CX-50 Dimensional Specs

1

181962

The following link was posted on Reddit:


I was about to do a comparison to CX-5 but was stopped in my tracks at the first two items: Front and rear head room: 34". That cannot possibly be right, 5" - 6" less than CX-5, which casts into question the other dimensions. A high percentage of drivers would be banging their head on the headliner. I doubt anybody anywhere builds a car to those 34" dimensions.

Anyway, if the other dimensions happen to be right, a big "if", most of the CX-50 interior specs are slightly smaller than CX-5, some a tad larger like front leg room. Of particular interest to many the second-row-down cargo capacity is slightly smaller.

CX-50 overall length is quoted as 6" longer than CX-50. Where did those inches go? If these specs are correct it would be mostly into the engine compartment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The head room is odd, as overall height is 1.4” smaller, ground clearance is 1.1” taller squeezing the CX-50 by 2.5”

Perhaps the panoramic roof is taking up another 2-3”?

It’s a good question. I wonder for anyone who sat in the CX-50 at one of their resort tours can comment on headroom.

Perhaps seats are designed lower to account for higher clearance
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 4453D133-E3F6-47CE-B91D-1971E5F4F652.jpeg
    4453D133-E3F6-47CE-B91D-1971E5F4F652.jpeg
    56.4 KB · Views: 239
  • C29BB279-6ED5-4979-A279-EB47B03053BA.jpeg
    C29BB279-6ED5-4979-A279-EB47B03053BA.jpeg
    159.7 KB · Views: 241
  • B8D03269-9F8C-40B7-B1B2-A46B48F13397.png
    B8D03269-9F8C-40B7-B1B2-A46B48F13397.png
    86.9 KB · Views: 235
Last edited:
The 34" is clearly wrong. Surely it will come in somewhere around 40". The question is whether the other interior dimensions are correct. TBD
 
Dave looks more reclined and more like a car driving position rather than more vertical.
 
I though overall width was supposed to be more than the current CX-9?
Those stats show it slightly wider, and significantly longer. On the outside. Apparently that doesn't translate to shoulder room, if the linked stats are to be believed.
 
I though overall width was supposed to be more than the current CX-9?

Those fender flares may push it to technically wider. IIRC mirrors are not typically included in width measurements but fenders are.
 
Those stats show it slightly wider, and significantly longer. On the outside. Apparently that doesn't translate to shoulder room, if the linked stats are to be believed.
I'd guess the OP link dimensions that go out to a decimal position are accurate, as are the weights. Those specs are just to specific to be pulled out of the air. The numbers rounded to the inch are probably guesses, head room a very bad guess.

If my conjecture is correct, the luggage / cargo capacity for CX-50 is 31.4 / 56.3 vs. 30.9 / 59.6 for CX-5. If this is true, some prospective buyers expecting that 6" of additional body length going into cargo capacity will be disappointed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's all hope that the specs from AutoBlog is wrong as even the headroom at 34" must be incorrect. Mazda dealers should be receiving official specs this week or soon.
 
Honestly, I bet the specs are right. This is slightly bigger than a CX-30 and smaller than a CX-5 in some ways.

Again, that tells me something about the future of the CX-5 and the CX-70. The CX-5 is now in the same position as the CX-7 was when the CX-5 came out.

I don't think of the CX-50 as a luxury replacement for the CX-5. That will be the CX-70. The CX-50 is a new entry level vehicle that will fit between the CX-30 and the CX-70.
 
If my conjecture is correct, the luggage / cargo capacity for CX-50 is 31.4 / 56.3 vs. 30.9 / 59.6 for CX-5. If this is true, some prospective buyers expecting that 6" of additional body length going into cargo capacity will be disappointed.

I agree. Was hoping for more cargo room than the CX-5. Will wait until Mazda releases the official numbers. Maybe CX-70 will be that sweet spot.
 
Honestly, I bet the specs are right. This is slightly bigger than a CX-30 and smaller than a CX-5 in some ways.

Again, that tells me something about the future of the CX-5 and the CX-70. The CX-5 is now in the same position as the CX-7 was when the CX-5 came out.

I don't think of the CX-50 as a luxury replacement for the CX-5. That will be the CX-70. The CX-50 is a new entry level vehicle that will fit between the CX-30 and the CX-70.
That would be consistent with the fact that its on the same platform as the CX-30 and with Mazda's alleged plans to go luxury brand.

I hope the CX-70 isn't as big as a CX-9 though. Hopefully just a little bigger than the CX-5/CX-50.
 
That would be consistent with the fact that its on the same platform as the CX-30 and with Mazda's alleged plans to go luxury brand.

I hope the CX-70 isn't as big as a CX-9 though. Hopefully just a little bigger than the CX-5/CX-50.

The one thing my dealer has stated is that the new CX-90 will be bigger than my CX-9. Closer in size to the Telluride. But hopefully he was only talking about the inside!
 
I'd guess the OP link dimensions that go out to a decimal position are accurate, as are the weights. Those specs are just to specific to be pulled out of the air. The numbers rounded to the inch are probably guesses, head room a very bad guess.

If my conjecture is correct, the luggage / cargo capacity for CX-50 is 31.4 / 56.3 vs. 30.9 / 59.6 for CX-5. If this is true, some prospective buyers expecting that 6" of additional body length going into cargo capacity will be disappointed.

The roof line is supposed to be lowered. They say so its easier to access roof rails equipment, but I bet it also looks better. A side effect of this could be a lower absolute cargo capacity on paper.

But that may not matter to folks who don't pack their cargo all the way to the headliner. A longer cargo area may actually be more useful, even if absolute capacity is less. On the other hand, it may matter if you regularly need to carry tall objects that can't lie down.

The CX-5 has often had slightly lower listed cargo capacity than its more boxy competitors because of the rounded off rear roof line. Looks worse on paper but in practice that's an area that doesn't see much use for most people. And it makes a better looking vehicle.
 
But that may not matter to folks who don't pack their cargo all the way to the headliner. A longer cargo area may actually be more useful, even if absolute capacity is less. On the other hand, it may matter if you regularly need to carry tall objects that can't lie down.
That's a valid observation. However, if one's practice is to load up the vehicle while not blocking the view out the rear window, the higher floor / lower roof likely neutralizes whatever you get from the additional 6" in body length vs. CX-5.

In the final analysis, CX-50 is not a step up in size relative to CX-5. It sure looks like an eventual CX-5 replacement (in the US anyway) once they get production up to speed, just as CX-3 was dropped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The head room is odd, as overall height is 1.4” smaller, ground clearance is 1.1” taller squeezing the CX-50 by 2.5”

Perhaps the panoramic roof is taking up another 2-3”?

It’s a good question. I wonder for anyone who sat in the CX-50 at one of their resort tours can comment on headroom.

Perhaps seats are designed lower to account for higher clearance
I toured the CX-50 recently in Snoqualmie, WA.

I am a 6ft tall female, 220lbs (give or take) and had no issues with the headroom in the front or rear seats. (Mind you, in the attached picture the seats hadn’t even been adjusted to my suitable driver’s position yet. And I still had headroom that far forward.) Rear headroom may be an issue with those over 6 ft 3 inches. Part of it may be how the seats are positioned. I naturally seat mine lower as I have long legs; but the picture my friend took of me in the driver’s side, was with the seat set to a little higher than the “factory” position. (height-wise). Unfortunately, like the CX-30, this vehicle definitely could present a challenge for those over 6 ft 3 without the seats lowered a bit. I absolutely fell in love with the vehicle myself. I have no issues with my 6ft self. Hope this was helpful. - Shanele
 

Attachments

  • 044BE3FC-D4EC-42ED-A7CF-C288701D73DD.jpeg
    044BE3FC-D4EC-42ED-A7CF-C288701D73DD.jpeg
    84.3 KB · Views: 653
  • 1131B8DB-572D-4C30-BA38-B849D9BB1910.jpeg
    1131B8DB-572D-4C30-BA38-B849D9BB1910.jpeg
    107.1 KB · Views: 376
  • 6DA697B7-A59D-4343-9C33-2541004EA755.jpeg
    6DA697B7-A59D-4343-9C33-2541004EA755.jpeg
    82.7 KB · Views: 414
  • 728AD1A4-930D-4566-B79F-C518A9A99C26.jpeg
    728AD1A4-930D-4566-B79F-C518A9A99C26.jpeg
    66.8 KB · Views: 391
  • CFF41DB5-0372-442A-B548-651428AA67F7.jpeg
    CFF41DB5-0372-442A-B548-651428AA67F7.jpeg
    88.9 KB · Views: 889

Latest posts

Back