It doesn't make any difference at all. A hybrid is just that, a gasoline powered car with a battery to help increase economy. It's like saying you can't compare a turbocharged motor to an NA motor. The hybrid versions of the CR-V and RAV-4 are just variations of a theme to get more mileage from a gasoline powered car.
With the engine swap in the Hyundai from the 1.6T to the 2.4 NA motor, they gained 6hp, but lost 20ft/lbs of torque and went to an old school 6-sp automatic vs the 7-sp you had in your '17. It really surprises me you didn't notice the difference.
If you were out for comfort, you made the wrong choice with the Mazda for sure (there are many threads complaining about the seats if you aren't the right build and a fairly stiff ride). It isn't on the luxury side of the aisle at all. Mazda is the Zoom, Zoom company as you should know. It really seems like you went for the best deal when you bought the CX-5 - and you got it. The CX-5 is almost certainly the best bang for the buck in the category which is why it wins many comparison tests even late in its lifespan. Unfortunately, it seems lost on you. It really is too bad you didn't spend more time test driving the choices you had as you would have known the Mazda wouldn't suit your needs. If the Hyundai was such a great car for you, I can't understand why you wouldn't have waited a bit longer to buy a car (the current 4th generation Tuscon came out in '22 and unless your '17 was on its last legs you certainly could have waited to see what it was like before jumping ship).
I certainly hope you get something you like next time as it seems like the Mazda isn't it. Maybe try a Genesis GV70? They start around 45k and will certainly ride smoother and have more features than the CX-5.
Sorry, I think your argument is illogical.
It is an absurd oversimplification to say that a hybrid is just "a gasoline powered car with a battery to help increase economy"--it not only adds a large battery *pack*, but also adds one or more high-torque, synchronous electric motors, A power inverter to turn the DC voltage of the batteries into AC voltage for the synchronous electric motor(s), the electronics to manage the integration of the electric motors with the ICE and also the electronics and mechanics to manage charging the batteries using the ICE, regenerative braking and (in some cases) by plugging the car into a wall outlet.
It's a complex *system* (and complicated to troubleshoot and repair) which adds over $1000-$2000+ and around 200 lbs. to a car. As a bonus, if you decide to keep the car long enough (8-10 years) you're looking at spending thousands of dollars to replace the batteries at some point. So, that's all a hybrid is compared to a conventional car...
I would imagine that practically nobody buys a hybrid for its' performance--in the vast majority of cases, they buy them to lower their gas costs and to "reduce their carbon footprint". Most (but not all) hybrids have inferior performance when running on strictly electric power compared to the ICE, though the high-torque electric motors always have good off-the-line response.
Nothing could convince me to compare a hybrid with a non-hybrid. I will never own a hybrid no matter how well it might compare to an equivalent ICE. After decades of experience in electronics, I can tell you the more complicated a design is, the more you will run afoul of "Murphy's Law" (basically if anything *can* go wrong it *will* go wrong) and "Occam's Razor", (which in engineering terms means, "the more complicated a system is, the more likely it is to fail").
My test drive in the 2021 Tucson was around the neighborhood of the car dealership and on the local highway (with trucks, on-ramps, etc.), so I didn't really notice much difference at the time (especially since I was assuming it had the same engine as my 2017 limited). The only thing I didn't like so much about the 2017 Turbo was the transition from no-boost off the line, to full boost when the turbo spooled up--it was not very smooth, so the smoothness of the 2021 was an improvement in that sense (no turbo, so no turbo lag).
As far as research, I thought I had done sufficient research. I didn't imagine a mainstream manufacturer like Mazda would not be up to par in several comfort and convenience areas compared to less expensive alternatives.
I acknowledge whole-heartedly the performance and handling of the CX-5 is good (well, discounting my recent snow escapade) and I knew they were a "zoom-zoom" brand, I just didn't imagine Mazda was behind the times in typical comfort/feature areas compared to basically every car I've owned in the last 20 years, while wasting money on silly things like a HUD and a WiFi Hotspot (certainly more "luxury/bling" features than "zoom-zoom" features). Bad assumption, I admit.
When I test drove the CX-5, it seemed fine. I had little time to make a choice (I had *no* car at the time) and, as I said, didn't imagine how many minor, everyday things on the CX-5 would prove an everyday annoyance. I used to have a "zoom-zoom" car when I was young and foolish in the 80's, with a twin-turbo V-6 that would slam you back into the the seat when the turbos kicked in. It was terribly non-ergonomic and uncomfortable at the time, but it didn't matter to me back then. At the time I bought the CX-5, I imagined with all of the luxo features (front seat heaters and coolers, rear seat heaters), the CX-5 was a good choice. My bad.
I looked at the Hyundai Kona, but at the time, the lack of a leather interior and rear seat heaters was a no-go. I don't know what it is like now, but soon I will be looking...
can we make it to page 5?
