CX-5 vs CX-50 sales year to date

[cxha]

Very concise analysis HardRightEdg

 

[181962]

Very concise analysis HardRightEdg

Concise? I take that to be deadpan sarcasm.

 

[asatar22]

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.

You forgot important thing, the CX-5 fit and finish and luxurious cabin, most reviews say the CX-5 interior look and feel more upscale and luxurious. Also most respectable reviewers mentioned that suspension is stiffer than CX-5 and they steering is nice but heavier. So the 50 is being marketed as a rugged SUV, most people want luxury, supple and smooth ride SUV with light steering at parking speed. I just got the CX-5 for my wife due to the aforementioned reasons. Last thing she wants is a stiff ride and heavy steering.

 

[181962]

You forgot important thing, the CX-5 fit and finish and luxurious cabin, most reviews say the CX-5 interior look and feel more upscale and luxurious. Also most respectable reviewers mentioned that suspension is stiffer than CX-5 and they steering is nice but heavier. So the 50 is being marketed as a rugged SUV, most people want luxury, supple and smooth ride SUV with light steering at parking speed. I just got the CX-5 for my wife due to the aforementioned reasons. Last thing she wants is a stiff ride and heavy steering.

That's the kind of parsing I alluded to. CX-50 is hardly rugged regardless of how it is marketed. I suppose there's the plastic instead of carpet rear interior side walls. Meh. CX-5 buyers cover the rear floor with plastic or rubber liners anyway or they should if they don't. Mazda makes a point of saying CX-50 is lower and the doors swing out to 90 degrees to make loading on the roof easier. C'mon. It's less than 3" lower; open a CX-5 door all the way and stand on the sill and see if there is any issue. There isn't. It's a story in search of features. Cosmetic differences are minor in the scheme of things and resolve to minor differences in taste. Do you like orange leather or black or camel? Dual door center console or the single door? Forward cup holders or the ones more toward the rear? These differences do not justify separate models.

Are you sure those "respectable reviewers" are not exaggerating the differences in ride and steering for affect because others make no point about such differences? The differences may be barely distinguishable or not all in daily driving. I suspect a harsher ride would be found in the CX-5's 19" wheel trims or the CX-50's 20" wheel trims than the 17" on either model. Be careful to note which trim a reviewer is comparing to what.

Did you or your wife drive the CX-50? Marketing is one thing when there are no cars on the lot to compare. It's another thing when they sit side-by-side on the show floor with nearly 20 trims / option package variations to choose from with several of each on the lot ready to drive which is already starting to happen at some dealers. CX-50 starts at a somewhat higher price point but when moving up the food chain and comparing pricing for features you want across the two models the kind of cognitive dissonance I alluded to is bound to set in.

This reminds me of looking at CX-3 and CX-30 sitting side by side on the floor while I was waiting to take possession of my CX-50. My immediate reaction was, "why, what for?" Why indeed--CX-3 was gone from the US in no time at all. Looking at the forest for the trees, it is hard to see how a smallish automaker with a limited lineup can sustain this kind of incremental variation in models across so many trims for any extended period of time when thinking of the average car buyer. Even the big makers don't split hairs like this.

 

[asatar22]

That's the kind of parsing I alluded to. CX-50 is hardly rugged regardless of how it is marketed. I suppose there's the plastic instead of carpet rear interior side walls. Meh. CX-5 buyers cover the rear floor with plastic or rubber liners anyway or they should if they don't. Mazda makes a point of saying CX-50 is lower and the doors swing out to 90 degrees to make loading on the roof easier. C'mon. It's less than 3" lower; open a CX-5 door all the way and stand on the sill and see if there is any issue. There isn't. It's a story in search of features. Cosmetic differences are minor in the scheme of things and resolve to minor differences in taste. Do you like orange leather or black or camel? Dual door center console or the single door? Forward cup holders or the ones more toward the rear? These differences do not justify separate models.

Are you sure those "respectable reviewers" are not exaggerating the differences in ride and steering for affect because others make no point about such differences? The differences may be barely distinguishable or not all in daily driving. I suspect a harsher ride would be found in the CX-5's 19" wheel trims or the CX-50's 20" wheel trims than the 17" on either model. Be careful to note which trim a reviewer is comparing to what.

Did you or your wife drive the CX-50? Marketing is one thing when there are no cars on the lot to compare. It's another thing when they sit side-by-side on the show floor with nearly 20 trims / option package variations to choose from with several of each on the lot ready to drive which is already starting to happen at some dealers. CX-50 starts at a somewhat higher price point but when moving up the food chain and comparing pricing for features you want across the two models the kind of cognitive dissonance I alluded to is bound to set in.

This reminds me of looking at CX-3 and CX-30 sitting side by side on the floor while I was waiting to take possession of my CX-50. My immediate reaction was, "why, what for?" Why indeed--CX-3 was gone from the US in no time at all. Looking at the forest for the trees, it is hard to see how a smallish automaker with a limited lineup can sustain this kind of incremental variation in models across so many trims for any extended period of time when thinking of the average car buyer. Even the big makers don't split hairs like this.

Thanks! After seeing all those youtube reviews I decided not to test drive the CX-50. The torsion beam suspension turned me off, even if average consumer don’t understand what that is. Also this is the first year made in America, new factory, etc was a contributing factor. To me a global solid model that is made in Japan with great history is much better than a new local model that is created for NA only. Maybe its just me but in general most companies who made an NA version and cheapen out on suspension and other parts did not sell well( I cant forget about some VW models which ended up being cheap plastic local models). Also those youtube reviewers (Alex on Autos and others) are the most respectable on the market.

I agree on the pricing and trim selection as well, I got the CX-5 Premium plus for $36.7K which includes all bells and whistles but the 360 cam and parking sensors. It even includes the active driving display. Not sure if can get the CX-50 for this price, I think they should have created multiple trims and kept the rugged edition separate. This way consumers like me would have jumped in comfortably without worrying about ride quality.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

Having owned sports-cars, 4 bangers, SUV's and trucks at various point in my life, the CX-50 makes no sense.

For me the CX-50 makes no sense unless you need extra towing power.

But at that point, you just get a truck.

Looking at the CX-5 side by side with the CX-50 at the dealership, the CX-50 looks like crap.

The thing that got me into a CX-5
( before they had a CX-50) was the driving experience, the exterior aesthetics, and the sweet interior.
All that with a gas saving 4 cylinder that could still go off-road.

The CX-50 with it's wide stance and it's plastic cladding is a hot mess. And lower to the ground instead of higher( make it more rugged looking but less able to handle rugged terrain with a lower stance makes no sense.

CX-50 completely missed the mark on form and function. Form and function is diverging. Form is going more rugged looking while function is going more sporty(lower to ground, etc).
You have to wonder who's half baked idea it was to add crappy looking cladding and lower ground clearance??? They should have raised the ground clearance and if they were gonna add cladding, at least paint it to match the whole vehicle.

Most ladies I know have opted for new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeeps, etc. as they wanted a car that looked good and had some off-road ability

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do.

There will not be a large market for the cx-50. If they replace the cx-5 with the cx-50, customers will move to other brands. Some may stay with Mazda but more than likely move to a completely different model away from the cX-50.

I myself, would move to a Ford Maverick or any new small truck that is hybrid electric/gas for main vehicle.

And if the customer really wanted these CX-50, they would be sold out instead of sitting on the lot. Ask someone how hard it has been over the past year to find the new ford bronco.

No, these will not increase exponentially on sales.

 

[Sig cx-5]

...
The thing that got me into a CX-5
( before they had a CX-50) was the driving experience, the exterior aesthetics, and the sweet interior.
All that with a gas saving 4 cylinder that could still go off-road. ...

For me, it was all the above, except we don't drive enough to worry about MPG's and have not had a need to take it off-roading. It is great in the snow, if that counts.

 

[sm1ke]

Ladies want something cute like a new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeep, etc.

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do.

Cool it with the gender stereotyping, please.

 

[asatar22]

Having owned sports-cars, 4 bangers, SUV's and trucks at various point in my life, the CX-50 makes no sense.

For me the CX-50 makes no sense unless you need extra towing power.

But at that point, you just get a truck.

Looking at the CX-5 side by side with the CX-50 at the dealership, the CX-50 looks like crap.

The thing that got me into a CX-5
( before they had a CX-50) was the driving experience, the exterior aesthetics, and the sweet interior.
All that with a gas saving 4 cylinder that could still go off-road.

The CX-50 with it's wide stance and it's plastic cladding is a hot mess. And lower to the ground instead of higher( make it more rugged looking but less able to handle rugged terrain with a lower stance makes no sense.

CX-50 completely missed the mark on form and function. Form and function is diverging. Form is going more rugged looking while function is going more sporty(lower to ground, etc).
You have to wonder who's half baked idea it was to add crappy looking cladding and lower ground clearance??? They should have raised the ground clearance and if they were gonna add cladding, at least paint it to match the whole vehicle.

Ladies want something cute like a new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeep, etc.

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do.

There will not be a large market for the cx-50. If they replace the cx-5 with the cx-50, customers will move to other brands. Some may stay with Mazda but more than likely move to a completely different model away from the cX-50.

I myself, would move to a Ford Maverick or any new small truck that is hybrid electric/gas for main vehicle.

And if the customer really wanted these CX-50, they would be sold out instead of sitting on the lot. Ask someone how hard it has been over the past year to find the new ford bronco.

No, these will not increase exponentially on sales.

I totally agree. I think they won't take the risk to discontinue the CX-5. Latest 2022 updates including sound deadening, chassis updates and redesigning the seats means they are keeping this car longer. Mazda also added traffic Jam assist with lane centering to the signature trim! I don't see any similar updates to the CX-9 since it will be discontinued maybe in a year or so. Unless they reach a level where the CX-50 sales is on par or surpassing the CX-5 they won't dare to touch it.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

Cool it with the gender stereotyping, please.

I apologize as didn't mean to offend. I reworded my previous post to state fact rather than opinion.

 

[181962]

Having owned sports-cars, 4 bangers, SUV's and trucks at various point in my life, the CX-50 makes no sense.

For me the CX-50 makes no sense unless you need extra towing power.

But at that point, you just get a truck.

Looking at the CX-5 side by side with the CX-50 at the dealership, the CX-50 looks like crap.

The thing that got me into a CX-5
( before they had a CX-50) was the driving experience, the exterior aesthetics, and the sweet interior.
All that with a gas saving 4 cylinder that could still go off-road.

The CX-50 with it's wide stance and it's plastic cladding is a hot mess. And lower to the ground instead of higher( make it more rugged looking but less able to handle rugged terrain with a lower stance makes no sense.

CX-50 completely missed the mark on form and function. Form and function is diverging. Form is going more rugged looking while function is going more sporty(lower to ground, etc).
You have to wonder who's half baked idea it was to add crappy looking cladding and lower ground clearance??? They should have raised the ground clearance and if they were gonna add cladding, at least paint it to match the whole vehicle.

Ladies want something cute like a new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeep, etc.

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do.

There will not be a large market for the cx-50. If they replace the cx-5 with the cx-50, customers will move to other brands. Some may stay with Mazda but more than likely move to a completely different model away from the cX-50.

I myself, would move to a Ford Maverick or any new small truck that is hybrid electric/gas for main vehicle.

And if the customer really wanted these CX-50, they would be sold out instead of sitting on the lot. Ask someone how hard it has been over the past year to find the new ford bronco.

No, these will not increase exponentially on sales.

I don't find myself disagreeing with much of what you said as a personal preference. The question is Mazda's intent. Mazda invested billions in a new plant with a 150,000 capacity along with the new small product platform on which the CX-50 sits, shared among models. CX-5 gen 2 is in it's 7th. year with no redo in sight. If CX-5 is going to continue for the international markets and perhaps some imports to the US the next gen will likely be sitting on this platform with the dreaded torsion bar suspension.

When you get down to the meat and potatoes of the matter for the mass of buyers, interior space (the effective class / size of the vehicle), the powertrains, and the interior creature comforts and gadgetry, there is little to differentiate them 5 and 50. Sure, the CX-50 in profile has a more wagon-ish look with the longer hood. But that fits more in the mainstream. For a more sporty look (and than independent rear suspension ) Mazda will want to upsell you to a CX-70. They say they want to go near-luxury so you have to figure that's where they want to sell more units with higher margins.

So, rather than thinking about preferences, what is the evident intent for the US market given that 150,000 unit Alabama capacity?

It's a little premature to declare CX-50 a bust. Unless Mazda tells you time on the lot you won't know how the inventory turn is running. Automakers typically don't disclose that at the model level. That said, it could turn out to be a bust. Mazda purports that their novel open floor assembly process reduces line conversion time or cost by up to 90%. So they could build something else there in a couple of years if CX-50 isn't going anywhere but still at a considerable loss.

Personally, I would prefer CX-5 stick around at least until I trade mine which could be anywhere between 4.5 years from now when the CPO powertrain warranty expires or well beyond if the vehicle proves reliable over the long haul. So far so good. When models get discontinued their used value invariable goes down.

 

[murky]

Having owned sports-cars, 4 bangers, SUV's and trucks at various point in my life, the CX-50 makes no sense.

For me the CX-50 makes no sense unless you need extra towing power.

But at that point, you just get a truck.

Looking at the CX-5 side by side with the CX-50 at the dealership, the CX-50 looks like crap.

The thing that got me into a CX-5
( before they had a CX-50) was the driving experience, the exterior aesthetics, and the sweet interior.
All that with a gas saving 4 cylinder that could still go off-road.

The CX-50 with it's wide stance and it's plastic cladding is a hot mess. And lower to the ground instead of higher( make it more rugged looking but less able to handle rugged terrain with a lower stance makes no sense.

CX-50 completely missed the mark on form and function. Form and function is diverging. Form is going more rugged looking while function is going more sporty(lower to ground, etc).
You have to wonder who's half baked idea it was to add crappy looking cladding and lower ground clearance??? They should have raised the ground clearance and if they were gonna add cladding, at least paint it to match the whole vehicle.

Most ladies I know have opted for new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeeps, etc. as they wanted a car that looked good and had some off-road ability

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do.

There will not be a large market for the cx-50. If they replace the cx-5 with the cx-50, customers will move to other brands. Some may stay with Mazda but more than likely move to a completely different model away from the cX-50.

I myself, would move to a Ford Maverick or any new small truck that is hybrid electric/gas for main vehicle.

And if the customer really wanted these CX-50, they would be sold out instead of sitting on the lot. Ask someone how hard it has been over the past year to find the new ford bronco.

No, these will not increase exponentially on sales.

I would greatly appreciate more towing capacity, and don't want a truck as a daily driver.

The lower stance of the CX-50 is the biggest turn off for me. I'm hoping the CX-70 won't be so low, and won't bee too much bigger.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

I would greatly appreciate more towing capacity, and don't want a truck as a daily driver.

The lower stance of the CX-50 is the biggest turn off for me. I'm hoping the CX-70 won't be so low, and won't bee too much bigger.

Yes, a CX-70 with higher tow capability, higher ground clearance, and maybe an inline 5 engine or a hybrid gas/electro V6 engine to give it more power and still decent mpg would be great.
Nice to dream.

 

[Freedom55]

In 2021 both in the US and in Canada, the CX-5 ranked 4th in sales behind RAV4, CRV and Rogue, an enviable position considering the vast offering in that market. Let's see what Mazda will decide in the future... When they'll announce the CX-5 3rd gen, we should know in which countries it will be sold. Anything is possible but I doubt the 3rd gen will ever come here in North America. In the meantime, the CX-5 will probably soldier on until the next redesign but then again, Mazda can decide to pull the plug early like they did for the CX-3. Very interesting situation to follow

 

[asatar22]

In 2021 both in the US and in Canada, the CX-5 ranked 4th in sales behind RAV4, CRV and Rogue, an enviable position considering the vast offering in that market. Let's see what Mazda will decide in the future... When they'll announce the CX-5 3rd gen, we should know in which countries it will be sold. Anything is possible but I doubt the 3rd gen will ever come here in North America. In the meantime, the CX-5 will probably soldier on until the next redesign but then again, Mazda can decide to pull the plug early like they did for the CX-3. Very interesting situation to follow

I don't think they will ever pull the plug on their best seller unless they have a better successor introduced, the is a very simple business decision. The 3 is a different story, it was not their best seller.

 

[chickdr]

I apologize as didn't mean to offend. I reworded my previous post to state fact rather than opinion.

Wow. This kind of stuff has really gotten out of hand. Why should you have to apologize for what you said? Not offensive at all....

 

[Jack Rabbit]

Wow. This kind of stuff has really gotten out of hand. Why should you have to apologize for what you said? Not offensive at all....

Lol. Yep. Brave new world. At this point, gotta adjust and roll with the current.

 

[sm1ke]

Wow. This kind of stuff has really gotten out of hand. Why should you have to apologize for what you said? Not offensive at all....

Just trying to facilitate a more inclusive community. I know the comments were not meant to offend, but they can be interpreted as such, and I wanted to avoid that, that's all. This is a public forum that is wide open to anyone on the Internet, after all. I didn't ask for an apology, or ask that the post be edited, but Jack did that on his own (and I appreciate that, Jack).

If you have concerns regarding the moderation, please feel free to contact the site admin, Antoine, with your criticisms/suggestions via PM.

I'll take your criticism and try to use it constructively to improve my own moderation, but if Antoine decides that some changes need to be made, he will talk to me and we will figure something out. Thanks

 

[181962]

For example, to say women in general don't drive pickup trucks is not an offensive statement. Various sources put the female market at between 10-15% of sales, albeit creeping up in recent years. Consequently, to say that makers market to men is accurate. I can't recall ever seeing an ad for a pickup truck with a female driver.

If you want to make a blanket statement that "women don't buy pickups" that would be clearly false. If you said that's because they cannot handle such a vehicle there's 10-15% of buyers who could justifiably take offense.

If you said prevailing cultural norms, influenced by marketing, say a woman driving a pickup truck is unfeminine, I would say that is accurate. If you made the blanket statement, "A woman truck driver is not feminine," that would be pretty stupid and justifiably a cause for offense taken among some, maybe not others. That's the thing about cultural norms. When getting into the particulars of individual human beings, face to face, prevailing norms don't define them. Everybody gets to decide for themselves who they are and what they want.

 

[chickdr]

For example, to say women in general don't drive pickup trucks is not an offensive statement. Various sources put the female market at between 10-15% of sales, albeit creeping up in recent years. Consequently, to say that makers market to men is accurate. I can't recall ever seeing an ad for a pickup truck with a female driver.

If you want to make a blanket statement that "women don't buy pickups" that would be clearly false. If you said that's because they cannot handle such a vehicle there's 10-15% of buyers who could justifiably take offense.

If you said prevailing cultural norms, influenced by marketing, say a woman driving a pickup truck is unfeminine, I would say that is accurate. If you made the blanket statement, "A woman truck driver is not feminine," that would be pretty stupid and justifiably a cause for offense taken among some, maybe not others. That's the thing about cultural norms. When getting into the particulars of individual human beings, face to face, prevailing norms don't define them. Everybody gets to decide for themselves who they are and what they want.

That is whats funny to me about the whole thing. Not trying to tough on sm1ke, but lets look at the statement which was called out:

"Ladies want something cute like a new Toyota RAV4, Ford bronco or Jeep, etc.

Men, either prefer sporty/racy or rugged looking. Although not a muscle car, the CX-5 fits sporty(looks/drive) for me with the ability to off-road. For rugged looking, a truck will do."

Is this offensive to anyone? Should it be? Why isn't Jack Rabbit allowed to post his opinion on the subject without getting chastised? I guess he could have said "ladies "typically" want something cute", but again, should he have to be worried about posting what he did originally?

I guess at 53 I am considered out of touch, but can't we just allow free speech without all the regulations? I mean, this is a forum, right? Isn't is designed for us to have these types of discussions? It sure would be boring if everyone felt the same way about all topics.

I get into arguments all the time with another member on the CX-5 board on mazdaforum.com. We coexist just fine. I don't care for some of his personal attacks, but it is just the way he is.