Official 2026 Mazda CX-5 Pics and Details Released

[zx10guy]

Yes, faster than normal mode. The vehicle weighs a few hundred pounds more than the last gen since it's larger so a slower 0-60 speed is to be excepted and should be accepted. Comparing the last gen to the new gen is like comparing apples to oranges. Different animal. Different design. But it's still a Mazda. Therefore, it should be a well built, reliable vehicle. Reviewers say that it's quieter in the cabin than the Gen 2. There's a plus for us daily drivers and the added interior space is a huge bonus. The ride quality is supposed to be better mannered so that huge for me because our '24 Select has a choppy ride compared to my well mannered '19 CRV EX. Lots of grumbling about the disappearance of touch controls but we live in a computerized world and that's where vehicle technology has gone. We do everything by touching a screen on our cellphones. Is there anyone here grumbling about that convenience? I for one support the new Gen. It has two improvements that I've been waiting for in a CX-5 and it still offers a NA/auto trans drivetrain. How any reliable auto makers can say that?

Oh, and Happy Easter!

The problem is how many of the functions we have gotten used to where it's just a physical button to configure (many times by touch without looking) have now been pushed to a screen where you have to look at where your finger is hitting the screen and some times requires going into sub menus to get to it.

Then there's the cost factor. While overall, it most probably saves the manufacturer money to make everything accessed via a touch screen infotainment system, it will cost us as the owners more money to repair things. If the infotainment system has a catastrophic failure, you're now not only affecting media/music/etc, but basic car functions that will no longer be accessible. Estimates I've seen to replace these screens have been around $7k. That's a heck of lot more money than having to replace a smart phone even a flag ship one. Also, even the best manufacturers that produce fairly good software will have glitches that can affect some or all of the infotainment system functions. Car manufacturers are still way behind in being actual software development houses. That's not really the case with smart phone manufacturers.

 

[N7turbo]

That's why the core system is made by Google but with Mazda's custom UI.

 

[zx10guy]

Interesting discussion with what Sport mode delivers. I have two cars other than my CX-5 that has a Sport function. The Toyota C-HR that the CX-5 replaces and my 2013 BMW 135i. On the C-HR forums everyone kept claiming that the Sport mode provided better acceleration. I've tried it and the only thing I could tell is Sport mode made the responsive of the throttle more reactive, shifting more aggressive (as much as you can make a CVT), and the steering seemed to tighten up a bit. I found a video where someone did a 0-60 run in Sport mode and it didn't change the time one bit from Normal. The C-HR was a great handling car. Too bad Toyota made some dumb decisions with that platform and shoved an engine in it that can't get out of its own way. You all think the CX-5 is slow. The C-HR weighs a couple to a few hundred pounds less than the CX-5. But the 144 HP 2.0 liter engine can't motivate that car to move. When I had to make passes I had plan them well in advance. The CX-5 NA is a hot rod compared to that car.

Now with my 135i, I haven't dug too much into how Sport mode affects the performance of the car. Putting the engine in Sport mode no question makes the throttle sensitive and very responsive. I never bothered checking 0-60 times with and without. Doesn't really concern me. But I can see how boost is applied can be different between normal and Sport could be the case here. Complicating matters is the DCT in this car also as a Sport mode too. Putting the trans into Sport mode makes the trans hold gear at much higher RPMs. And to muddy the waters more, I have a Dinan Stage 2 tune applied to the DME.

 

[N7turbo]

BMW is much more likely to actually program things into Sport mode, like changes to damper valving, boost PSI, etc.

Mazda's is only transmission logic.

 

[zx10guy]

That's why the core system is made by Google but with Mazda's custom UI.

Even with Google doing the core software. Some reviewers have identified bugs in the implementation during their reviews. While I would trust Google more than any of the car manufacturers, they're still relatively new in developing software for automotive applications.

 

[Point37]

The problem is how many of the functions we have gotten used to where it's just a physical button to configure (many times by touch without looking) have now been pushed to a screen where you have to look at where your finger is hitting the screen and some times requires going into sub menus to get to it.

Then there's the cost factor. While overall, it most probably saves the manufacturer money to make everything accessed via a touch screen infotainment system, it will cost us as the owners more money to repair things. If the infotainment system has a catastrophic failure, you're now not only affecting media/music/etc, but basic car functions that will no longer be accessible. Estimates I've seen to replace these screens have been around $7k. That's a heck of lot more money than having to replace a smart phone even a flag ship one. Also, even the best manufacturers that produce fairly good software will have glitches that can affect some or all of the infotainment system functions. Car manufacturers are still way behind in being actual software development houses. That's not really the case with smart phone manufacturers.

^^^this is exactly how i feel...i will not buy something with a large infotainment screen that has too many basic functions integrated...this is something that will cause you to have to return to the dealer when it fails or needs to be updated costing too much and will probably get charged a lot in labor for a quick update and even more for a quick plug and play replacement...hard pass

 

[BoomerZoomr]

I don’t fiddle with my phone while driving, and I wouldn’t fiddle with an infotainment screen while driving. Hopefully I won’t have to go to one of these "screen only" cars.
In fact, I think certain functions on my pre-'26 Mazda screens can’t be modified unless the car is parked. I am surprised in today’s litigious world that car manufacturers are doing this.

 

[MrMcE]

They're literally just jumping the shark. The decision tree to them isn't "physical buttons versus touchscreen buttons", they think it's "physical buttons versus voice controls/no buttons at all".
Problem is that the voice command aspect is still unrefined and even if it worked perfectly, it still needs time to be adopted and some people may still never want to use that. In the meantime, they're saving a ton of money going with screens and some bean counters figured the cars will still sell adequately despite the complaints.... until they don't.

 

[Snake]

The problem is how many of the functions we have gotten used to where it's just a physical button to configure (many times by touch without looking) have now been pushed to a screen where you have to look at where your finger is hitting the screen and some times requires going into sub menus to get to it.

Then there's the cost factor. While overall, it most probably saves the manufacturer money to make everything accessed via a touch screen infotainment system, it will cost us as the owners more money to repair things. If the infotainment system has a catastrophic failure, you're now not only affecting media/music/etc, but basic car functions that will no longer be accessible. Estimates I've seen to replace these screens have been around $7k. That's a heck of lot more money than having to replace a smart phone even a flag ship one. Also, even the best manufacturers that produce fairly good software will have glitches that can affect some or all of the infotainment system functions. Car manufacturers are still way behind in being actual software development houses. That's not really the case with smart phone manufacturers.

I totally agree. In fact I'm one of those who think humanity would be better off without the computer age and most of the industrial age.

But that's not the direction we are going in. I'm an early Gen Xer. I'm stuck in the middle of non-computerized and computerized. And I'm still trying to adapt after nearly a lifetime o dealing with it.

I think the Millennials and Gen Zers are gonna love the new CX-5 because they live through their handheld devices. Everything for everything all contained in one place.

 

[paris1]

I totally agree. In fact I'm one of those who think humanity would be better off without the computer age and most of the industrial age.

But that's not the direction we are going in. I'm an early Gen Xer. I'm stuck in the middle of non-computerized and computerized. And I'm still trying to adapt after nearly a lifetime o dealing with it.

I think the Millennials and Gen Zers are gonna love the new CX-5 because they live through their handheld devices. Everything for everything all contained in one place.

Hate to tell you Snake, but the crossover era from the non-computer to the computer age occurred during the Boomer era. I know, because I lived through it. My brother was pre-boom (born 1944) and I was early boom (1948). He never made the transition and I struggled with it, but finally cleared the hurdle in the late eighties/early nineties. Gen X-ers have no excuse for never having adapted other than just plain not wanting to.

 

[N7turbo]

I consider it the time of when the personal computer became a household commodity and really important for getting things done, which was around 1990-onward, especially with the advent of the worldwide web.

 

[Snake]

Hate to tell you Snake, but the crossover era from the non-computer to the computer age occurred during the Boomer era. I know, because I lived through it. My brother was pre-boom (born 1944) and I was early boom (1948). He never made the transition and I struggled with it, but finally cleared the hurdle in the late eighties/early nineties. Gen X-ers have no excuse for never having adapted other than just plain not wanting to.

Cross over, more like beginning, yes. But in every household and in every hand, not even close.

My not wanting it isn't an excuse, it's a legit reason. Computers have not made the world a better place. They have caused as many problems as improvements. They've made us too busy, too capable and studies have shown that stress caused by the ever growing "more, more and faster", is taking it's toll on our minds and sanity.

 

[BoomerZoomr]

The development of the transistor in 1947 supposedly kicked off the Information Age. Computing hardware started in 1960, and is marked by the conversion from vacuum tube to solid-state devices. However, I would say the "computer age" began when I got a Commodore 64 home computer in the 1980s … way past the Boomer era.

 

[sm1ke]

Very interesting conversation, but it deserves it's own thread instead of cluttering up this one. Please feel free to create a new thread in the Lounge for further discussions. In the meantime, let's circle back to the thread topic.

 

[Snake]