the factory in Alabama than from Japan, yet destination charge is the same $1,275. Finally, the engine is produced in Mexico, where wages are obviously substantially less, rather than Japan. All this, and the price is $850 more to start. That is a big deal when people are actually paying MSRP.

You can choose between 100 years of Mazda manufacturing experience in Japan or a vehicle with a beam rear suspension, for more money. I'll keep my control arms and 4-wheel independent suspension. Note that Mazda actually calls the torsion beam an "independent suspension" on the CX-50 specifications page, even though it isn't, because there is no legal definition of what constitutes an independent suspension.

Reposting these excellent graphics from wapcar.my that illustrate the difference in performance. In fewer parts and lower cost, the beam does have a control arm setup beat.

View attachment 313580

View attachment 313581

RIS ⋯

My daughter waited for 6 months and finally got a Japanese made 2022 Toyota Corolla Hatchback XSE, although she originally wanted a Prius Prime which would have to wait as long as 2 years without a trade-in! I noticed all Corolla’s, sedans and hatchbacks, still have rear independent suspension, in addition to the best (may be the last?) 2.0L Dynamic Force gasoline engine available on the market with one of the highest thermal efficiencies.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA

Rather than cost cutting and stretching the CX-30 platform into a larger model solely for the North American market, perhaps it would have made more sense to increase production of the (by far) global best selling model and produce it for the North American and export market.
Most Japanese car manufactures set up assembly plants in the US is only for the US market. It started by “Buy America” pressure in 1980’s, and it may save some shipping cost with local parts. But remember most regions outside USA want smaller and more fuel efficient cars, and the worldwide reputation from US-made quality on vehicles isn’t good either. Hence the idea of exporting US-made vehicles won’t be in their mind of those CEO’s from Japanese car manufactures. It’s just not feasible.
 
:
2014 & 2019 CX-5 Touring(s)
Note that Mazda actually calls the torsion beam an "independent suspension" on the CX-50 specifications page, even though it isn't, because there is no legal definition of what constitutes an independent suspension.
Well, it actually *IS* an independent suspension (albeit semi-independent). The torque arm can twist (hence the name) when one side goes over a bump, without changing the camber of the other side wheel. On the other hand, on a solid rear axle ("dependant" suspension car) if one wheel raises it will always affect the other.

Admittedly it is not *AS* independent as the CX-5's though and I think it was a strange decision to go that way.
 
:
Mazda CX-9 Signature
For an average Joe, I don't think the suspension will much of a factor. I think it has to do with the marketing. Cx-50 is more outdoorsy and competes with Subaru while the Cx-5 is more upscale and competes with entry luxury. Subaru has a strong loyal fan base so to step into their niche will be difficult. To me that would be the reason why numbers for cx-5 is and will continue to be better than cx-50 until they switch to rwd platform
 

Freedom55

2020 AWD GS Montreal Canada
I found this for Canada. There's a large price difference ($7000 Can) between the base CX-5 and CX-50 here because there's no base model for the CX-50. That could explain why the CX-5 did so well in September, not bad for an old model!
 
:
2021 CX-5 GTR
Does the factory currently have the ability to produce more than 3,000 CX-50s a month? Maybe they are just getting the factory up to speed? Toyota makes the Corolla Cross there as well so maybe as far as economies of scale are concerned they are doing well? I found this figure...
Toyota has sold 37,521 Corolla Cross in 2022. (From Jan - Sep 2022)
 
:
2019 CX-5 AWD
Well, it actually *IS* an independent suspension (albeit semi-independent). The torque arm can twist (hence the name) when one side goes over a bump, without changing the camber of the other side wheel. On the other hand, on a solid rear axle ("dependant" suspension car) if one wheel raises it will always affect the other.

Admittedly it is not *AS* independent as the CX-5's though and I think it was a strange decision to go that way.

It doesn't change the camber. However, the wheels are permanently connected to each other, and an impact on one wheel is transmitted to the other. An independent suspension means the wheel is fully independent and not affected by the motion of the wheel on the other side of the vehicle. Handling is compromised when the rear wheels are connected by a steel beam. Also, having 1/10 of the amount of rubber/polyurethane bushings will definitely increase vibrations. From this post by ceric, there is a big difference in handling and especially emergency handling between the platforms.


I find these tests very interesting. The CX-5 in the test is a diesel model weighing an additional 200 pounds over the 2.5L.
 
Last edited:
:
2019 CX-5 AWD
Does the factory currently have the ability to produce more than 3,000 CX-50s a month? Maybe they are just getting the factory up to speed? Toyota makes the Corolla Cross there as well so maybe as far as economies of scale are concerned they are doing well? I found this figure...
Toyota has sold 37,521 Corolla Cross in 2022. (From Jan - Sep 2022)

I think the sales will increase. There will be other versions, including a hybrid version with Toyota tech next year. Mazda is also aiming to have 3 new EVs by 2025. The factory may produce one of those EV models in the next few years, as the $7,500 tax credits next year will require assembly in the U.S. EV tax credit guidelines will grow much more restrictive in 2023
 
Last edited:

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
I find these tests very interesting. The CX-5 in the test is a diesel model weighing an additional 200 pounds over the 2.5L.

I think a fairer comparison would be the moose tests from the 2017 Mazda3 and the 2019 Mazda3. The 2017 has a multilink independent suspension, while the 2019 has the newer torsion beam suspension.


Notes from the commenter on the 2019 (translated to English by Youtube): "Despite not being a particularly nimble car on the moose test, the Mazda3 feels very precise. The steering gives plenty of feedback, and the body leans impeccably after each swerve, making only one move, not bouncing at all or delivering any other disturbing reaction."

There are also other factors at play in these comparison tests besides suspension components. The 2019 does not perform as well as the 2017, but I personally think that this because of the different tires on each car. The 2017 completes the moose test at 77km/h no problem. The 2019 comes very close, but fails the moose test at 77km/h because it hit one of the cones. The 76km/h attempt was successful. They even give the 2019 a rating of Good.

All else being equal, I would absolutely prefer an independent suspension over a torsion beam suspension, just based on the theory of the systems alone. However, all else is not equal. I personally think that if the 2019 had the same tires as the 2017, it would perform just as well, if not better, in this specific test. In any event, I don't think the torsion beam suspension, on its own, is the devil many are making it out to be.
 

HardRightEdg

US 2020 CX-5 Touring AWD Soul Red
In Car & Driver's testing of 2023 turbo versions, CX-50 outperformed CX-5 in their 300 ft. diameter skid pad testing, 0.87 g for the 50 vs. 0.78 g for the CX-5. 4.4" of the 50's additional 5.7" of length went into the wheelbase, while the 50 is 3" wider, some or all of which goes into the track, and the 50's vehicle height is 2.4" lower. There's a lot more going on than the rear suspension set-up.

In Consumer Reports' lane change avoidance maneuver (a left-right-left swerve sequence), CX-5 maxed out at 54 mph while momentarily lifting an inside rear wheel not detected by the driver. CX-50 had a negligible difference at 53 mph, with no mention of wheel lift, though this could be apples and oranges since it is not entirely clear which engine applies in each of these tests. CR cited the width of the 50 as a factor, so it may have nicked a cone that the 5 did not as a result.

The illustration of the torsion beam / dependent suspension in post #10 is not representative of what is going on in CX-50. There is at least one youtube video with a camera trained on the rear undercarriage while taking this platform through its paces. Independent movement of the rear wheels is evident. The one I linked in an earlier thread might have been a CX-30, not sure, look it up, but it's the same setup as the CX-50. Torsion "bar" rather than "beam" might be the better characterization.

As for the OP--CX-50 sales volume--the rear suspension differences have nothing to do with it. 95% or more of prospective buyers wouldn't know the difference and many of the other 5% wouldn't either if they drove the things, as suggested by the test data. In other words, judgements should not be made without a spirited test drive comparison.

As for other performance specs, CX-5 turbo does outperform CX-50 turbo by 1-5 10ths of a second in C&D's various straight line speed tests. However, their 70-0 braking tests have a striking comparison--the 50 turbo came in at 161 ft while the 5 turbo came in at 185 ft. So, there's a trade-off to consider. Also, C&D says the 50 turbo top speed is 142 mph while the 5 turbo's is 129 mph, both "mfr's claim", if that's your thing, lol.

So, why the low sales figures for 50? Don't underestimate the time it takes to ramp up production of a new model / plant / work force. It's also worth noting that midway through plant construction Mazda / Toyota invested an additional $800 million in equipment to improve plant efficiency so you may be looking at a new overall assembly process based on Mazda's open floor concept.

The main problem Mazda currently faces is that CX-50 does not really sit between CX-5 and CX-9 or the future CX-90. That will be the CX-70. The extra 6" length in the CX-50 does not translate to more cargo capacity--50 has a little more length and a little less height in that regard. The current powertrains are the same. You've got to scrounge around to find personal preferences--towing, ceiling height, how it strikes the eye, a marginal difference in off-road-lite capability, whether your skis will lay flat in the back, whatnot..

Nearly 20 trims across these two models with a $1000 difference in starting price makes for a lot of cognitive dissonance for the average buyer, an overwhelming variety, not the parsing and trade-off scrutiny of the enthusiast, with such enthusiasts making a perhaps unfounded parsing based on rear suspension theory.

So, Corolla Cross is outselling CX-50 2-to-1 so far. Apples and oranges. There is a very large installed base of Toyota sedans driven by loyal Toyota owners, Corolla's in particular ergo the name, who would be interested in a value-priced entry level CUV. Unlike the Mazda CX-5/CX-50 price difference and other parsing comparisons, the Cross starts at $4,500 less than a base RAV-4 (and similarly for the CX-50) and $1,800 less than a base CH-R which is stylistically and functionally a different animal with sales volumes suggesting discontinuation is in the cards.

Thinking CX-50 will not replace CX-5 in the US based on sales figures to date is premature. How long that might take is a good question. The purported Alabama max output is 150,000 units per year, less than the 160,000-ish high water mark for CX-5 sales. On the other hand, the expectation should be that CX-70 will cannibalize some of the 5/50 sales. A complete replacement of 5 in the foreseeable future may not be the case but there is an evident direction. It is bound to be Mazda's hope and intention but only the buyers will decide. To think Mazda's expectation was to magically double sales volumes in this highly competitive segment is a little far fetched, with the additional factor of CX-70 coming along. And by the way, CX-50 is purportedly getting a Toyota hybrid option; CX-5 is not. It's not hard to see where the development money is going.

I don't own and am not intending to buy a CX-50, so no fan boy here. I've got several years to go before considering my next new vehicle at which point it will be a blank slate, manufacturer agnostic.
 
Last edited: