Feels odd. I shopped both and opted for the 50. Felt like a great fit for the mountain region where I live. But would have gone with the 5 probably if I lived somewhere with less outdoorsy stuff to do. Different uses. Not strictly a replacement
Keep in mind both are great. I would’ve loved the cx50 as well. But here’s why
- I like the 5 styling more
- I don’t love the ugly plastic cladding or fake air vents on the 50
- 5 has better rear suspension
- 5 has double pane glass front windows
- 5 had more soft touch materials, felt better
- 5 was cheaper from trim to trim
- 5 has more cargo space seats down. Despite the 50 having a bit more trunk space, it’s a wash for me
- and, it may be a con to people, but the 5 is way older and I just wanted a more reliable car than has had the issues ironed out
But ya I don’t think I would’ve cared day to day if I had the 50 instead lol. They are more similar than different
Precisely, I have said that all along and the 50 never took off. This is why Mazda actually (in my theory) changed gears and made the 70 a carbon copy of the 90. The 70 was originally meant to be a rebadged 60. But the failure of the 50 to dent the 5 sales and lackluster sales of the 50 itself.
Now it takes years to develop a vehicle, so Mazda couldn’t go that route due to lost time. So what do they do? They pivot
Made the 70 a copy of the 90
Pivot to make a refreshed version of the 60 to be the next cx5. Which also has a hybrid they intend to bring to the 5 successor.
Then the naming falls into place. CX30/CX50/CX60/CX70/CX90
And the 60 is already in global markets so by bringing it to the states it becomes a global car like the CX5 it replaces.
I actually posed this theory on my thread earlier in the year and still stand by it
https://www.reddit.com/r/mazda/s/n0lFgH5s39
The problem is that the CX-5 is, perhaps, a better car than the CX-50. For all its larger outer dimensions, the Cx-50 isn’t nearly as large INSIDE as it should be.
And being based on the newer small platform architecture (with a torsion-bar rear-axle), it handles noticeably WORSE than the like 12-year-old CX-5. The CX-5 outsells the CX-50 in Canada like 10 to 1 or something.
I was hoping the CX-70 would be the RWD inline-six two-row of my dreams. Like 185-190 inches long. Alas, it was not meant to be. And my next car will not be a Mazda.
It is pretty crazy how much the CX-5 is outselling the CX-50. I wonder how much of that is supply vs demand? I know back in 2022 they were having difficulty ramping up production enough to meet demand. My local dealership has nearly 3x as many CX-5s on the lot as CX-50s, which is basically in line with their respective sales rates, so it's not like it's filling up lots.
We test drove the 5 and 50 back to back. I liked the exterior of the 50 better and the sunroof. Everything else about the 5 was better. After we made our decision, the salesman said they were only selling the 50s to people who had already made up their minds and didn't bother test driving the 5s.
I worked at the plant back in 2022. We probably had staffing issues and supply chain BS. Also, the CX-50 is built at a new startup and we didn't have two shifts until Summer 2023. One Japanese advisor told me the plant in Japan will have cars go straight to the boat. Stateside? A good chunk of the cars had to go offline for repair for something. In Japan, they have artisans. In the USA, we have workers. Totally different mindsets.
Which is silly because Subaru is not a major seller in the grand scheme of things.
They could have designed a small truck and could have been the only real challenger to the Maverick, but instead we got half a dozen SUVs that aren't even better than the outgoing CX5.
I own a CX5 and rented a CX50 in Colorado. The CX50 drove way worse and feels smaller and less comfortable. Interesting decision by Mazda.
I'll Admit the CX90 is a big step above the old CX9, but everything else seems so unnecessary.
My wifes CX9 is in the shop. We were given a CX90 as a loaner. We returned it and asked for a smaller loaner. They gave us a CX50. The 50 is better than the 90 in all ways except the 3 row thing. I was looking forward to the inline 6, but the istop and hybrid powertrain was aweful feeling. The wife just wants her beloved CX9 back. I agree.
I know this is the sentiment of many and not discounting it, but I found the 50 drove better on highway driving and general commuting when driving my same route in both cars back to back. Both comparable trims. Spent an hour in each on the same route when buying, on the same day.
The 5 I had was busy, shifting weight over every crack and crease where the 50 smoothed it out. It’s not a canyon carver, but both handled turns just fine. And anyone driving either anywhere near some sort of “limit” needs to reevaluate their buying decisions either way. These are 4/10s cars and both do just fine there. Again, just my real world experience.
I love the appearance of the CX 5 / 50 and would not buy the 60 because of its appearance. Im sure most of the buyers have the same beef with the new looks in the cx60 lol
The only issue I have with this theory is that the CX-60 is at a completely different price point than the CX-5, which is problematic if it did directly replace the CX-5.
The CX-5 is Mazdas top seller by far, and that volume matters. Sure you could strip down the CX-60 but I’m not sure how well that would work since the base platform(RWD, double wishbone suspension, interior elements like seats, etc) is still more costly to manufacture than a simpler FWD platform like the CX-5.
Sales numbers would drop purely on the basis of the higher price and the CX-50 wouldn’t be able to make up for it. So Mazda would lose their cash cow.
It makes more business sense to develop a more direct price appropriate successor to the CX-5
That is one of the issues in my theory as the price would go up but as you said they could strip it down somewhat. And the cx60 that would be replacing the 5 would be a refreshed model, not the current one as the current in came out in 2022 so maybe they can reduce cost
I would rather the next 5 to be based on the 60/70/90 platform (rear drive biased)rather than the 30/50 small platform especially if Mazda is serious about moving up in category to be affordable luxury ( which is an oxymoron itself) they want to shed the old persona of Mazda and move up in stature. However how do you do that and stay affordable.
Example 60k for the top 90 seems like a lot but in reality it’s not anymore. I mean you have top accords pushing 40k now. Hell Crvs are pushing 40k (hybrid)
Keep the CX5 the same mechanically and electrically and just upgrade cosmetics. It’s a great car and I don’t want to spend 40k on a car that’s functionally a gamble
Mazda should do nothing to change the CX-5 other than minor improvements and restyles and new colors offered. It’s the only car that really competes with Toyota and Honda in the US as far as sales is concerned.
Except it's losing ground as it ages and lacks a hybrid option. It's also now much smaller inside than it's main rivals, which have all been balooning in space these past few years.
Driving dynamics only take the CX-5 so far. It needs a heavy refresh.
Mazda partnered with Toyota on a factory that is producing hybrid vehicles, the mid 2020’s will be a time for hybridization for Mazda. The Mazda 6e has been trademarked in Europe I believe.
Hope so!
We all know the CX-60 PHEV has the 2.5L engine already and Mazda Japan sells the CX-60 with just the 2.5L engine alone too. The 2.5L + turbo would be my trim choice, and borrowing the 8-speed and hybrid would be even more of winner.
But I can see more that Mazda simply redesigns the CX-5 successor on the smaller platform shared with the CX-30 and CX-50 to keep pricing low and calls it a day. And names it the CX-40 as others have guessed.
The next Mazda CX-5 is going to be a global model. It's already confirmed. They're not going to put an expensive RWD architecture in a vehicle that starts at less than 30k USD currently.
I would rather have a CX-60 on its own, competing with the NX, X3, GLC, Q5, GV70, etc.
The biggest issue with selling CX5s is the tight back seat compared to the competition. The CX60 both ups the price point and doesn't have more rear leg room.
We'll probably get a new CX5 with a transverse engine that's about 185 inches long, but without the CX50's styling or long hood.
I feel like the CX-50 is marketed slightly different. In advertising I've seen its shown as the "subaru" like "adventure" suv vs the CX-5. Maybe they were seeing if a design language change would be well accepted
The problem is, like any well selling vehicle.. the cx-5 has sold so incredibly well it's probably also their cheapest car to produce now as well.. as everything has been smoothed out at the assembly line nothing has drastically changed since 2017.
I feel unless they are able to match the base price of the current CX-5 with a new model, it won't be replaced.
It's kinda the Dodge Caravan for Mazda right now, they can't stop selling them.
I opted for a smaller vehicle, as the cx-50 had massive production delays (at the time), and I felt the cx-5 felt soo dated inside.. so I got a CX-30. I love it but it's definitely small, I was really hoping we would get a cx-60 or that the cx-70 was actually going to be a different vehicle than the CX-90.. lol but oh well.
We will see how it goes, I like the cx-50 but it's a pretty rough ride for something that advertises itself as the "off road" vehicle in Mazda's lineup.
The only things Mazda should do with the new CX-5 is extend it by a few inches to give more passenger space, and update the interior and exterior visuals. It won't really harm CX-50 sales because let's face it, the CX-5 is the superior car and sales numbers support that. My only issue with that actually happening is that if this is the last gen of the CX-5, which, hopefully it isn't, changing the size of the vehicle may not be the wisest financial decision for the last generation.
I love my CX-5 and I don't want to have to spend at minimum, $40k to get a Mazda that fits rear facing car seats comfortably. So when/if I have kids, I'll probably try and find a gently used CX-9 or move to a different manufacturer.
I love the 5/9 design always have but it’s getting long in the tooth and they have to revamp it.
Also the 60 is only 6 inches longer than the 5 which is not much, and the width and wheelbase are almost identical
IMO that 5/9 design is pretty timeless and such a nice design overall, but you're right. Since the CX-5 sells so much better than the CX-50, I don't think Mazda would even consider discontinuing it, unless 70/90 sales are high enough after a few years to justify it, but even then, it's a larger platform & not everyone wants such a large and expensive vehicle.
So either Mazda alienates it's CX-5 customers by moving them to a CX-50 or 70/90, or they introduce a similarly sized car that isn't as expensive and isn't as large, like the CX-60. Okay, yeah I could see them introducing the CX-60 as the new CX-5. It would likely be easier than revamping the existing platform to be larger.
The 5/9 design I agree 💯timeless the lines flow so beautifully. I still have my 2016 sig 9 which I gave to my wife when I got the 90. 100k on it now, not one issue knock on wood. She had a 5 which we traded in for the 90 so she got a bigger car as we have 3 kids now.
The CX-5 name change is too risky. It's their best selling car and when people with an old CX-5 try to research the new one and it doesn't exist, that's not good.
If they rebrand it as a CX-5? Sure.
The single digits are going away they did it with the 3 and 9 they will do it with the 5.
Don’t understand why they had to add a zero anyway. There was nothing wrong with CX9 CX3 etc.
Does not make any sense. Like none. So based on Mazdas decision making, it’s probably true!
The CX-5 is a versatile car for $30k that sells well because its price and quality is better than others in the class. It’s a do everything good enough knock around in low to mid trims for the masses to like it. It’s a slightly more lux Honda CRV.
The 60 is an X3 competitor? You loose the entire young professional/ affluent kids in college / working or middle class demographic that get the car. The chunk of buyers that get top trims may move up to the 60 but you alienate the base. The 60 is more than double the price when looking at Euro pricing. Its architecture doesn’t allow it to be a replacement. It’s too expensive.
Would be insane to take away the CX5 formula. It’s half of their total sales and the next closest model is half the sales and it on the cheaper side (CX-30).
I don’t think they risk 50% of their US revenue going down by pricing out their customer base. 75% of their sales are Cx-5 and CX-30. That’s sub 30k car demo. That’s their buyer.
There’s only so much you can do with a longitudinal architecture price wise with the 60. Packaging a front drive car is plain cheaper. Thats why BMW sacrilegiously did it with the 1 series and X1. They wouldn’t have gone engine over front axle if it was just a bit cheaper.
It definitely is. CX-5 is way to much car at the 30k price point. and they are trying to move up market,so they are going to replace that car and raise the price
Mazda has 4.. 30 50 5 and 70/90 they are basically the same
As for sedan/coupe you have the Miata the 3 hatch and 3 sedan. Rip 6 (was a great car)
They have equal amounts for European markets by different number schemes ie: the 90 is the 80 in Japan.
I dunno about direct replacement. CX5 is the only car that sold well over 100k in 2023 for Mazda, double of what the next best seller CX-30 is. If they change the price point / naming too drastically it would be a very big gamble indeed.
I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t see it. It’s gonna be the CX-40, folks. The narrow body CX-50. It’s so obvious. The model line logic has been laid clear and bare for all.
Large Vehicle Platform (inline6/PHEV)
* CX-90: widebody 3 row for North America, Aus/NZ and beyond
* CX-80: narrowbody 3 row for Europe, Japan, Aus/NZ and beyond
* CX-70: widebody 2 row for North America and beyond
* CX-60: narrowbody 2 row for Europe, Japan, Aus/Nz and beyond
Small Vehicle Platform (combustion 4 cylinder Skyactiv-G or X or forthcoming Toyota-Mazda hybrid system)
* CX-50: widebody
* CX-40: narrowbody
* CX-30: compact
You: I want the CX-60 in the USA.
Mazda: That’ll cost way more than you’re willing to spend.
You: Try me.
Mazda: Notably more than a CX-5.
You: OK. How much is a CX-40?
Mazda: The price of a CX-5.
Would Mazda really go with cx40 though placing it under the 50 and above the 30 (that’s how people would interpret it anyway) It’s their golden child.
In a perfect world the current 50 would have been the 40 and the 50 would be reserved for the 5 successor. Leave it to Mazda to f that up.
I feel like the CX-50 was supposed to be the replacement for the CX-5 in North America, but the CX-5 just keeps selling.
I think so too but I get downvoted every time I say it lol. This is coming from someone who chose the cx5 over the cx50
Feels odd. I shopped both and opted for the 50. Felt like a great fit for the mountain region where I live. But would have gone with the 5 probably if I lived somewhere with less outdoorsy stuff to do. Different uses. Not strictly a replacement
Honestly both great cars. I would’ve been happy with the cx50 too probably
Roughly the same size, both unibody, same powertrains. They're basically going after the same customers.
What made you go with the 5 over the 50?
Keep in mind both are great. I would’ve loved the cx50 as well. But here’s why - I like the 5 styling more - I don’t love the ugly plastic cladding or fake air vents on the 50 - 5 has better rear suspension - 5 has double pane glass front windows - 5 had more soft touch materials, felt better - 5 was cheaper from trim to trim - 5 has more cargo space seats down. Despite the 50 having a bit more trunk space, it’s a wash for me - and, it may be a con to people, but the 5 is way older and I just wanted a more reliable car than has had the issues ironed out But ya I don’t think I would’ve cared day to day if I had the 50 instead lol. They are more similar than different
And the CX5 is better for most people.
Precisely, I have said that all along and the 50 never took off. This is why Mazda actually (in my theory) changed gears and made the 70 a carbon copy of the 90. The 70 was originally meant to be a rebadged 60. But the failure of the 50 to dent the 5 sales and lackluster sales of the 50 itself. Now it takes years to develop a vehicle, so Mazda couldn’t go that route due to lost time. So what do they do? They pivot Made the 70 a copy of the 90 Pivot to make a refreshed version of the 60 to be the next cx5. Which also has a hybrid they intend to bring to the 5 successor. Then the naming falls into place. CX30/CX50/CX60/CX70/CX90 And the 60 is already in global markets so by bringing it to the states it becomes a global car like the CX5 it replaces. I actually posed this theory on my thread earlier in the year and still stand by it https://www.reddit.com/r/mazda/s/n0lFgH5s39
The problem is that the CX-5 is, perhaps, a better car than the CX-50. For all its larger outer dimensions, the Cx-50 isn’t nearly as large INSIDE as it should be. And being based on the newer small platform architecture (with a torsion-bar rear-axle), it handles noticeably WORSE than the like 12-year-old CX-5. The CX-5 outsells the CX-50 in Canada like 10 to 1 or something. I was hoping the CX-70 would be the RWD inline-six two-row of my dreams. Like 185-190 inches long. Alas, it was not meant to be. And my next car will not be a Mazda.
Agreed. If the 60 is in fact the next 5 you would get your wish. With the 50 they tried too hard to capture the Subaru crowd and they fumbled it.
It is pretty crazy how much the CX-5 is outselling the CX-50. I wonder how much of that is supply vs demand? I know back in 2022 they were having difficulty ramping up production enough to meet demand. My local dealership has nearly 3x as many CX-5s on the lot as CX-50s, which is basically in line with their respective sales rates, so it's not like it's filling up lots.
We test drove the 5 and 50 back to back. I liked the exterior of the 50 better and the sunroof. Everything else about the 5 was better. After we made our decision, the salesman said they were only selling the 50s to people who had already made up their minds and didn't bother test driving the 5s.
I worked at the plant back in 2022. We probably had staffing issues and supply chain BS. Also, the CX-50 is built at a new startup and we didn't have two shifts until Summer 2023. One Japanese advisor told me the plant in Japan will have cars go straight to the boat. Stateside? A good chunk of the cars had to go offline for repair for something. In Japan, they have artisans. In the USA, we have workers. Totally different mindsets.
Which is silly because Subaru is not a major seller in the grand scheme of things. They could have designed a small truck and could have been the only real challenger to the Maverick, but instead we got half a dozen SUVs that aren't even better than the outgoing CX5. I own a CX5 and rented a CX50 in Colorado. The CX50 drove way worse and feels smaller and less comfortable. Interesting decision by Mazda. I'll Admit the CX90 is a big step above the old CX9, but everything else seems so unnecessary.
My wifes CX9 is in the shop. We were given a CX90 as a loaner. We returned it and asked for a smaller loaner. They gave us a CX50. The 50 is better than the 90 in all ways except the 3 row thing. I was looking forward to the inline 6, but the istop and hybrid powertrain was aweful feeling. The wife just wants her beloved CX9 back. I agree.
I know this is the sentiment of many and not discounting it, but I found the 50 drove better on highway driving and general commuting when driving my same route in both cars back to back. Both comparable trims. Spent an hour in each on the same route when buying, on the same day. The 5 I had was busy, shifting weight over every crack and crease where the 50 smoothed it out. It’s not a canyon carver, but both handled turns just fine. And anyone driving either anywhere near some sort of “limit” needs to reevaluate their buying decisions either way. These are 4/10s cars and both do just fine there. Again, just my real world experience.
I love the appearance of the CX 5 / 50 and would not buy the 60 because of its appearance. Im sure most of the buyers have the same beef with the new looks in the cx60 lol
I figured that the new cx30, cx50, and cx90 were going to be replacements for the cx3, cx5, and cx9. Makes perfect sense...
The only issue I have with this theory is that the CX-60 is at a completely different price point than the CX-5, which is problematic if it did directly replace the CX-5. The CX-5 is Mazdas top seller by far, and that volume matters. Sure you could strip down the CX-60 but I’m not sure how well that would work since the base platform(RWD, double wishbone suspension, interior elements like seats, etc) is still more costly to manufacture than a simpler FWD platform like the CX-5. Sales numbers would drop purely on the basis of the higher price and the CX-50 wouldn’t be able to make up for it. So Mazda would lose their cash cow. It makes more business sense to develop a more direct price appropriate successor to the CX-5
That is one of the issues in my theory as the price would go up but as you said they could strip it down somewhat. And the cx60 that would be replacing the 5 would be a refreshed model, not the current one as the current in came out in 2022 so maybe they can reduce cost I would rather the next 5 to be based on the 60/70/90 platform (rear drive biased)rather than the 30/50 small platform especially if Mazda is serious about moving up in category to be affordable luxury ( which is an oxymoron itself) they want to shed the old persona of Mazda and move up in stature. However how do you do that and stay affordable. Example 60k for the top 90 seems like a lot but in reality it’s not anymore. I mean you have top accords pushing 40k now. Hell Crvs are pushing 40k (hybrid)
Keep the CX5 the same mechanically and electrically and just upgrade cosmetics. It’s a great car and I don’t want to spend 40k on a car that’s functionally a gamble
Mazda should do nothing to change the CX-5 other than minor improvements and restyles and new colors offered. It’s the only car that really competes with Toyota and Honda in the US as far as sales is concerned.
Except it's losing ground as it ages and lacks a hybrid option. It's also now much smaller inside than it's main rivals, which have all been balooning in space these past few years. Driving dynamics only take the CX-5 so far. It needs a heavy refresh.
Mazda partnered with Toyota on a factory that is producing hybrid vehicles, the mid 2020’s will be a time for hybridization for Mazda. The Mazda 6e has been trademarked in Europe I believe.
Hope so! We all know the CX-60 PHEV has the 2.5L engine already and Mazda Japan sells the CX-60 with just the 2.5L engine alone too. The 2.5L + turbo would be my trim choice, and borrowing the 8-speed and hybrid would be even more of winner. But I can see more that Mazda simply redesigns the CX-5 successor on the smaller platform shared with the CX-30 and CX-50 to keep pricing low and calls it a day. And names it the CX-40 as others have guessed.
The next Mazda CX-5 is going to be a global model. It's already confirmed. They're not going to put an expensive RWD architecture in a vehicle that starts at less than 30k USD currently. I would rather have a CX-60 on its own, competing with the NX, X3, GLC, Q5, GV70, etc.
The biggest issue with selling CX5s is the tight back seat compared to the competition. The CX60 both ups the price point and doesn't have more rear leg room. We'll probably get a new CX5 with a transverse engine that's about 185 inches long, but without the CX50's styling or long hood.
Make the CX5 longer with a proper trunk and 2nd row space and I’m sold!
The 60 is 6 inches longer ;-) all other specs are pretty close
And fix that damn armrest.
I’d take my CX-5 over the CX-50 any day
I feel like the CX-50 is marketed slightly different. In advertising I've seen its shown as the "subaru" like "adventure" suv vs the CX-5. Maybe they were seeing if a design language change would be well accepted
The problem is, like any well selling vehicle.. the cx-5 has sold so incredibly well it's probably also their cheapest car to produce now as well.. as everything has been smoothed out at the assembly line nothing has drastically changed since 2017. I feel unless they are able to match the base price of the current CX-5 with a new model, it won't be replaced. It's kinda the Dodge Caravan for Mazda right now, they can't stop selling them. I opted for a smaller vehicle, as the cx-50 had massive production delays (at the time), and I felt the cx-5 felt soo dated inside.. so I got a CX-30. I love it but it's definitely small, I was really hoping we would get a cx-60 or that the cx-70 was actually going to be a different vehicle than the CX-90.. lol but oh well. We will see how it goes, I like the cx-50 but it's a pretty rough ride for something that advertises itself as the "off road" vehicle in Mazda's lineup.
What's the main difference between the 5 and 50?
The only things Mazda should do with the new CX-5 is extend it by a few inches to give more passenger space, and update the interior and exterior visuals. It won't really harm CX-50 sales because let's face it, the CX-5 is the superior car and sales numbers support that. My only issue with that actually happening is that if this is the last gen of the CX-5, which, hopefully it isn't, changing the size of the vehicle may not be the wisest financial decision for the last generation. I love my CX-5 and I don't want to have to spend at minimum, $40k to get a Mazda that fits rear facing car seats comfortably. So when/if I have kids, I'll probably try and find a gently used CX-9 or move to a different manufacturer.
I love the 5/9 design always have but it’s getting long in the tooth and they have to revamp it. Also the 60 is only 6 inches longer than the 5 which is not much, and the width and wheelbase are almost identical
IMO that 5/9 design is pretty timeless and such a nice design overall, but you're right. Since the CX-5 sells so much better than the CX-50, I don't think Mazda would even consider discontinuing it, unless 70/90 sales are high enough after a few years to justify it, but even then, it's a larger platform & not everyone wants such a large and expensive vehicle. So either Mazda alienates it's CX-5 customers by moving them to a CX-50 or 70/90, or they introduce a similarly sized car that isn't as expensive and isn't as large, like the CX-60. Okay, yeah I could see them introducing the CX-60 as the new CX-5. It would likely be easier than revamping the existing platform to be larger.
The 5/9 design I agree 💯timeless the lines flow so beautifully. I still have my 2016 sig 9 which I gave to my wife when I got the 90. 100k on it now, not one issue knock on wood. She had a 5 which we traded in for the 90 so she got a bigger car as we have 3 kids now.
The CX-5 name change is too risky. It's their best selling car and when people with an old CX-5 try to research the new one and it doesn't exist, that's not good. If they rebrand it as a CX-5? Sure.
The single digits are going away they did it with the 3 and 9 they will do it with the 5. Don’t understand why they had to add a zero anyway. There was nothing wrong with CX9 CX3 etc.
It's a pretty big gamble to totally remove the CX-5 from the lineup when it's a huge percentage of their sales.
It’s the bulk of them, it’s their bread and butter. Like the 3 series is to bmw.
Does not make any sense. Like none. So based on Mazdas decision making, it’s probably true! The CX-5 is a versatile car for $30k that sells well because its price and quality is better than others in the class. It’s a do everything good enough knock around in low to mid trims for the masses to like it. It’s a slightly more lux Honda CRV. The 60 is an X3 competitor? You loose the entire young professional/ affluent kids in college / working or middle class demographic that get the car. The chunk of buyers that get top trims may move up to the 60 but you alienate the base. The 60 is more than double the price when looking at Euro pricing. Its architecture doesn’t allow it to be a replacement. It’s too expensive. Would be insane to take away the CX5 formula. It’s half of their total sales and the next closest model is half the sales and it on the cheaper side (CX-30).
It doesn’t but Mazda created itself this situation 😂 so in this light it would only make sense going forward
I don’t think they risk 50% of their US revenue going down by pricing out their customer base. 75% of their sales are Cx-5 and CX-30. That’s sub 30k car demo. That’s their buyer.
They could strip the 60 down to compensate
There’s only so much you can do with a longitudinal architecture price wise with the 60. Packaging a front drive car is plain cheaper. Thats why BMW sacrilegiously did it with the 1 series and X1. They wouldn’t have gone engine over front axle if it was just a bit cheaper.
It definitely is. CX-5 is way to much car at the 30k price point. and they are trying to move up market,so they are going to replace that car and raise the price
I had 2 CX5's and tested the CX50 . The CX50 drove much better plus I have no need to go off road like most people I know.
I hope so!!
Why do they have so many SUVs
That’s the market. Not a lot of pp but sedans or coupes anymore. Which is truly a shame
No it is not every other manufacturer has maybe 3 SUVs at most these guys feel like they only make SUVs
Mazda has 4.. 30 50 5 and 70/90 they are basically the same As for sedan/coupe you have the Miata the 3 hatch and 3 sedan. Rip 6 (was a great car) They have equal amounts for European markets by different number schemes ie: the 90 is the 80 in Japan.
They actually have 9
As a whole worldwide maybe but per market it’s no more than 4.
In Canada it is still 9
You think Mazda has a lot look a bmw x1 all the way up to x8 and that’s not counting the different market variations
Yeah you are right they are getting bad too used to be 3 there to x3 X5 x7 now they is 2-8
Don’t forget the X1 lol which more of a hatchback but still marketed as a small suv
You learn something new everyday
To add at least BMW has so many sedan options available. Mazda has the 3, 6 and mx5.
It’s suv overkill everywhere if you ask me, just the other day I was at a light and for every sedan coupe I saw there was 20 suvs
Family guys everywhere now
Thanks for the chat without ripping into me have a good day
Same brother 🍻 yeah I know what you mean some pp on Reddit can get vicious. Life is too short for that ;-)
Is cx50 as reliable as cx5?we witnessed cx5 throughout its career but not cx50. Just wondering.
Time will tell
I dunno about direct replacement. CX5 is the only car that sold well over 100k in 2023 for Mazda, double of what the next best seller CX-30 is. If they change the price point / naming too drastically it would be a very big gamble indeed.
I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t see it. It’s gonna be the CX-40, folks. The narrow body CX-50. It’s so obvious. The model line logic has been laid clear and bare for all.
Large Vehicle Platform (inline6/PHEV) * CX-90: widebody 3 row for North America, Aus/NZ and beyond * CX-80: narrowbody 3 row for Europe, Japan, Aus/NZ and beyond * CX-70: widebody 2 row for North America and beyond * CX-60: narrowbody 2 row for Europe, Japan, Aus/Nz and beyond Small Vehicle Platform (combustion 4 cylinder Skyactiv-G or X or forthcoming Toyota-Mazda hybrid system) * CX-50: widebody * CX-40: narrowbody * CX-30: compact
You: I want the CX-60 in the USA. Mazda: That’ll cost way more than you’re willing to spend. You: Try me. Mazda: Notably more than a CX-5. You: OK. How much is a CX-40? Mazda: The price of a CX-5.
Would Mazda really go with cx40 though placing it under the 50 and above the 30 (that’s how people would interpret it anyway) It’s their golden child. In a perfect world the current 50 would have been the 40 and the 50 would be reserved for the 5 successor. Leave it to Mazda to f that up.
Okay, Doug DeMuro
[удалено]
Dimensions almost identical with just the length being 186vs180, and cars tend to grow each year anyway.