As I watched my 2025 Mazda CX-50 press loaner pull up to the curbside outside my house, I couldn’t help but think: “Damn, that’s one fine looking crossover.” Then I opened the door and peered inside — again, I couldn’t help but think of how nice Mazdas have become in the last ten years or so. And, over the next few days of driving, for the most part I found that the car lived up this newfound high status, except when I hit the gas pedal. Here, I’ll explain what I mean.
The Mazda CX-50 debuted for the the 2023 model-year as a tougher-looking CX-5 meant to emphasize a more outdoorsy vibe. It gave up a bit of fuel economy compared to its stablemate, but it gained lots of style, and by and large, people dug it. For 2025, that fuel economy sacrifice is no more, because there’s a new 38 MPG (combined) Mazda CX-50 Hybrid, and it’s got the heart of a Toyota.
Yes, that’s right: You get the styling of a Mazda but the powertrain engineering of a Toyota. Sounds like the best of all worlds, right? Yes and no.
Let’s Look At The Specs
For specs, I’ll quote the inimitable Thomas Hundal, because the enthusiasm with which he writes about ordinary, everyday cars never ceases to amaze me. From his piece on the hybrid version of one of his “favorite compact crossovers”:
Combustion power comes from a Toyota-sourced 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, likely the exact same one as in a RAV4 Hybrid, seeing as the two share a bore, stroke, output, and compression ratio. Electrification comes from a two-motor eCVT on the front axle and an electric motor out back, fed by a 1.591 kWh nickel-metal hydride battery pack. Combined output? Identical to a RAV4 Hybrid at 219 horsepower.
Given how hot of an item the Toyota RAV4 (which, by the way, uses a lithium-ion battery instead fo a nickel-metal hydride one here in this Mazda) has been over the past few years, this sounds like a great recipe, though it comes with drawbacks, as Thomas noted:
Fuel economy is rated at 38 mpg combined, one less than an all-wheel-drive RAV4 Hybrid and one more than an all-wheel-drive Honda CR-V Hybrid and a Hyundai Tucson Hybrid. That puts the electrified CX-50 in good company, right in the mix of the competition on fuel economy, all while offering convincing premium style. Mind you, there is a tradeoff for electrification — two inches of rear legroom simply evaporates along with nearly an inch of rear headroom, the rear seat squab sits 1.2 inches closer to a raised floor, and towing capacity drops to 1,500 pounds. On the plus side, cargo area length with the rear seats up grows by an inch, but it seems that hybridizing the CX-50 required some serious surgery. The whole vehicle itself sits between 1.4 and 2.3 inches taller than a base, combustion-only CX-50, which would explain the hybrid-specific cladding.
Thomas mentioned that the CX-50 hybrid starts at $35,390 for the “Preferred” trim, while the “Premium Plus” trim costs $41,470. That’s a couple grand cheaper than the all-wheel drive Honda CR-V Hybrid and a couple grand pricier than an all-wheel drive RAV4 Hybrid. Not bad.
A Quick Look Around
Check out how sharp the Mazda CX-50 looks. The gorgeous headlights; the big, classy grille; the wide stance; the fender flares; the big outboard air inlets — the vehicle looks both aggressive and luxurious at the same time. It’s beautifully done.
The side profile is upright and aggressive, with a big piece of cladding along the rocker panels, meeting the black fender flares at either end. And the rear looks good, too:
The Mazda CX-50 is a sharp car from every angle, especially inside:
In fact, let’s start the drive impressions with the interior, because it’s solid.
The Good Things
My photos are not going to do this vehicle justice, but the cabin is a wonderful place to spend time. The seats are elegant and comfortable, all the interior plastics are soft and relatively high-quality, the layout of the gauge cluster and infotainment screen works great, and the dashboard is understated and functional. I love the steering wheel; it’s not only handsome, but it feels large, and that, combined with its thin-ish rim gives it a bit of an old-school vibe, which I dig.
I won’t spend too much time talking about things that haven’t changed over the standard CX-50, like the infotainment system, but I like it. There’s no touchscreen, but the dial just behind the shifter works great, and though the screen isn’t huge, it’s enough, and it’s situated high so it minimizes how much I had to look away from the road while driving.
The whole interior user interface is simple, there are enough actual, physical buttons to handle things like HVAC and radio control, and combined with the high(ish)-quality materials, it just works. Maybe it’s not the most modern setup — and I’d rather have a column shifter — but I’m happy with the CX-50 Hybrid’s overall UI.
I’m also happy with the cargo space. I used the CX-50 Hybrid for a week of commuting to and from work and handling errands. I’m currently in the process of fixing up a Jeep for my wedding, and building a home gym, so here you can see the Mazda with two giant dumbells and my bag of tools — I didn’t even have to fold the second row:
Overall visibility is fine; seeing over the hood is easy, though in the back, the D-pillars are a bit thick, and the center headrest does detract a bit from the view, though that’s become pretty normal for a modern car:
I’m also content with the CX-50’s ride quality. It does roll a bit in turns, but the ride offers a good balance of handling and comfort, making the CX-50 Hybrid a good candidate for a daily driver. Acceleration, too, is reasonably quick off the line, though hammering the throttle while on the highway is…only just fine. Actually, let’s get into that.
The Compromises
At just over two tons, the CX-50 Hybrid is actually lighter than you’d think given that it’s all-wheel drive, and given how big the vehicle is. I think 220 Horsepower is plenty, though the CX-50’s issue isn’t with outright quickness, it’s with refinement.
The CX-50’s 2.5-liter four-cylinder — connected to an eCVT — is just downright loud under acceleration. Even moderate throttle applications onto an onramp awakens the noise-machine underhood, and while that’s probably not a huge issue given that RAV4 owners seem to like their vehicle (and given that one will put up with a lot for 38 MPG), the fact is that this doesn’t match the rest of the Mazda’s character.
It looks like a refined car inside and out, but pressing the accelerator pedal yields a sound that is anything but.
Then there’s the rear seat. Like Thomas mentioned, “two inches of rear legroom simply evaporates along with nearly an inch of rear headroom,” and this is due to packaging space taken up by the hybrid system. How big of a problem is this?
Well…
I’m five-foot seven, maybe five-foot eight, and I simply cannot fit in the CX-50 hybrid’s middle rear seat. My head hits the roof, and it’s not even close. Scooting my legs forward so I can lean back a bit more to lower my head yields a legroom issue:
The outboard seats “dip” a little, so headroom is better, but there’s really only an inch, maybe two between my head and the roof. If you’re over five-foot-ten, the back row will be a problem:
If the second row is for short journeys or for children, then it’s fine. Otherwise, it’s just not.
Other than the unrefined engine and lack of rear headroom, there was also a rather loud and not particularly pleasant low-speed pedestrian warning noise. It’s a combination of a beeping and an almost Darth Vader-ish gray noise. I’m glad it’s there, and it’ll certainly be effective, but again, its lack of refinement doesn’t quite match the car’s character.
Is The Mazda CX-50 Hybrid Worth It?
View this post on Instagram
The rear headroom and the refinement issue notwithstanding, the CX-50 could still make for a great daily driver if you’re not hauling tall people around, and if you value fuel economy above engine refinement and performance. Again, the car isn’t slow, it’s just a bit dull and loud when you apply the throttle.
But 38 MPG is nothing to downplay; that’s great, and to be able to get that kind of fuel economy in a car that looks this good, and that has this much space (aside from in the second row) — it’s not a bad option for single folks or those with small children.
The ride in these is so harsh that it’s like the suspension is trying to read secret braille in the road.
I recently took a road trip in a CX-50 after cross shopping it with an Outback a few years ago and in many ways, my Outback is the opposite of this car:
1. It has fabulous visibility for a modern car.
2. The ride is so soft and compliant that it makes smaller bumps disappear.
3. It’s one of the few great cars for tall people in both the first and second row. (I’m over 6 feet.)
4. In addition to a lack of headroom, the CX-50 has oddly short seat cushions that made my legs uncomfortable as if I were sitting in kindergarten furniture. The Outback has larger seat cushions and an extendable thigh support for the driver.
5. The Outback gets 30 MPG on a good day. Under ideal conditions.
6. Bonus: the Outback has dimming side mirrors, which are a necessity in our modern headlight hell.
I can attest to the seats for sure. We are on our second CX50 and the hip bolstering is basically nonexistent. I have a 24 Mazda3 and those seats are fantastic for support. Such a shame but I guess they are trying to reach a wider audience maybe?
The first 50 that we had was the Premium Plus and it had the 20″ wheels on Goodyear tires and that thing rode so stiff and bouncy and flat out jarring. We just upgraded to a Meridian edition which has 18″ wheels and all terrain tires and man that made all the difference. The bigger sidewall helps absorb so much of the road imperfections and makes it night and day to me.
Reach a wider audience? More like a narrower audience with short legs and tiny hips 😉
Not all Rav4s have a Li-Ion battery. It seems to depend on trim whether they have Lithium or NiMH packs.
Another commenter in another thread (sorry, I don’t remember who or where) said the RAV4 hybrid battery chemistry depends partly on what market it’s intended to be sold in, with NiMH being more common in a cold-weather configuration.
I don’t know whether that’s true, or if it’s entirely dependent on trim, or possibly if it depends on what the factory happened to have available that day. FWIW mine (bought in the midwest) has a Li-Ion battery.
IIRC for older model years when there was still a Rav4 Hybrid FWD option those had the Li-Ion battery, while AWD got NiMH for similar cold-weather use reasons.
The packaging of some of these crossovers blows my mind. I get the whole battery stuffed under the seats issue, but how exactly does something so tall not allow tall people to fit inside? Isn’t headroom one of the things this form factor is supposed to be good at?
At 5′-10″, I’ve never rubbed my head against the headliner of a wagon, just sayin’.
And god, that view out the back window!
Oof, don’t even get me started about the war on visibility.
This is a beautiful looking machine here. Inside and out. Something about the appearance looks far nicer than the competition does.
Yet the claustrophobic back seat is a deal breaker.
Even though carrying passengers is not a big consideration for me.
Have been cross shopping these vs RAV4 for a bit but not in person.
Good article DT. Thanks
I can pretty much guarantee that most CX-50 owners won’t be putting adults in the back seat very often, if at all. That back seat is going to be empty as a single person commutes in it every day, or it’s going to have at most one child seat in it. Or it’s going to have a big ol’ dog sprawled across it.
As an owner, can confirm. We use ours as our family hauler which is me, my wife and a 2 year old. Car seat owns the back. We have fit 2 other adults in the back with that car seat but it’s definitely tight and not something you want to do other than short trips.
At 6’5” this one has disqualified itself.
Sometimes I wish I was shorter (I’m 6’1/2″)so I didn’t have to worry about head room. 😛
This is in the mix as my next car along w/the CRV and Crown Signia.
As a Mazda fan and general car enthusiast, I’m very conflicted with this car.
Glass half full, it’s a much improved Rav4, which is already a popular car. Much better looks and interior quality, same great reliability and fuel economy.
Glass half empty, you’ve just ruined a perfectly fine Mazda by throwing in an extremely unrefined and loud engine paired with a hateful CVT.
Either way, I hope it sells and I hope it helps Mazda.
I owned a 2016 Prius and I can tell you that Toyota’s gear-based eCVT is a gem and not the problem with this car.
A gem for a CVT, still a CVT.
I don’t know, as a RAV4 hybrid owner, the back seat of the RAV4 seems much more spacious than this. And maybe it’s the photos, but the cladding they added to the CX-50, especially those wheel arches, do not look good to my eyes.
I knew this Mazda hybrid was coming, I like the styling of Mazda, and I wondered if I would regret buying a RAV4. For me at least, I’m happy that I bought the ‘Yota.
I just had a CX-50 Turbo Premium Plus as a loaner last week. Oh. My. Goodness. I drive a LOT of various cars, and it’s almost certainly the best vehicle I’ve driven yet this year. Maybe even further back than that. It’s probably about 9.5/10.0 for how I’d want a 2-row crossover to be if I had to replace mine, notwithstanding the FWD-based platform.
Quiet, composed, predictable, intuitive (though some of the infotainment menus could use some reorganizing for clarity), and while the immediate rearward visibility isn’t as good as my car, the headrest does act as a blocker for too-tall trucks with their headlights usually pointed right at one’s rear view mirror, and the 360° camera system worked a treat.
I’d rather have the smaller wheels and the tan interior of the Meridian package, but it doesn’t come with the HUD for some reason. Also was disappointed that it doesn’t have remote start through the key fob, nor a kick-to-open power liftgate (though maybe it did and I was just unsuccessful in my brief attempt to check if it had it), which isn’t necessary but sort of expected at this price point.
It’s been on my short list of cars I’d seriously shop for if I had to replace my current one, and this extended borrow moved it to the top of the list. It’s THAT good. To say I was very much excited about the coming of the hybrid version is a gross understatement.
So, then, the hybrid.
Uggggggggh I know why it uses Toyota’s hybrid system (primarily cost, ease of development and assembly, and Toyota is technically making the CX-50 for Mazda), including Toyota’s dated (but generally reliable) wheezey-sounding engine, but FFS, couldn’t we have please had a version of Mazda’s 2.5L SkyActiv-G instead? It’s so much more refined than the Toyota, and suits the car’s character sooooo much better. I was prepared to accept the lost interior volume with the hybrid system, but couple with the Toyota powertrain really gives me pause.
Maybe Mazda would let me custom-order a Meridian with a HUD…. And maybe a color other than the weird green-gray-khaki or gray-blue. Maybe the Toyota plant has that nice green from the Sienna Woodland Edition available…
Yeah, the noncommittal blue is pretty drab. How was the ride comfort? Do you live in a land of perfect roads or has it really improved that much since the “suspension retune” on later models?
Having had a Premium Plus and now a Meridian, the Meridian’s ride is so much better due to the smaller wheel and all terrain tires. The 20″ combo on the PP makes the ride rather jarring and harsh while the ATs really help absorb road imperfections.
Just get a Maverick. It’s really the best all-around non-sporting vehicle for the price…and priced very similarly to the CX-50 hybrid.
The Maverick is a good product, to be sure. But they’d need a Lincoln version (fat chance of THAT happening) to better compare with this.
Mazda sure is a hit with styling over the last decade. Somehow, they manage to build FWD cars with an almost RWD-like dash-to-axel ratio.
Unfortunately, the hot looks come at a price, and it’s the rear seat. Every Mazda on sale today has a significantly smaller back seat than comparably-sized models from other manufacturers.
Would you ask your boss to sit back there? Or your dad?
I look at my car everyday. I very rarely have a rear seat passenger.
Much like on the CX-50, the interior room of my Macan was sacrificed for better looks and that’s a tradeoff I’ll make 100% of the time.
Unless your boss or your father in-law insist on feeling like they’re being chauferred around as if they were in a limo, they should be in the front passenger seat where you can have meaningful, perhaps life/career-altering, conversations with them.
While married, when going places in the MDX we had and traveling with another married couple, my buddy sat up front, and the ladies were happy to sit in the second row and chat amongst themselves. YMMV.
Hmm, I’ve never experienced that. When driving with another couple, we are always in the front in our car and the back in thiers.
I think my in-laws might do it your way when travelling with their peers.
The CX-50’s 2.5-liter four-cylinder — connected to an eCVT — is just downright loud under acceleration. Even moderate throttle applications onto an onramp awakens the noise-machine underhood…
It looks like a refined car inside and out, but pressing the accelerator pedal yields a sound that is anything but.
So sell it as the new Dodge Charger
Problem solved.
all the interior plastics are soft and relatively high-quality
So does that mean we can expect them to disintegrate into black/brown goo in 10 years?
That’s a good point. I found a Canon Rebel DSLR in the Texas attic that my ex-wife’s previous husband left behind and the sort of soft-touch material cladding they wrapped around it had decayed into a pretty disgusting and sticky stuff to touch. If I had wanted to resurrect that camera for us, I would have carved all that stuff off and then used a lot of hand towels saturated with Dawn detergent.
I don’t know how Mazda’s material choices will age. Yet. My son and his wife bought a CX-5 a few months ago. They love it. They live in Wisconsin. Their car will never get Texas hot. And I may not live long enough to find out how it all holds up. Hope to!
The CX-50 Hybrid is a very attractive option, but at 67, with a 2017 Accord V-6 with 60K miles on it, I don’t think I’ll ever need to buy another car. And I love what I have now.
Mercedes just put up a story about her Smart and how its steering wheel turned to goo. Lots of folks chimed in with plastigoo stories of their own including some things that had been hanging in a closet indoors:
https://www.theautopian.com/my-car-is-failing-in-a-stupid-way-i-didnt-know-was-possible/
I’m sure the Texas heat didn’t help though.
About to be 70 with a 2015 Fit @80K miles…ditto. And if I do buy another car, it will be in addition.
I love the CX50 and current Mazdas in general. As our family grows I may eventually need a Dad Mobile, and a CX50 would be near the top of my shopping list today if I went the SUV route rather than stick with hot hatches. Suffice to say, I was excited and intrigued when this was announced.
Unfortunately one of the things that’s being said across the board is that this sacrifices a lot of the Mazda-ness. Savagegeese said that the steering is vague on center, Matt Maran (give his channel some love, his content is great but the algorithm has been crushing him lately) said that the brakes feel really weird, and the usual publications pretty much all commented that the playful driving dynamics that the regular CX50 has are nearly nonexistent here.
The regular CX50 actually has some off-road capability as well, and this does not due to the front and rear axles not being physically collected. Anyway, is any of this a huge deal for 95% of buyers? No. I still think this looks great and wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it to a normie seeking an appliance, but for those of us that crave the Mazda special sauce this probably isn’t going to cut it.
Serious question: how are we supposed to get PHEVs that give us 100 miles of electric range if the packaging trade-offs are this severe for just a traditional hybrid with small batteries? I get that this is a retrofit of a model that maybe wasn’t originally designed with hybridization in mind, so it’s kind of an outlier, but I think it’s still illustrative of how hard a problem hybrid packaging is. I really wanted a Chevy Volt back in the day but the passenger space was a deal killer.
It’s called EREVs. They are the only way to make an EV and a hybrid on the same platform with little compromise.
Battery chemistry is getting ready to make a couple of leaps in the next ten years or so. smaller batteries with 5-7 times
the density
I think it helps to design the car from the start only as a PH/EREV rather than adopt an existing ICE car or as a multi purpose platform. The not very big i3 REX eventually got 125 miles on battery and that was with only 100 MPGe.
Of course there’s also the nuclear option…
https://www.the-independent.com/tech/nuclear-battery-betavolt-atomic-china-b2476979.html
That’s not a useful goal. A PHEV with a battery that big might as well be a full EV. Even with only a 20 mile range, my Ford Energi has given me outstanding service, at 65 mpg so far.
The results you get with PHEVs depends on your driving habits. They’re best used for a mix of short daily trips and longer weekend drives. If you regularly drive a 40+mile commute, there may be better choices.
My PHEV Fusion averages 800-1000 miles between fill-ups. Granted my commute is about 25-30 miles a day, so it usually just runs out of juice as I pull into my driveway. On longer trips, it still manages about 45mpg. Overall, it’s been great.
Cool. I really couldn’t care less about completing a drive on EV power. The climate doesn’t count that score, and neither does my family budget. What matters is long-term MPGs, representing the fuel I’m not using anymore. My Ford C-Max has saved more than half the fuel used by my last car, and that’s a better benefit than any test or review could have predicted.
40ish is the sweet spot for a PHEV. We used to have a C-Max Energi and now have an Escape PHEV and our current moving avg is 175mpg since we haven’t done any road trips in several months. Lifetime is 80 mpg.
There was a study a few years ago that showed when the PHEV battery only yields 50 km or so people (in Europe, where longer trips are less common) tended to lean much more heavily on gasoline than had been assumed:
https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-phev-use-jun22/
One of the suggestions of the study was to:
“Increase the required WLTP equivalent all-electric range to about 90 km. To
enable users to realize high electric driving shares and low fuel consumption over
longer daily driving distances, even in cold weather and at high velocities, fiscal
incentives could further be limited to vehicle models with a high electric range. In
addition, as the study finds that higher fuel consumption correlates with higher
maximum system power, which is typically dominated by the combustion engine,
the power of the combustion engine should be limited. This could be achieved by
deciding on a minimum regulatory ratio for electric motor power to combustion
engine power, typically well above 40%–50%. In parallel, this would allow purely
electric driving in real-world usage conditions, including during cold weather and
with higher power load.”
It really is the fact that they forced the hybrid battery into a vehicle that wasn’t designed for it from the get go. Look at the RAV-4, it has the same rear seat dimensions, ICE, HEV, and PHEV. The Escape HEV and PHEV only give up .8″ of rear leg room vs the ICE version.
The ~40 mi range of the RAV-4 and Escape is the sweet spot that covers most people’s daily use while keeping price and weight down vs a larger battery that’s full capacity is underutilized. Even if the battery doesn’t do 100% of normal daily use, it still gives a big reduction in gas use and cost of operation cost effectively.
I really like how the CX-50 looks and drives.
Unfortunately, I found the base 2.5 Skyactiv to be REALLY loud and grumbly, and even the 2.5t made an awful lot of noise compared to what it does in my wife’s CX-9. When I read the headline I hoped that maybe the hybrid would quiet things down, but I guess not. Or not enough, anyway.
Also, while the CX-50 does have a bit more legroom and headroom than a CX-5… It doesn’t have a lot. Losing some is a big deal.
from those photos it looks like my CX30 beats the CX50 hybrid for 2nd row space.
I bet a Mazda6 wagon would offer better headroom and legroom for 5’7″ giants. And if it could borrow the 196hp hybrid drivetrain from the current Prius, it would move pretty well and beat 38mpg.
https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/y2mW0l/s3/2023-mazda6-20th-anniversary-edition.jpg
But no one wants a wagon, that’s crazy talk.
Even after all this time, that 6 wagon still looks delicious!
Like those hot ex girlfriends that just weren’t wife material, I had put it out of my memory as it’s something we can’t have. But god dammit it’s good looking.
Don’t tease.
I was just in Japan and saw a new Mazda 6 wagon and it was, indeed, gorgeous…
I had considered one of these, but one of my rules is that I have to fit in the backseat comfortably. This would not check that box. Glad I didn’t end up waiting for it.
38mpg? Shit legroom and headroom? Just buy a Mazda 3 hatch. The $9k price difference pays for a lot of fuel.
But then you’d have to pull up to soccer practice in a small car, and have the other parents sympathetically saying that they hope you get back on your feet soon.
Yup. The socioeconomic brainwashing that’s taken place is something else. IDK how we do it, but we need to make modesty cool again.
Well there’s the shame of driving a child crusher to soccer practice…
Not sure I follow.
Giant vehicles like those preferred by the hypothetical soccer parents in the scenario above who conflate small with poor are far more likely to kill or injure people outside the vehicle, especially shorter pedestrians like children:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/business/boxy-trucks-suvs-pedestrian-deaths/index.html
“It’s gotten so bad that even Jim Farley, CEO of Ford – which sells the F150, the most popular large vehicle in the US (and one of the deadliest) – said that America needs to “get back in love with smaller vehicles.””
https://electrek.co/2024/09/13/the-us-govt-is-finally-doing-something-about-giant-pedestrian-killing-suvs/
Yeah, a suburban with a metal bumper should NOT be able to drive away after t-boning another car. And yet that’s exactly what happened to a friend of mine.
I thought maybe you were calling the 3 a child crusher thus the confusion!
I wholeheartedly agree with Farley. I had never read that quote before, so thanks for sharing.
Or buy a Sienna and get similar mileage with enough space for an offensive line.
Except it starts at $40K.
So get the left tackle to chip in.
Ha!
Are you talking about the Sienna Hybrid? I have a friend who’s been on the waiting list for two years. I don’t know how adept he is with dealing with dealerships.
But a few years ago, after putting a couple of thousands of miles on a 2020 4Runner, he managed to trade it in at his original price point on a 2020 Sequoia.
They were both hideous vehicles to drive, in their own ways.
Yeah, the Sienna Hybrid. I am seeing them on the road more now as supply is somewhat starting to approach demand. Somewhat.
I mean folks are keeping their cars for 8 yrs on average so unless your kids are newborns this is probably not a viable long term family vehicle for average american heights.
Google can check me on this, but I believe this is the first time these particular words have been assembled in this particular order in the history of the internet.
*Cries* in six foot tall tears
Try sitting in the FRONT passenger seat of a new RAV4 then. My 6’3″ ogre head rubs against the roof. I was astounded at the lack of headroom.
Nooo. I like the RAV 4. It’s crazy because my Volt fits me just fine.
I was seriously surprised when I discovered that little foible. There is a structural bar across the top at the b-pillar. You can literally see it when sitting the the back seat: it looks like the driver is smuggling a 2×4. It may be a good thing structurally, which I guess is kind of important, but it is stupid from a headroom perspective.
This may be useful if lumber prices go up again.
If I get in an Uber where the driver looks like he’s smuggling a 2×4 I’m getting out and walking.
CRV is similar for my 6’5” frame. These are mini-trucks for dwarves IMO.
I had no such issues in the brand new CR-V I recently drove for a week
I’m 6’4, and my wife was initially pushing a RAV4 when we were car shopping earlier this year. Until I actually tried sitting in one. The lack of front headroom was a surprise to us both.
Seems like the issues with the Hybrid specifically are just symptoms of being a retrofit and that the Toyota powertrain doesn’t prioritize refinement as much as the Skyactiv line of engines Mazda has. Seems like the best TLDR is it’s a much nicer Rav4 Hybrid, and a less refined/spacious but more fuel efficient CX-50, so depending on priorities, buy accordingly. I would highly suspect these will be easier to get a hold of than Rav4 Hybrids are, which seem to be near impossible to just casually buy from a Toyota dealers lot.
It’s nice to see that you can finally get a Mazda Hybrid that’s going to be as reliable as a toyota. As much as I love Mazda, the teething issues of the CX-90 have been rough, and this 50 being built in a joint factory with Toyota, using a Toyota powertrain is about as big a home run as you can ask for.
Largely yes, but they did offer the Tribute (so Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner corporate relative) as a hybrid, and those (Escape Hybrids of that generation) are known for doing hundreds of thousands of miles with few powertrain issues, even in severe taxi duty.
That’s a fair point, but it was also last available for 2012, so 13 model years separated, and I think it’s fair to say Mazda’s design language inside and out has changed an awful lot, and hopefully their rust proofing is far better than the Ford ownership era.
And ironically Ford is still powering their small hybrids using a version of the engine that’s a Mazda design.
Maybe Mazda should have spent more than 5 minutes applying some engineering to the problem? Did they test it before release? Check for NVH issues?
It sounds like a lot of the NVH increase, if not all of it, comes from the powertrain, which there’s not much if anything Mazda could do here except for add the largest, most padded engine cover possible. This being built in a Toyota plant and being a Toyota powertrain means there’s likely nothing Mazda is allowed to change about the drivetrain without Toyotas say-so, and Toyota has no incentive to allow any changes. Any design deviations would potentially cause issues with parts timing in production, supplier issues, reliability, and cost.
I’ll also say, the 2.5L Turbo in my CX-30 is pretty dang refined for what it is, but the rest of the chassis itself let in a bit too much road noise for my liking. A chunk of hours over a couple afternoons and about $50 worth of sound deadening all over the trunk, back seats, and door panels and the background noise dropped massively.
So instead of “Zoom-Zoom” it’s “Mooooaaaaaaannnnn” and “Ouch-Ouch”?
You can turn the touchscreen on, it’s kinda hidden in the settings.
I have a CX-50 and generally I like it, especially for the price/value. The biggest disappointment though is the interior doesn’t seem to be holding up. My steering wheel is peeling, the “leather” touch points and terracotta seats are starting to get a shine on them that comes back faster and faster after a cleaning with a good leather product, and the interior plastics scuff easily. It still doesn’t look bad, but that upmarket feel seems to be wearing off 2 years in. I’ve never had another new car wear this fast. As an overall package, I would still probably pick it over a pretty much any other similarly priced CUV.
Although I don’t think it’ll allow you to use the touch screen if the vehicle is moving.
I have the same opinion as yours based on my wife’s 2017 CX-9. It’s not aging as well as I would have liked.
I’ve similar concerns with my top-trim CX-30. It feels like cheap masquerading as nice, especially after I’ve been driving my 2007 335i for a while. The Mazda leather is SO thin, while the BMW stuff just wears in rather than wearing out.
I have a 2022 Mazda 3 with 62k on it, and other than the piano black being scratched to hell, the interior’s holding up great. They seem to be really hit or miss from reviews I’ve read, and seem to be all or nothing. Mine was built in Japan, but I haven’t been able to determine if being built there or Mexico has anything to do with it.
I don’t have any squeaks or creaking and absolutely nothing shows any signs of wear yet. My best friend has a 2019 CX-30 and it’s also held up very well.
Looking to replace my 2016 Mazda6 with one of these someday. But I’m riding the car-payment-free life right now and still enjoying it. And the 6 only has a touch under 87,000 miles. So, barring an accident or other malady, it’s sticking around for a while.
You’ve got at least another 8-10 years with that car – Keep it maintained and you’ll be fine.
I’ve been thinking my 2009 Outback was going to die on my for five years now . . . in the same boat.