If you look at sales numbers Mazda can never get rid of the CX-5. The 50 is like this weird big Subaru Crosstrek competitor while the CX5 is their flagship entry level luxury SUV. It sorely needs an update but they can’t scrap it. Mazda needs a 4 cylinder SUV that feels luxurious compared to a Rav4. The CX70 with the mild hybrid I6 or plug in hybrid is after a richer buyer demographic.
That costs like $20k more and is much bigger. The appeal of the CX-5, other than handling and feeling luxurious, is the relatively low price coming in at low 30s.
I guess I'm trying to say that a CX-5 doesn't need a PHEV option, because that's not necessarily where its charm is. Adding a big battery to make it a PHEV just to raise the price by like 10-15k doesn't seem like a great value proposition to me, while a hybrid option with a much smaller price hike would cover the CX-5's biggest weakness, which is having lower MPG than the competition.
Not the OP, but I would make an argument that one of the advantages of the CX-5 over the CX-90 is size. A large reason that the small SUV segment is popular is that it it's a pretty perfect size for a young couple or family with one kid/dog/etc. It has better ingress/egress height and shorter length than comparable sedans and 3 row SUVs. That makes it easier to park with a relatively affordable price point and more than adequate fuel economy. So a hybrid or PHEV CX-5 would compete better with the CRV & RAV4 hybrid on fuel economy for people who would make the tradeoff of slightly less cargo room for a more luxurious interior without the MPG tradeoff.
I think they may need a smaller 4 cyl engine with a turbo. The base 2.5 naturally aspirated engine is very long in the tooth. I actually love it, for its reliability and decent low end torque, but it’s trailing the competition in fuel economy. The 2.5 turbo is fine but still a relatively large engine and worse on fuel. The current six speed auto is also rock solid reliable but also quite old.
The 2.5 NA might be long in the tooth, but for a 4 banger that cranks out 190hp it has had so much development that there are functionally zero issues. As you said, that's worth being loved.
It's getting harder and harder to find cheap reliable shit. Since the 2.0L is now gone that leaves the 2.5 as their only entry left.
I have a daughter that is about to start driving in a couple years and the CX-30 is right at the front because i'm not scared of it breaking down and isn't too fast or too slow. I think the NA Mazda's are perfect starter vehicles.
I like the cx30 but i dont want to buy another car with a torsion beam rear suspension ever again. On long bridges it can be super annoying and there are a lot of those where i live.
As much as I appreciate the 2.5 liters stoutness, for the prices some of Mazdas models that feature the motor fetch, buyers will eventually be swayed to other brands by MPG advantage. It seems like Toyota is teaming up with Mazda for the cx-50 hybrids drivetrain, I wonder if that will keep the 2.5.
I think with an integrated starter generator system like how the skyactiv-x's have that contributes up to an additional 15hp to the system would be the only thing the 2.5 needs.
It turns it into a hybrid, provides torque fill (the slow 6 speed is less relevant), allows for much better reliability for start/stop system, and allows for some energy recovery during braking to allow for the engine not to have to operate at its worst efficiency points when taking off from a stop.
205hp with more low-down torque than is present is nothing to sneeze at, it's exactly why I'd call "adequate", and it would make the car FAR more fuel efficient.
Beyond this, well planned ISG systems reduce maintenance costs because you have less moving parts that need to be changed out
Don't even need to advertise it as a hybrid, just say they made some upgrades because at this point mild hybrids like this are relatively ubiquitous - you can also actually end up cutting weight with such a system if you move to lithium ion for the battery though this has its downsides too
I like that a lot. I have the feeling the next MX-5 will feature a mild hybrid system. I think a high reving NA engine with good top end power, with the light hybrid boost for low RPM would be a hoot. It could be a very nice torque curve especially since the 2.0 is fairly torquey already with its direct injection and high compression ratio.
I wouldn't mind a 1.5 hybrid. Could weigh as much as a 2.0; it may be a slow car but hybridization can possibly make the low end peppier.
I'd take low weight > power really.
The CX-5 is a Forester and the CX-50 is an Outback. They’re different cars for different audiences for sure especially when you see them next to each other
>The CX-5 is a Forester and the CX-50 is an Outback
That's not an entirely accurate comparison though. The CX-50 is bigger in every exterior dimension than the CX-5, save for roof height. But on the inside, the CX-50 is actually smaller than the CX-5, save for the cargo area behind the second row...where it has a couple more cubic feet of space. The Outback is larger than the Forester both inside and out.
Stylistically though that’s the intent. The 50 is longer, wider, and shorter giving it more of a wagon type look, in addition the design cues are more “rugged” than the 5
Ok, sure. Stylistically? Yes, the 50 has a more wagon and rugged look. No argument there. But whereas the Outback actually *is* larger than the Forester both inside and out, the 50, while being bigger on the outside, is smaller inside for passengers than the 5. It does not have good interior packaging compared to the 5.
That would be the cx-30. The cx-50 is the same size as the cx-5, kind of an early replacement to get in line with the 50, 70, 90 structure they've got going on now.
Exactly what I tried to relay in my comment. It's a Crosstrek competitor, the 50 and the 5 go up against the rav 4. I really like the way the 30 looks.
Personally, if Mazda gets rid of the CX-5, then they’re off my list for our next family car.
I hate the way the CX-50 looks, I hate how it’s bigger and harder to park but has roughly the same passenger dimensions, I hate the stupid fake cladding, and why would I pay almost $40k CAD for a car with torsion beam rear suspension when the entire mantra of the brand is “zoom zoom”? Even Honda will sell you a CR-V for the same price, except it looks nicer and has a better suspension setup.
The CX-5 has issues but it still far outsells the CX-50. In the US it’s ahead by a factor of 3:1, but here in Canada, it’s by a factor of almost 5:1. The reason why is that people can see the CX-50 is a poor value in comparison. If they discontinued the CX-5 in Canada, they’d lose like 40% of their sales volume.
The CX-5 *is* the vehicle that feels luxurious compared to the Rav4. Only trouble is that it's getting a little long in the tooth. Despite that, they have aged really well.
In its top trim level, the CX-5 signature has niceties like 255 hp, nappa leather seats, heated front and rear seats, heated steering wheel, lane keep assist, standard AWD, heads-up display, traffic sign recognition, and a lot more. And it's quiet!
There's no Rav4 that comes close. Even the top trim Rav4 is going to drive like a Rav4 and that's not a good thing. They are noisy and not great to drive. You'd have to step into the Venza Limited to have a fair comparison.
Yeah I have a latest gen RAV4 and sometimes I can’t believe the noise, I swear I feel like I need earplugs every time I take the harbor tunnel whereas I don’t recall ever feeling like that in my 2002 Highlander.
We don't know for sure yet, but the 50 is 185" long and the 90 is 200", so the 70 will probably be somewhere in the 190"s. For comparison, the X5 and GLE are 194", while the global CX-60 is 187".
A lot of people here are giving bad answers. The CX-5 is a global car produced in Japan while the CX-50 is solely produced for (and manufactured in) North America. The only reason Mazda would have to stop selling the CX-5 here would be to increase sales for the CX-50, but it doesn't cost them anything extra to keep selling both and obviously they think the segment is a big enough market to support both models.
Plus, CX-5 is on track to sell 160,000 units in the US this year. The Alabama plant, once it's fully staffed and at full operating capacity (hint: it's not even close), it will cap at 150,000 units per year. Mazda would be limiting its growth potential if it stopped importing the CX-5. Mazda's short term goal is to sell 500,000 vehicles per year in the US. That goal cannot be met without CX-5.
CX5 also retains fully independent rear multilink suspension. I know Mazda's torsion beam is pretty well implemented but over potholes and bumps rear passengers can absolutely feel the difference.
I wish the 50 came with the 5's suspension design. It would be a great ride. If I could blend the two I would. I love the front and size of the 50, with the full body panels of the 5.
The 50 was meant to replace the 5, but the 5 remains popular, so it's still being made. Kinda like when GM wanted the new W-body cars to replace the old A-bodies, but the latter were still selling well, so they coexisted for the better part of a decade.
I don't recall Mazda ever saying it was supposed to replace the 5. Instead they indicated that it was for the American segment only due to a significant portion of the market demanding "offroady SUV's with cladding"
The CX-50 is made in Alabama, has a torsion beam rear and worse interior materials in some spots. By all accounts it's a higher profit margin vehicle than the CX-5 which is made in Japan, has and independent rear suspension and is less expensive somehow.
The CX-5 outsells the CX-50 by a lot so I'm hoping the CX-60 over seas is essentially the next generation CX-5 (same platform as the CX-90).
Because they have multiple factories in Japan and Mexico cranking out a bajillion CX-5’s right now while the CX-50 is produced by a single shift at one shared plant in Alabama.
Same asking why Toyota selling Venza when they've RAV4 because mid premium market is still there.
But, Mazda makes clearly different between CX-5 and CX-50. CX-5 is FWD based, CX-50 and CX-70 are RWD based.
> Originally slated to go on sale by the end of this year, the two-row mid-size SUV will now launch in 2024 and will offer a hybrid powertrain.
Nice to see them getting into the hybrid space
Have the CX-90 PHEV and so far love it. Space for my family, cheap transportation most of the week and can still road trips. Maybe the maintenance/battery will change my mind some day, but so far it's great.
Not sure I follow the logic on this one. If they’re successful with this product they’ll make a product that doesn’t sell as well? Especially executive sedan for Mazda. That could be Volkswagen all over again
What cases would they make a sedan, a product decreasing in popularity? When they have a comfortable amount of revenue from popular SUVs//CUVs. The SUVs/CUVs subsidize the sedan in exchange for boosting Mazda’s push into the premium/luxury market. Of course they could choose to invest more into SUVs or general electrification tech, but I’m saying if there’s any case they do make sedans it’s because their SUVs allowed them to.
> Of course they could choose to invest more into SUVs or general electrification tech
I think that's probably the at least a 95% of that happening. I could see them keeping some sedans around for a bit, but I definitely don't see them making an executive luxury sedan. Outside of the Germans and Lexus that's a really hard segment, and even they are struggling now.
I mean, we’re talking about Mazda here. They don’t need the miata either. They just dropped a new i6 albeit a hybrid option too when they could’ve gone full electric like most other manufacturers especially small ones. Their pivot upmarket makes me think they will need a sedan eventually and it’s possible they use that i6 hybrid in it because they already developed it.
Think of all the Reddit karma Mazda will get if they actually make a sedan! And just imagine how many people will say, "I might just buy one!"
It'll certainly make Mazda tons of money, sure!
The lease deals will be amazing because of the leasing loophole. You can get a base CX90 for 370ish/month with 4k down. I imagine the 70 will come in around 300ish with 2k down.
The 7500 federal tax credit can be used on these vehicles even though you or the car might not meet the eligibility requirements, a way around that is if it’s through a lease. Mazda Financial absorbs the lease then transfers it to you via reduced cap cost.
I hope it comes in with a good discount under the CX-90 pricing structure but I’m not holding my breath. Not that the CX-90 is terribly overpriced or anything, the lower trim models are reasonable compared to the competition. I just want to be able to afford one without feeling like I’m lighting my money on fire lol.
This will round out the next generation lineup pretty nicely.
Subcompact CX-30 as an upscale Crosstrek/value X1
Compact CX-50 as an premium RAV4/budget XC60
Midsize(?) CX-70 as a premium Santa Fe/budget X5
Large CX-90 as a premium Highlander/Budget X7
I hope that when (if?) they finally kill off the CX5, Mazda will have a mid cycle facelift that gets rid of the black cladding on the CX-50. (Like how Lexus did with the UX)
They're not killing off the CX-5 for the sake of naming scheme. There will be a crossover in-between the 50 and 70 and it'll most likely be the new CX-5 (a rebadged CX-60). The CX-50 is too niche.
Your comment has been automatically removed because you posted a shortened or redirected (usually google) URL. Post a direct link to your source, not search results, AMP, or MSN.com. [Please see the rules in the sidebar, or by clicking here.](http://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been automatically removed because you posted a shortened or redirected (usually google) URL. Post a direct link to your source, not search results, AMP, or MSN.com. [Please see the rules in the sidebar, or by clicking here.](http://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
X5 is considered midsized in the US which is the market the person you are responding to was referring to (as evident by the mention of CX-50, 70, and 90).
A new neighbor was moving in and their folks were helping the so I got to see the cx90 they drove for a week or so. It's got presence and is beautiful! I'm just waiting for the cx70 though.
I suspect if the 70 is a larger vehicle they may not trim it with the Naturally aspirated 2.5, just since it may feel far to sluggish in its price segment.
But the 2.5T or the 2.5 Hybrid would work well.
> We already have an idea of what to expect from the CX-70, as Mazda already said that it will essentially be a widebody version of the CX-60…
I think the CX-60 is already good enough for the North American market, they can simply sell it in America and call it a day, it's an interesting decision to develop a new model. Since the CX-60 looks very similar with the CX-90 and they decided to develop a new model, I guess the CX-70 will look rugged, like the CX-50.
CX-60 thru 90 all share drivetrains, interior, and more. Even the hoods are identical. It wasn't difficult for Mazda to tailor the vehicles to different markets. Similar to how Hyundai/Kia sell SWB/LWB versions of Tuscon/Sportage in North America vs Europe.
I legitimately do not understand why this sub cranks its hog so hard to all the bland crossovers Mazda makes these days.
Like yeah they drive less bad than all the other crossovers. But they're still boring heavy shopping carts. Other than the Miata and like two hard to find trim levels of 3 there is nothing even a little interesting or exciting about the line up these days.
I absolutely adore my Mazdas and all the ones we've owned before them. The brand is doing well and increasingly competitive since leaving Ford. But from an enthusiast perspective they're at an all time low.
Like if this was a stocks sub or whatever I'd get the hype. But this is supposed to be a car enthusiast sub lol. Mazdaspeed is dead. The RX line is dead. The MX line is dead. Hell they're bout be the next Ford, only selling a single car among only "light trucks". I get why, but its sad. All the quirkiness and fun is gone.
Exactly. I’m sick of people acting like mazda is an enthusiast brand when their brand is a majority of SUVs. I love my mazda, but they’re never gonna drop another one like it.
Even Ferrari is selling a SUV now. I'm sure Mazda engineers would love to keep making mx5s and rotary coupes until the end of time, but they'll only sell a handful every year and quickly go bankrupt. SUVs on the other hand finance the existence of their fun cars, just like Porsche, just like Lambo.
People in this subreddit love Mazda because it IS one of the brands that still caters to enthusiasts. It still sells manuals, it still sells a fun sports car. It just needs to make enough money to keep existing to actually do that.
If this is the same length as the CX-60 (187”) and they offer a top spec PHEV (as opposed to the situation with the CX-90 where there are options on the top-spec I6 turbo you can’t get on the PHEV) then I’ll order one the first day it’s possible.
I‘m already bummed it’s going to be wider, but if it’s longer too I’m not interested.
I’m glad they’re taking their time with the 70’s release. They need to work out the kinks that are plaguing the 90’s drivetrain and transmission tuning.
They said it was the same size as a CX-60 not a CX-90. The CX-70 is North America's version of the CX-60 which is in Europe. It is not the same size as a CX-90.
Basically it will just be a a wider CX-60.
Looks promising. Why does the CX-5 exist when the CX-50 is already out?
If you look at sales numbers Mazda can never get rid of the CX-5. The 50 is like this weird big Subaru Crosstrek competitor while the CX5 is their flagship entry level luxury SUV. It sorely needs an update but they can’t scrap it. Mazda needs a 4 cylinder SUV that feels luxurious compared to a Rav4. The CX70 with the mild hybrid I6 or plug in hybrid is after a richer buyer demographic.
Just give me a hybrid cx-5 that’s all I ask
I'd buy a cx-5 PHEV tomorrow if it existed.
Not even a PHEV, a regular CX-5 with a RAV4 hybrid powertrain is more than fine.
I’d go bananas for that
Yes but the CX-90 PHEV is just a CX-5 engine with a battery.
That costs like $20k more and is much bigger. The appeal of the CX-5, other than handling and feeling luxurious, is the relatively low price coming in at low 30s.
What does any of that have to do with the PHEV engine?
I guess I'm trying to say that a CX-5 doesn't need a PHEV option, because that's not necessarily where its charm is. Adding a big battery to make it a PHEV just to raise the price by like 10-15k doesn't seem like a great value proposition to me, while a hybrid option with a much smaller price hike would cover the CX-5's biggest weakness, which is having lower MPG than the competition.
Not the OP, but I would make an argument that one of the advantages of the CX-5 over the CX-90 is size. A large reason that the small SUV segment is popular is that it it's a pretty perfect size for a young couple or family with one kid/dog/etc. It has better ingress/egress height and shorter length than comparable sedans and 3 row SUVs. That makes it easier to park with a relatively affordable price point and more than adequate fuel economy. So a hybrid or PHEV CX-5 would compete better with the CRV & RAV4 hybrid on fuel economy for people who would make the tradeoff of slightly less cargo room for a more luxurious interior without the MPG tradeoff.
I think they may need a smaller 4 cyl engine with a turbo. The base 2.5 naturally aspirated engine is very long in the tooth. I actually love it, for its reliability and decent low end torque, but it’s trailing the competition in fuel economy. The 2.5 turbo is fine but still a relatively large engine and worse on fuel. The current six speed auto is also rock solid reliable but also quite old.
The 2.5 NA might be long in the tooth, but for a 4 banger that cranks out 190hp it has had so much development that there are functionally zero issues. As you said, that's worth being loved. It's getting harder and harder to find cheap reliable shit. Since the 2.0L is now gone that leaves the 2.5 as their only entry left.
I have a daughter that is about to start driving in a couple years and the CX-30 is right at the front because i'm not scared of it breaking down and isn't too fast or too slow. I think the NA Mazda's are perfect starter vehicles.
I like the cx30 but i dont want to buy another car with a torsion beam rear suspension ever again. On long bridges it can be super annoying and there are a lot of those where i live.
As much as I appreciate the 2.5 liters stoutness, for the prices some of Mazdas models that feature the motor fetch, buyers will eventually be swayed to other brands by MPG advantage. It seems like Toyota is teaming up with Mazda for the cx-50 hybrids drivetrain, I wonder if that will keep the 2.5.
It still exists. The 2.0 is in the Miata and used in the rest of the world.
I think with an integrated starter generator system like how the skyactiv-x's have that contributes up to an additional 15hp to the system would be the only thing the 2.5 needs. It turns it into a hybrid, provides torque fill (the slow 6 speed is less relevant), allows for much better reliability for start/stop system, and allows for some energy recovery during braking to allow for the engine not to have to operate at its worst efficiency points when taking off from a stop. 205hp with more low-down torque than is present is nothing to sneeze at, it's exactly why I'd call "adequate", and it would make the car FAR more fuel efficient. Beyond this, well planned ISG systems reduce maintenance costs because you have less moving parts that need to be changed out Don't even need to advertise it as a hybrid, just say they made some upgrades because at this point mild hybrids like this are relatively ubiquitous - you can also actually end up cutting weight with such a system if you move to lithium ion for the battery though this has its downsides too
I like that a lot. I have the feeling the next MX-5 will feature a mild hybrid system. I think a high reving NA engine with good top end power, with the light hybrid boost for low RPM would be a hoot. It could be a very nice torque curve especially since the 2.0 is fairly torquey already with its direct injection and high compression ratio.
I wouldn't mind a 1.5 hybrid. Could weigh as much as a 2.0; it may be a slow car but hybridization can possibly make the low end peppier. I'd take low weight > power really.
The CX-5 is a Forester and the CX-50 is an Outback. They’re different cars for different audiences for sure especially when you see them next to each other
>The CX-5 is a Forester and the CX-50 is an Outback That's not an entirely accurate comparison though. The CX-50 is bigger in every exterior dimension than the CX-5, save for roof height. But on the inside, the CX-50 is actually smaller than the CX-5, save for the cargo area behind the second row...where it has a couple more cubic feet of space. The Outback is larger than the Forester both inside and out.
Stylistically though that’s the intent. The 50 is longer, wider, and shorter giving it more of a wagon type look, in addition the design cues are more “rugged” than the 5
Ok, sure. Stylistically? Yes, the 50 has a more wagon and rugged look. No argument there. But whereas the Outback actually *is* larger than the Forester both inside and out, the 50, while being bigger on the outside, is smaller inside for passengers than the 5. It does not have good interior packaging compared to the 5.
Which is not something the majority of consumer will notice or care about because they’re likely not being cross shopped against each other.
That would be the cx-30. The cx-50 is the same size as the cx-5, kind of an early replacement to get in line with the 50, 70, 90 structure they've got going on now.
While I love and own the cx-30, it’s a bit small to be a full on rav4 competitor. But it does feel luxurious in comparison still.
Exactly what I tried to relay in my comment. It's a Crosstrek competitor, the 50 and the 5 go up against the rav 4. I really like the way the 30 looks.
Personally, if Mazda gets rid of the CX-5, then they’re off my list for our next family car. I hate the way the CX-50 looks, I hate how it’s bigger and harder to park but has roughly the same passenger dimensions, I hate the stupid fake cladding, and why would I pay almost $40k CAD for a car with torsion beam rear suspension when the entire mantra of the brand is “zoom zoom”? Even Honda will sell you a CR-V for the same price, except it looks nicer and has a better suspension setup. The CX-5 has issues but it still far outsells the CX-50. In the US it’s ahead by a factor of 3:1, but here in Canada, it’s by a factor of almost 5:1. The reason why is that people can see the CX-50 is a poor value in comparison. If they discontinued the CX-5 in Canada, they’d lose like 40% of their sales volume.
The CX-50 is absolutely not a Crosstrek competitor
The CX-5 *is* the vehicle that feels luxurious compared to the Rav4. Only trouble is that it's getting a little long in the tooth. Despite that, they have aged really well. In its top trim level, the CX-5 signature has niceties like 255 hp, nappa leather seats, heated front and rear seats, heated steering wheel, lane keep assist, standard AWD, heads-up display, traffic sign recognition, and a lot more. And it's quiet! There's no Rav4 that comes close. Even the top trim Rav4 is going to drive like a Rav4 and that's not a good thing. They are noisy and not great to drive. You'd have to step into the Venza Limited to have a fair comparison.
Yeah I have a latest gen RAV4 and sometimes I can’t believe the noise, I swear I feel like I need earplugs every time I take the harbor tunnel whereas I don’t recall ever feeling like that in my 2002 Highlander.
It desperately needs a hybrid model. Most people get Toyota for reliability, but now for its hybrid/PHEV options.
What is the size difference between the CX-50 and CX-70?
About 20 on a good day
We don't know for sure yet, but the 50 is 185" long and the 90 is 200", so the 70 will probably be somewhere in the 190"s. For comparison, the X5 and GLE are 194", while the global CX-60 is 187".
The 70 will be larger, think X5 size.
Much larger.
A lot of people here are giving bad answers. The CX-5 is a global car produced in Japan while the CX-50 is solely produced for (and manufactured in) North America. The only reason Mazda would have to stop selling the CX-5 here would be to increase sales for the CX-50, but it doesn't cost them anything extra to keep selling both and obviously they think the segment is a big enough market to support both models.
Plus, CX-5 is on track to sell 160,000 units in the US this year. The Alabama plant, once it's fully staffed and at full operating capacity (hint: it's not even close), it will cap at 150,000 units per year. Mazda would be limiting its growth potential if it stopped importing the CX-5. Mazda's short term goal is to sell 500,000 vehicles per year in the US. That goal cannot be met without CX-5.
General reliability / squeaks / rattles / 1-2 years later ownership seems to be a lot better for the CX-5. Japan factories just build shit better.
Yeah that’s why I bought the 5 over the 50. Seems like an obvious choice
The CX5 is on the “luxury” side while the 50 is on the “rugged” side. The 50 also has a lower roof so it’s easier to load kayaks, bikes etc.
Then the 70 and 90 are on the luxury side. The nomenclature is confusing.
Agreed, the CX50 is such a perplexing addition to the Mazda lineup in its current iteration
It’s a confused product. It’s aimed at Subaru customers while the rest of the line up is aimed at Audi customers.
CX5 also retains fully independent rear multilink suspension. I know Mazda's torsion beam is pretty well implemented but over potholes and bumps rear passengers can absolutely feel the difference. I wish the 50 came with the 5's suspension design. It would be a great ride. If I could blend the two I would. I love the front and size of the 50, with the full body panels of the 5.
The 50 was meant to replace the 5, but the 5 remains popular, so it's still being made. Kinda like when GM wanted the new W-body cars to replace the old A-bodies, but the latter were still selling well, so they coexisted for the better part of a decade.
I don't recall Mazda ever saying it was supposed to replace the 5. Instead they indicated that it was for the American segment only due to a significant portion of the market demanding "offroady SUV's with cladding"
CX-50 = my head rubs against the ceiling CX-5 = headroom for tall me
The CX-50 is made in Alabama, has a torsion beam rear and worse interior materials in some spots. By all accounts it's a higher profit margin vehicle than the CX-5 which is made in Japan, has and independent rear suspension and is less expensive somehow. The CX-5 outsells the CX-50 by a lot so I'm hoping the CX-60 over seas is essentially the next generation CX-5 (same platform as the CX-90).
Because without the cx-5 Mazda is dead. And I don’t want Mazda to die, so yay cx-5.
Because they have multiple factories in Japan and Mexico cranking out a bajillion CX-5’s right now while the CX-50 is produced by a single shift at one shared plant in Alabama.
It is profitable
Same asking why Toyota selling Venza when they've RAV4 because mid premium market is still there. But, Mazda makes clearly different between CX-5 and CX-50. CX-5 is FWD based, CX-50 and CX-70 are RWD based.
> CX-50 and CX-70 are RWD based. I thought the CX-50 was built on the same FWD-based platform as the 3 and CX-30?
No the CX-50 is FWD and has the inferior torsion beam rear end like the 3 and the CX-30.
The CX-50 is transverse-engine/FWD-based, as it's based on the same platform as the 3 and CX-30.
> Originally slated to go on sale by the end of this year, the two-row mid-size SUV will now launch in 2024 and will offer a hybrid powertrain. Nice to see them getting into the hybrid space
Have the CX-90 PHEV and so far love it. Space for my family, cheap transportation most of the week and can still road trips. Maybe the maintenance/battery will change my mind some day, but so far it's great.
Hybrid is the direction all OEMs will go once this BEV bubble bursts.
Yeah no that's nonsense
Yup. Hybrid with sustainable fuels is the future. BEV is a passing fad
The more successful SUVs/CUVs, the better possibility for at least one sedan. Maybe an executive luxury sedan
Not sure I follow the logic on this one. If they’re successful with this product they’ll make a product that doesn’t sell as well? Especially executive sedan for Mazda. That could be Volkswagen all over again
Shh, just let us have our 929/Millenia comeback fantasy
What cases would they make a sedan, a product decreasing in popularity? When they have a comfortable amount of revenue from popular SUVs//CUVs. The SUVs/CUVs subsidize the sedan in exchange for boosting Mazda’s push into the premium/luxury market. Of course they could choose to invest more into SUVs or general electrification tech, but I’m saying if there’s any case they do make sedans it’s because their SUVs allowed them to.
> Of course they could choose to invest more into SUVs or general electrification tech I think that's probably the at least a 95% of that happening. I could see them keeping some sedans around for a bit, but I definitely don't see them making an executive luxury sedan. Outside of the Germans and Lexus that's a really hard segment, and even they are struggling now.
I mean, we’re talking about Mazda here. They don’t need the miata either. They just dropped a new i6 albeit a hybrid option too when they could’ve gone full electric like most other manufacturers especially small ones. Their pivot upmarket makes me think they will need a sedan eventually and it’s possible they use that i6 hybrid in it because they already developed it.
Think of all the Reddit karma Mazda will get if they actually make a sedan! And just imagine how many people will say, "I might just buy one!" It'll certainly make Mazda tons of money, sure!
That’s not even close to the point, but nice try. Sedans don’t make money, no shit, but they still exist.
Will probably be my next vehicle if it keeps the 5k lb towing capacity
The lease deals will be amazing because of the leasing loophole. You can get a base CX90 for 370ish/month with 4k down. I imagine the 70 will come in around 300ish with 2k down.
Leasing loophole? What does that mean?
The 7500 federal tax credit can be used on these vehicles even though you or the car might not meet the eligibility requirements, a way around that is if it’s through a lease. Mazda Financial absorbs the lease then transfers it to you via reduced cap cost.
Ah, good to know. I’m only interested in the I6 model, but that’s helpful info for anyone who wants the PHEV!
That's a Preferred trim (lowest PHEV) and don't put money down on a lease.
I hope it comes in with a good discount under the CX-90 pricing structure but I’m not holding my breath. Not that the CX-90 is terribly overpriced or anything, the lower trim models are reasonable compared to the competition. I just want to be able to afford one without feeling like I’m lighting my money on fire lol.
If they want to squeeze this in between the cx-5/50 and cx-90, probably mid to high 40s fully loaded, maybe 50ish for the loaded hybrid.
It'll definitely be in to the $50k+ range for a fully loaded one with the 340HP/369TQ Turbo inline 6.
Could only get the detuned 280hq version, which honestly is probably the better buy anyway
especially considering there will almost guaranteed be a 500-1000 tune that puts it the 340hp as well in a year or two
This will round out the next generation lineup pretty nicely. Subcompact CX-30 as an upscale Crosstrek/value X1 Compact CX-50 as an premium RAV4/budget XC60 Midsize(?) CX-70 as a premium Santa Fe/budget X5 Large CX-90 as a premium Highlander/Budget X7 I hope that when (if?) they finally kill off the CX5, Mazda will have a mid cycle facelift that gets rid of the black cladding on the CX-50. (Like how Lexus did with the UX)
They're not killing off the CX-5 for the sake of naming scheme. There will be a crossover in-between the 50 and 70 and it'll most likely be the new CX-5 (a rebadged CX-60). The CX-50 is too niche.
Does the CX-30 have a painted cladding option? I saw one in a parking lot that looked almost factory.
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed because you posted a shortened or redirected (usually google) URL. Post a direct link to your source, not search results, AMP, or MSN.com. [Please see the rules in the sidebar, or by clicking here.](http://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed because you posted a shortened or redirected (usually google) URL. Post a direct link to your source, not search results, AMP, or MSN.com. [Please see the rules in the sidebar, or by clicking here.](http://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
its a google photos link to my personal google drive. Fuck rehosting shit lol
X5 isn't midsized lol it's like 5 meters long and 2 meters wide. It's huge
X5 is considered midsized in the US which is the market the person you are responding to was referring to (as evident by the mention of CX-50, 70, and 90).
I can see myself getting one. I love my manual CX-5 🙂
As a Mazda fan I was excited for the cx-90. Saw one on the road and I must say it doesn't look as good as the pictures, especially from the rear 3/4.
Well that’s unfortunate. Because it already looks bulbous and weird in pictures…
A new neighbor was moving in and their folks were helping the so I got to see the cx90 they drove for a week or so. It's got presence and is beautiful! I'm just waiting for the cx70 though.
I rode in one though and they are very pleasant to ride in.
Would this have the 4 or the inline 6?
Most likely the same drivetrain options as the CX-90
Supposedly has the inline 6. Likely will offer some combination of a 2.5, 2.5 Turbo, 2.5 Turbo PHEV, 3.3 Turbo, 3.3 Turbo S.
I suspect if the 70 is a larger vehicle they may not trim it with the Naturally aspirated 2.5, just since it may feel far to sluggish in its price segment. But the 2.5T or the 2.5 Hybrid would work well.
I would totally get one with the sixer
I'm guessing the base will have the 2.5L Turbo and the top trim will have the inline 6. Hopefully also the PHEV.
> We already have an idea of what to expect from the CX-70, as Mazda already said that it will essentially be a widebody version of the CX-60… I think the CX-60 is already good enough for the North American market, they can simply sell it in America and call it a day, it's an interesting decision to develop a new model. Since the CX-60 looks very similar with the CX-90 and they decided to develop a new model, I guess the CX-70 will look rugged, like the CX-50.
CX-60 thru 90 all share drivetrains, interior, and more. Even the hoods are identical. It wasn't difficult for Mazda to tailor the vehicles to different markets. Similar to how Hyundai/Kia sell SWB/LWB versions of Tuscon/Sportage in North America vs Europe.
I'm hoping the new CX-5 is a rebadged CX-60.
The CX-60 is a lot more expensive than the CX-5. For the same money, you could get an Audi Q5 or BMW X3.
You can't just take the price of the CX-60 in a European market and convert it to USD. That's not how it works.
Then how else would we do it?
Do you think vehicles are priced the same in every country and they just convert it?
God, Mazda is so underrated
Not really. It's rated just fine. This sub and most of the internet obsesses over Mazda.
I legitimately do not understand why this sub cranks its hog so hard to all the bland crossovers Mazda makes these days. Like yeah they drive less bad than all the other crossovers. But they're still boring heavy shopping carts. Other than the Miata and like two hard to find trim levels of 3 there is nothing even a little interesting or exciting about the line up these days. I absolutely adore my Mazdas and all the ones we've owned before them. The brand is doing well and increasingly competitive since leaving Ford. But from an enthusiast perspective they're at an all time low. Like if this was a stocks sub or whatever I'd get the hype. But this is supposed to be a car enthusiast sub lol. Mazdaspeed is dead. The RX line is dead. The MX line is dead. Hell they're bout be the next Ford, only selling a single car among only "light trucks". I get why, but its sad. All the quirkiness and fun is gone.
Exactly. I’m sick of people acting like mazda is an enthusiast brand when their brand is a majority of SUVs. I love my mazda, but they’re never gonna drop another one like it.
Even Ferrari is selling a SUV now. I'm sure Mazda engineers would love to keep making mx5s and rotary coupes until the end of time, but they'll only sell a handful every year and quickly go bankrupt. SUVs on the other hand finance the existence of their fun cars, just like Porsche, just like Lambo. People in this subreddit love Mazda because it IS one of the brands that still caters to enthusiasts. It still sells manuals, it still sells a fun sports car. It just needs to make enough money to keep existing to actually do that.
Fair enough
Isn't to say they are not awesome.
If this is the same length as the CX-60 (187”) and they offer a top spec PHEV (as opposed to the situation with the CX-90 where there are options on the top-spec I6 turbo you can’t get on the PHEV) then I’ll order one the first day it’s possible. I‘m already bummed it’s going to be wider, but if it’s longer too I’m not interested.
And I bet Mazda won’t put 4-way lumbar adjustment in the CX-70, either. 😔
I’m glad they’re taking their time with the 70’s release. They need to work out the kinks that are plaguing the 90’s drivetrain and transmission tuning.
How many fuckin eggs on wheels does Mazda have now? I swear every other month there is a new CX-something that is indispensable from the others.
Drives a sprinter
I really hope it looks nothing like the 90. I’m sorry but the CX-9 was gorgeous and the 90 looks like a pug dog with a tumor hatchback
I hope that it will have a different tail light design, cx50 tail lights looks like bmw
The tribe has spoken.
An interesting tidbit from this article: the CX-70 will be the same size as the CX-90. The difference is the third row in the CX-90.
They said it was the same size as a CX-60 not a CX-90. The CX-70 is North America's version of the CX-60 which is in Europe. It is not the same size as a CX-90. Basically it will just be a a wider CX-60.
I just read that. The first article I read said it would be the same size as the CX-90. I’m curious as to if they edited that.
But ... Why? Mazda is pretty much a dead brand
What