The Never-ending Question...What happens to the CX-5 Next Year (2025)?

[chickdr]

The gen 2 grill has grown on me, but I still don't care for how the hood overhangs it and it still has a massive piece of chrome on it vs the Gen 1 which is not my thing. But hey, that's just me.

I'd like Mazda to go back to their Kodo design. Think they have lost the plot lately with their newer offerings with big plastic cladding and goofy lines.

But the CX-70/90 don't have plastic cladding at all. Seems to be mainly the CX-50 which is tagged as a more "rugged" offering. In my eyes the CX60/70/90 are quite classy looking and have good proportions. I just wish the CX-70 was shorter.

 

[N7turbo]

Not sure I understand the term "quality" here. I admit that the turn signal chimes are weird, seats are fine IMO (wife actually likes the CX-50 seats more than her CX-5). Seat belts, I don't understand. But chimes and such are software things that will likely be the same in all new Mazda designs, like it or not.

Now some folks have reported quality issues with the CX-50, but my car has been rock solid (knock wood).

The seatbelt chime is really annoying on the 30 and 50, going off even if you don't intend to drive the car. The 5 doesn't nag you until you start moving more than a few mph.

Then there's build quality. I'm not saying these are "issues" in the sense that they'll become fixes for you. It's just the overall feel and user experience is lesser. The seat belt in the 5 is a silkier, higher quality material. And when you reach back for it, there's an indentation for your hand to slip between it and the side panel.

On the 50, the belt is rougher and doesn't slide as well, and when you reach back for it, it seems they didn't put the same thought into the ergonomics: the belt is against the panel and it takes extra effort to grab.

The speaker boxes are tacked between the A-pillar and door rather than integrated, and could be pushed around when I touched them. Opening the door means grabbing a vertical plastic handle that's far forward on the door. The 5 in contrast greets you with extra padding and is positioned where you get a better lever effect, reducing effort. There's also no surface in the 50 doors to pull the doors closed with, forcing you to use the awkward handle.

And there are more things, like the move away from independent rear suspensions, but I don't need to keep going. I just wanted to add more detail to why I don't like the direction Mazda is going with these new platforms.

Yeah, well that's the trade off, right? If you firmed those things up on the CX-5, you'd probably improve the handling to that of the CX-50, and reduce the ride to that of the CX-50!

We shall find out. I'm hoping there are still enough differences that they won't feel the same. The one thing I liked the most about the 50 was how it rotated and handled, and I think the 5 is just more reluctant to do so because of massive understeer. But the 50 gives you a harder ride with the torsion beam.

 

[N7turbo]

The gen 2 grill has grown on me, but I still don't care for how the hood overhangs it and it still has a massive piece of chrome on it vs the Gen 1 which is not my thing. But hey, that's just me.

What chrome...

 

[gazelle]

The CX-50 drives better and more responsively than the CX-5. The CX-5 rides a bit better than the CX-50, but that's the tradeoff (we have both so I can compare directly). I haven't driven the -60, so cannot comment on that.

I don't have both so I can't compare, but that would be strange for a car with same engine, same transmission, weighting more, having higher center of gravity and a rear torsion beam to drive better.
I failed to find any CX-50 moose tests, are there any?

 

[N7turbo]

I don't have both so I can't compare, but that would be strange for a car with same engine, same transmission, weighting more, having higher center of gravity and a rear torsion beam to drive better.
I failed to find any CX-50 moose tests, are there any?

It is strange, but in my drives, the CX-50 feels better around corners, despite the longer wheel base. It has firmer spring rates, less body roll, and seems to want to rotate easier. The CX-5 dives more into the outside wheel and understeers. I feel it's set up for safety rather than performance, and springs and tires could go a long way toward fixing that. Maybe even a slightly stiffer rear sway bar.

 

[ceric]

It is strange, but in my drives, the CX-50 feels better around corners, despite the longer wheel base. It has firmer spring rates, less body roll, and seems to want to rotate easier. The CX-5 dives more into the outside wheel and understeers. I feel it's set up for safety rather than performance, and springs and tires could go a long way toward fixing that. Maybe even a slightly stiffer rear sway bar.

The CX-50 is lower than the CX-5. Lower gravity center.

 

[Chocolate]

 

[gazelle]

The CX-50 is lower than the CX-5. Lower gravity center.

I see, I thought higher ground clearance made it higher overall

 

[ColoradoDriver]

What chrome...

View attachment 325975

Did they change it then? See earlier Gen 2's.

 

[N7turbo]

Did they change it then? See earlier Gen 2's.

It's the Turbo model.

 

[MX693]

Latest rumor is 2025 will be another carry-over year. What could they tweak to make it sound “new and improved “?

 

[yrwei52]

Latest rumor is 2025 will be another carry-over year. What could they tweak to make it sound “new and improved “?

To make the long-waited ALH available on the CX-5 in the US.