Mazda CX-50 announced

My numbers are off, and only for illustration purposes, but probably only 20 of buyer put reliability at the top of their priority list. Almost any of the top 5 will do for most.

For example, if the CX-5, or whichever Mazda you are driving, still was the best (for you) in terms of driving dynamics, comfort, style, interior refinement, BUT, ranked 5th in reliability and the CRV was ranked 1st, I'm guessing that many, if not most of you would still be driving the Mazda.
 
I'm familiar with this ranking over many years. What often happens is makers with few or no new releases or generations or drive trains in a particular year rise in the rankings; those with several drop. Several of the luxury marques seem to languish at the bottom year after year; mo' gismos, mo' bleeding edge tech, mo' trouble.
The most trouble when vehicles undergo a major upgrade is often with German and US auto manufacturers. CR had an issue about this very subject. You can see some cars (like Corvettes) never improve that much in the reliability sector. Toyota/Lexus very often get it right on the first try. Our 2006 Lexus RX400h was purchased new in 2005. It is loaded with high-tech and yet nothing has ever failed in the 16+ years we have owned it. My First generation 2014 Mazda 3S with 2.5L has the tech package and has been stellar as far as reliability goes.
 
Ummm what is with the headlight surround falling off?!!? I know it's an accessory, but come on.


1639140258718.png
 
I may be remembering this wrong, but wasn't the original CX-5 built on the Mazda 3 platform?

You are remembering it wrong.
CX-5 was a completely new platform.
Based on Minagi of Kodo design, representing the Soul of Motion The Evolution of KODO Design Through Concept Cars | Inside Mazda

It's unfortunate that there's a trend of moving away from the Soul of Motion towards the Soul of Mud/Offroad. If I wanted offroad I would get Subaru.
 
It's unfortunate that there's a trend of moving away from the Soul of Motion towards the Soul of Mud/Offroad. If I wanted offroad I would get Subaru.
I do not agree at all. Let's just say Mazda is going towards soul of off-road like you said, but this is only 1 of out the entire line up. Also to your Subaru statement. Exactly why Mazda made this move. Subaru been far dominating this category, so now if people want to go off-road, they can get Subaru... or Mazda.
 
You are remembering it wrong.
CX-5 was a completely new platform.
Based on Minagi of Kodo design, representing the Soul of Motion The Evolution of KODO Design Through Concept Cars | Inside Mazda

It's unfortunate that there's a trend of moving away from the Soul of Motion towards the Soul of Mud/Offroad. If I wanted offroad I would get Subaru.

Actually, this is what I remembered:


Form this "It shares its platform with the Mazda3 and Mazda6,[5] and is also the first vehicle featuring the company's full suite of Skyactiv technologies, using a rigid, lightweight platform combined with a series of engines and transmissions to reduce emissions and fuel consumption. Skyactiv engines and transmissions were first featured in the 2012 Mazda3.[6]"
 
Actually, this is what I remembered:

Form this "It shares its platform with the Mazda3 and Mazda6,[5]

Wikipedia interpreted [5] in a misleading way. If you click this [5] you see that it says that the next gen 3 and 6 are built on CX-5. It's the opposite of "original CX-5 built on the Mazda 3 platform". Someone needs to update that wikipedia article.

Vijayenthiran, Viknesh (15 December 2011). "Mazda CX-5 Platform To Spawn Next-Gen Mazda6 And Mazda3". MotorAuthority. High Gear Media. Retrieved 13 January 2014.
 
I do not agree at all. Let's just say Mazda is going towards soul of off-road like you said, but this is only 1 of out the entire line up.

regarding CX-50 being "only one" rugged one -- doesn't CX-30 look more rugged vs CX-3?
It definitely does to me, so I suspect and afraid that's the trend.
Maybe some kind of CX-6 is going to be their lux SUV while 3/5 are going to compete with subarus, time will tell

1639464154945.png
 
To me, the CX-50 is a more obvious attempt at pulling customers who shop for the RAV4/Forester/CR-V/Rogue/Cherokee for their looks or purported offroad capability.

I think the CX-50 is aimed toward buyers who aren't a fan of the sleeker, softer looks of the CX-5, which IMO attempts to pull customers who shop for the Escape, Sportage, and Tucson. And with Mazda keeping the CX-5 around and giving it the body-coloured or gloss black trim instead of the textured black plastic it used to have, they're aiming a little more towards the "luxury crossover look", i.e. the Stelvio, RDX, GV70, XC60 etc.
 
They should have option with less plastic cladding, something in line with cx5. Majority people shopping CRV's , RAV4 are looking for practicality where CX5 was falling little short. With CX50 it appeared to have addressed that issues, no need to make it look offroady since 95% of time people are driving on paved roads per Mazda.
 
...no need to make it look offroady since 95% of time people are driving on paved roads per Mazda.
Without commenting on whether CX-50 looks more rugged, it doesn't matter that 95% of drivers never go off road. They want to look like they do. If that were not the case a lot more minivans and a lot fewer 3-row CUVs and SUVs would be so sold.
 
My numbers are off, and only for illustration purposes, but probably only 20 of buyer put reliability at the top of their priority list. Almost any of the top 5 will do for most.

For example, if the CX-5, or whichever Mazda you are driving, still was the best (for you) in terms of driving dynamics, comfort, style, interior refinement, BUT, ranked 5th in reliability and the CRV wasfranked 1st, I'm guessing that many, if not most of you would still be driving the Mazda.
It shouldn't be about ranking five vehicles 1 through 5 across various features and functions and adding up points. It should be about how big the spread happens to be. As someone who puts reliability at the top of the priority list, if the #5 vehicle is a 3 out of 5 or worse it's likely off the list altogether. If it's 4 out 5 it is still in contention with attention turned to relative value in another areas.

If the #1 vehicle is 0.5 seconds faster 0-60 than the #5 vehicle, how much value would I place on that? Next to none since I'm not drag racing. I'd prefer the slower one if the faster one was howling to beat the band going up the entrance ramp. 5 feet shorter in a 60-0 panic stop? Meh. I can't remember the last time I had to slam the brakes at that speed. What would it be at 30 or 40 mph? A foot or two. You could go a lifetime before that makes any difference.

Everybody has their own priorities but ranking 1 to 5 is not the way to get to an answer.
 
Does anyone have information on the length and height of the CX-50 compared to the CX-5 and CX-9? I’ve heard that the CX-50 and CX-5 are about the same length, but the photos I’ve seen make the new model look much longer.
 
Does anyone have information on the length and height of the CX-50 compared to the CX-5 and CX-9? I’ve heard that the CX-50 and CX-5 are about the same length, but the photos I’ve seen make the new model look much longer.

I don't think any actual dimensions or specs are available yet, but one thing that all of the articles and reports agree on is that it will be slightly longer than the CX-5, which is about 179". I'd guess that the CX-50 will be around 185" in total length.
 
Looks better with the smaller wheels and no bumper garnish
 
Back