2022 Mazda CX-50 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus AWD |
2.5-liter turbocharged four (227hp @ 5,000 rpm, 310lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm on regular unleaded, 256hp @ 5,000 rpm, 320lb-ft @ 2,500 rpm on 93 octane) Six-speed automatic transmission, all-wheel drive 23 city / 29 highway / 25 combined (EPA Rating, MPG) 10.4 city / 8.1 highway / 9.4 combined. (NRCan Rating, L/100km) Base Price: $42,775 US / $47,431 CAN As Tested: $43,170 US / $47,681 CAN Prices include $1,225 destination charge in the United States and $2081 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada and, because of cross-border equipment differences, can’t be directly compared. |
Americans have got a fever, and the only prescription is more crossovers. Virtually every automaker trying to do business in this country has some sort of lifted wagon – if not a handful. Large ones, small ones, performance ones, economy ones. No convertible crossovers anymore, thank goodness. They’re shoehorning a crossover into nearly every possible market segment.
Here, we have the 2023 Mazda CX-50, with a name very much like their popular CX-5. And it’s very close in size to said CX-5. Of the six distinct non-electric vehicles offered by Mazda, four are crossovers – but why did they bring us something so very clearly similar to something they’ve been selling well for many years without replacing it?
Oh, and don’t give Mazda any ideas about a Miata crossover, please.
Mazda says the CX-50 was developed – let me get the marketing language right here – “to support the active and outdoor lifestyles of customers…” Images accompanying the press release show the CX-50 in nature – on groomed trails and adjacent to trees. Yeah, I know my photos have the car posed on a gravel lot near a river, too.
As such, the CX-50 sports additional black plastic lower body cladding. The styling beyond the plastic is distinct, too – with a bit more ground clearance and a lower roofline than the CX-5 – making the entire car look longer. I won’t deny that it’s a handsome look, especially with the wheel wells filled up with the twenty-inch wheels fitted to this Premium Plus trim.
But I’m not sure it necessarily speaks to a rugged outdoor active lifestyle. Beyond the standard all-wheel drive and the selectable drive mode with an off-road mode, I don’t see a single thing on this car that makes it any more capable where the pavement ends than your typical crossover. No skid plates, no all-terrain tires, no locking differentials.
Will the CX-50 buyer care about this? I’m not sure that they will. Because once they get behind the wheel, they’ll find a comfortable, roomy, and above all luxurious family hauler. The ride quality is superb, with minimal wind and road noise and no harshness transmitted to the cabin from impacting expansion joints. The panoramic moonroof does bring nature in just a bit should you choose.
The turbocharged engine has plenty of power to get up to speed without drama, and while the six-speed automatic is down a few cogs from some competitors, it shifts smoothly and feels very well matched to both the engine and the nature of the CX-50. The driving experience is basically identical to that of the CX-5 – which is to say, pleasant.
Infotainment is getting better from Mazda, with a display that is clearer and more snappy to respond than in years past. But it’s still commanded by a central dial near the shifter, with a couple of buttons to toggle for music or nav. Wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are welcome additions.
Let’s consider, then, what should be the best comparison in the entry-luxury compact crossover market – the Lexus NX. Tim took a look at the NX 350 last week. Dimensionally, both the NX and this CX-50 are quite close inside and out – the Mazda has a slightly longer wheelbase (110.8 inches versus 105.9 for the Lexus) within roughly the same length (185.5 inches for Mazda, 183.5 inches on the Lexus). Cargo space is a win for the Mazda as well – 31.4 cubic feet behind the rear seats, versus 22.7 cubes on the Lexus.
And yet picking the entry trim of the NX 250 and simply adding all-wheel drive will run $41,025 delivered – without a number of features (like heated/ventilated seats, the moonroof, and leather) the Mazda gives on this $43,170 Turbo Premium Plus package. Matching the two up shows the value here, and the quality of the materials and appointments within the Mazda (caveat for the infotainment here) are at least every bit the equal of the Lexus.
Mazda is a luxury brand now. This is not my father’s Mazda of the GLC era, lined as it was with repurposed mouse fur. I’m sure Toyota isn’t thrilled that they’re helping to build (at the Alabama joint venture facility) such a vehicle that might make cross-shop their own premium line, but that’s how great a job Mazda has done here.
To be fair, no amount of black plastic cladding can ever make this an off-roader – not with the snazzy twenty-inch wheels and low-profile tires fitted here. That’s ok – the slight nod toward off-road fashion is like that one nice pair of running shoes I once bought, thinking I might get off the couch and start running to lose some weight. Nope. They’ve been relegated to very comfy lawn-mowing sneakers – and at least until they turned green, they looked good doing so.
With the 2023 CX-50, Mazda is leaning in hard to court those who imagine themselves with an active and outdoor lifestyle. Whether it succeeds is a question yet to be answered.
[Images: © 2022 Chris Tonn]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
The fact that it lacks off road prowess doesn’t bother me. As I have always said, if I’m off road something has gone horribly wrong. Nice looking car and I like Mazdas(I own one). Just wish they had been more aggressive in converting to hybrids or electrics.
A minor note: the infotainment does have touch capability, but it’s only available for the smartphone mirroring modes like Apple CarPlay. It can be used as a touch screen during driving by changing a setting in Mazda Connect.
Otherwise Mazda Connect’s interface is still all commanded by the knob.
The Meridian trim should be for the “off-road enthusiast” but it’s not out yet and aside from the 18 inch wheels/offroad tires and some accessories I don’t think it’ll be much different than the other trims.
Good info!
I know I’m old because my reaction is: “Meh. Don’t hate it, don’t love it. Seems nice enough, I’m sure it’s fine for an appliance. $43K!!!? Are you kidding me?”
Somehow there developed a huge disconnect between what my brain tells me cars should cost and what they actually cost.
I logged in to say the same thing. Can’t believe it is that expensive. MPG kind of sucks too for a turbo 4 popper.
Gas mileage isn’t any worse than the Lexus NX 350, Acura RDX, Caddy XT4, BMW X3, or Q3 with with the 2.5T.
So I guess all those get bad gas mileage too?
Totally agree. I’ll keep buying $10-20k whatever used, spend $2-5k on fixes, and I will (am) still be ahead of this sick game of padding CEO salaries. F-them.
In fairness, Motor Trend did a comparison between a loaded CX-5 and the Infiniti Q50 a couple of years back and said that the CX-5 was “the more convincing luxury product despite the mainstream badge.” And this was a few years after finding the same thing after testing it against a Lexus NX-300.
I felt the same when I saw that. Once the budget is above $40k one can start looking cars they REALLY want.
I know it isn’t apples-to-apples, but I imagine for $44k I could twist a Kia dealer’s arm for a Stinger GT with AWD.
Don’t panic, Drew. That base price is for the loaded trim. You can get one of these for under $30k out the door. I think Mazda has been prioritizing production of the loaded model because it’s a new introduction, but lower-trim models will probably become available over time. Here’s one now. https://www.bradshawmazda.com/new-Greenville-2023-+-Mazda+CX+50-25+S+Select+Package-7MMVABAM2PN109797
This was pretty much exactly my response reading this article.
I’m not sure how to get around that disconnect. Probably why one of our cars has 195K on it and the other 180K.
This appeals to me for a bunch of reasons, though it’s too expensive. As a skier and biker, I like the longer rear cargo compartment.
I praise the 6-speed slushbox. If I can’t have a stick, it’s still somewhat engaging to row my own, and 6 is great, while the new boxes with 10 speeds are tedious.
Mandatory Crossover Question for Chris: Does the rear seat fold truly flat?
This probably isn’t on topic, but my knowledge of CUVs is about as extensive as my knowledge of the fauna in Borneo… To be honest, I have no idea what the CX-50 is.
But…
A couple of years ago I had a Mazda3 sedan rental and then a couple of days later had a Mazda CX-3 rental. I’ll admit bias, but I loved the sedan and utterly hated the jacked-up version of it. The CX-3 was inferior in every way that mattered to me. It was a bit of a revelation for me to realize that most people don’t prioritize the ‘car’ aspects of a car – power, handling and stuff like that, but they prioritize other things. Good for them, but those of us who do like cars as cars are running out of options.
I hope I live long enough to see the return of wagons.
The CX-3 is a Mazda2 if I’m not mistaken, while the Mazda3 underpins the CX-5.
I think the first-gen CX-5 was on the same platform as the 3 and the 6 at the time, but I am not sure it’s true now. I think the CX-50 is on a slightly different platform from the CX-5 as well.
The CX-3 was the “jacked up” version of the Mazda2. It’d definitely be inferior to the Mazda3 in every way.
The current CX-30 is a “jacked up” Mazda3, and it’s much, much better than the CX-3. The Mazda3 hatch and the CX-30 largely the same car, though the CX-30 has slightly different exterior dimensions. The CX-50 is a stretched/enhanced version of that CX-30 platform.
It’s nice, but…
Our 22 Santa Fe Limited has more cargo space, 50 more HP on regular gas, and the same fuel economy at the same price. The 8-spd DCT makes it a snappy driver, but I wouldn’t mind a regular automatic.
I admit my bias, but I think Mazda will have difficulty moving many of these in a crowded market.
I saw a CX-50 in high level trim, soul red earlier this week. They will move every one of them they make….at least until market recovers. I think the Sante Fe is considerably larger. I will say again if Mazda is listening, I like the car but wouldnt consider it with the 6 speed. It is losing 2 mpg right off the bat with the antiquated gearbox. My guess is that this vehicle will have 8 speed auto by the time of the mid-cycle refresh.
Overall, I think this is more compelling in many respects to the CX-5, still at a decent price, particularly in lower trims. The outdoorsy stuff is pure marketing garbage. But hey, they sell millions of oversized and underworked pickup trucks ever year through savvy marketing to males who need to fortify their masculinity even though they have no use for a truck and perhaps cant or shouldn’t try to afford the gas.
Sante fe is a different class of vehicle.
My big complaint is Hyundai doesn’t make light leather interiors on limited trims.
A worse CX5 made specifically for large Americans.
Good job Mazda.
And you’ve driven both, I presume? So have some basic clue what you’re saying?
Didn’t think so
A note on mileage numbers from Mazda…..
We lease a 2021 CX9 awd. CX9 mpg estimate says 20/26 with a combined 23 average. We are seeing 19 average. Same engine as what is in this CX-50.
My wife isn’t a lead foot and she’s the primary driver.
The CX9 is 1 mpg better than our old POS X5 with an inline 6, although accepting regular gas helps. By comparison, the leased GLC3000 averaged 24 mpg, exactly what Merc said it should do.
The CX9 is fine for what it is, but efficient it is not, nor is it close to its mpg estimates.
Mazda should stop fudging this. It makes me wonder what else they’re fudging.
With the Mazda in the shop, we have a rented base Mini Countryman. It’s the 3 cylinder pokey one. No balls at all, but very fun when taking a corner while my wife tells me to knock it off and that it’s not a BMW. Ha. It very much is a raised wagon – to the point where I want to drive the other variants.
The mileage on the Mini is excellent – averaging 27 mpg and change. But it’s also supposed to get 29 mpg in mixed driving.
With gas out here running $6.45/gallon, I’m paying attention.
What’s your city/highway mix?
I have found that with turbo engines, more “in town” driving has a huge impact on mileage. Anytime you’re into the boost, your MPG suffers. My GLI is supposed to get 28 “combined”, but I’m typically at 23 because a) most of my driving is “city,” and b) my right foot apparently weighs about 200 pounds. When I mix in some highway, I’m at about 27.
BTW, I’ve also started using the stop-start feature lately, and it’s netting me a couple extra MPG. And VW’s system is actually fairly well executed. Not a big bump, but with the price of 91-octane being what it is, I’ll take it.
Mix is 70/30 city/highway.
The stop/start feature in the Mini and Mazda is useless in Summer months due to the A/C compressor shutting down and those cars heat up fast in 85+ degree weather.
Good point – I like to drive around with the windows down in the summertime, but that’s a lot easier to do with the low humidity we get here in Denver.
Well, jk, you’re an engineer, as am I. So far as I know, around town driving mpg with constant stops and starts is directly related to mass, thus inertia and the energy required to accelerate an object of given mass to a given velocity.
The CX-9 is a 4500 lb porker, so what do you expect it will get for mpg? I’d say it gets what any 4500 lb vehicle gets under those around town conditions, unless it’s a hybrid.
I have the same engine in a Mazda6, which weighs 900 lbs less. Golly gee, whaddya know, it gets much better mileage than your 19mpg. The rating here in Canada is 10l/100 km combined, about 23,5 mpg US overall, and lifetime that’s exactly what it does get, despite my constant hammering on the gas for the rather fabulous second gear get me outta here response, and winter warmups after snow that often extend to 20 minutes or more, which might approximate the constant A/C mpg drain of SoCal.
Presumably for parts commonality for the heavier duty transaxle and final drive than the N/A version gets, the smaller Mazdas with this turbo engine are undergeared to CX-9 specs. Mine certainly is, turning more revs/mile in sixth than the 6 atmo, which is a total slug.
Which means that low gear is also way too low for this 3600 lb vehicle, and of course the car is only FWD. I have used only 91 octane in it, since the premium is just 9.5 cents per litre or for a US gallon about 30 cents US. If one manages to get the car a decent launch, low gear is over in about two seconds of roar, followed by a loud tire chirp into second and a general feel of discombobulation.
Using the snow feature of the manumatic, which means it starts in second gear, the front wheels still scrabble for traction on anything but perfect asphalt, but there is no delay for a 1-2 shift or ECU-applied torque reduction as applies in full throttle low gear take-offs. Much more satisfactory and it blasts the car to 50 mph in double short order.
So to me, I’m hampered by Mazda’s parts rationality to have only one HD transaxle final drive ratio. If the overall gearing were raised by 20%, then highway mileage would increase for the positive, and the torque rich low speed characteristic of the engine would have no drama cruising along at lower revs. And it wouldn’t overpower the front wheels so much in a hard low gear launch.
This is where the nerd brigade arrives on scene and tells me, well, six speeds isn’t enough. Rubbish. Six speeds is about ideal for the manumatic and gear hold feature, which I use all the time in our hilly country on downhills, engine braking to keep car speed constant. The Accord turbo, with pushbutton 10 speed and no gear hold is a hot mess on hilly two-laners, and that’s life around these parts. Plus it has prominent tire roar and a general less of a one-piece feel.
So all Mazda needs to do is make a higher-geared final drive ratio for the lighter models with this turbo engine, and life would be sweet indeed. But no luck on that front, so far as I know. Small car company syndrome — at least they screw the car together extremely well. It’s the best manufactured car I’ve bought since my first one in 1967. Too bad the dealer is a complete swindling joke with regard to service.
I sat in a CX-50, the only new car on the dealer lot, when I went in for the summer tire and oil change a couple of months ago. It’s exactly the right height for easy entry and exit, and seems wider inside than the CX-5. Now, the CX-5 is just a bit too high-seated for me, and requires a minor vault for these tired old bones to hop in. Plus the elbow room is scant to my way of thinking. Meh, I’m not enamoured of crossovers anyway, so couldn’t really care less about the differences between CX-5 and CX-50. A full optioned CX-50 with accessories is also C$50K. Then you have the spiv end of the business, the dealer, gouging more than list price for the car.
The solution my brother found, as he has a fair number of spondulicks but hates to be ripped off for German options that any Asian car has standard, is to go to Genesis. Two full years of searching, trying various BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Volvo, Lexus and Infiniti, to replace a totally reliable 14 year-old cream-puff G37S that drinks gas for a living, and the winner was the CX-5, which is a bit too down-market for his tony neighbourhood, but what the hell. He and his wife said, well, we’ll live with that image problem.
But then he suddenly remembered Genesis. With no store fronts in Canada, i.e. no dealers, they’re hardly at the forefront of people’s minds. All web based. So after a test drive in a GV-70 which the rep brought to the door for a two-hour jaunt, the promise of three years of free service where they drop off a loaner at your home as they pick up your beast to be fettled, and one price, no gouging, they were delighted to find it far nicer than any CX-5 is or ever will be. And even with the big four turbo at 310 hp (he engine that ruins the Sonata by torque-steering from here to infinity), it gets up and flies as fast as the G37S. No extras to buy, no borderline criminal dealer markup, er, market adjustment, every little electronic doodad known to man included, superb interior with no excuses of amazing for the price, and nicer than anything else they tried anyway; well great, so they ordered one. And by golly, it’s a pretty thing. Delivery is however, 7 to 8 months. So what else is new in this screwed-up world? The old Infiniti G37S AWD isn’t going to dissolve in a sudden heap of rust out West where they live. And compared to a market price adjusted CX-5, ahem, it’s just ten grand more and the neighbours won’t have to look askance at a mere Mazda parked in the drive.
From the Genesis Canada website in Canuck bucks:
2023 Genesis GV70 2.5T Prestige AWD $64,500.00, and that’s with mats, and a few accesories.
One Canuck buck is 77 cents US, for a price of almost exactly $50K US. No wonder there’s a waiting list.
Mileage? Well, likely better than a CX-9 because it’s smaller and lighter, more a big CX-5, but no star either. The no-haggle price will pay for quite a bit of gas over a market-price adjusted BMW futzmobile CUV “German” vehicle made in the US anyway at Spartenburg.
The rest of the nitpickers can drive around in a rough RAV4 with Playskool plastic interior and that coarse 2.5l Toyota four-banger they overpaid for. And good luck to ’em.
You can say Mazda is the equal of Lexus. In the reality of the marketplace Mazda is less than Lexus in brand reputation and perception of vehicle value and quality.
I like the interior, mostly. Outside looks good but would look better to my eyes if the wheel openings were round, not square. Don’t care for the JB Weld paint colour. I also wish car makers would stop tinting side glass.
Cladding, crossovers, facade of off-road intentions, blah blah blah. Comparison to a Lexus, etc. etc. etc. How does it compare to similarly-priced competition?
As someone else posted it appears that they have taken a CX-5 and ‘made it worse’. Lowered the roofline, added cladding and greatly increased the price.
I would guess that roughly 99.5% of CX-50s will never be truly ‘off roaded’.
All things being equal my 2nd choice for a new vehicle, after a Maverick, would be a CX-5.
But try getting one. 4 to 6 month waiting list. Plus massive dealer ‘fees’.
One dealer quoted me more than MSRP for a ‘demo’ with over 30,000kms on the odometer. “But you don’t have to pay freight and the administration fee is halved”.
As for a Miata CUV. Love that idea. An AWD higher road clearance Miata could be a blast for rallying.
“An AWD higher road clearance Miata could be a blast for rallying.”
Now that Mazda is cooperating with Toyota, perhaps a GR Miata……. That would be a truly sick rally car/dune buggy crossover!
This is a modern, good looking, easy entry / exit tall wagon with standard all wheel drive, a little extra ground clearance and 30mpg on the highway. And in characteristic Mazda fashion, I bet it has great driving dynamics. It’s got a normally aspirated engine (base S) and a conventional 6-speed automatic. No high strung turbo and turbo lag, no jerky DCT or crap CVT, and six gears are plenty in my opinion, you don’t need 10.
Sign me up for a base model at $28k.
Agree with almost all of your points, but I think the great driving dynamics have gone away from Mazda.
I recently spent a bunch of time driving a 2021 CX5 and all of the “zoom zoom” has been dialed out. Steering is oddly heavy and the thing feels ponderous. I had flashbacks to driving my old 98 Explorer. The first generation of CX5 felt much more athletic in traditional Mazda fashion.
Back seat needs more legroom
The lack of the CVT has got to be worth something, and Car & Driver says it drives like a Mazda. Now, if only my 2008 Mazda5 holds out until after the first-year kinks are ironed out…
I’ve read some reviews that make a point of saying that the CX-50’s ride is quite stiff and unforgiving. You liken it to that of the CX-5, but on my 2021 with 19″ wheels, the ride is quite good. I’ve noticed in many reviews at this site, ride quality is often given short shrift. I think it matters to a large number of people who don’t enjoy bouncing around.
Ride quality may be related to the tires. Those 20″ need a low-profile to fit. I suspect that the standard 17″ tires provide a noticeably nicer ride. Too bad those cars are flogged to the reviewers by the Mazda PR people.
Ride quality may be related to the tires. Those 20″ need a low-profile to fit. I suspect that the standard 17″ tires provide a noticeably nicer ride. Too bad those cars are flogged to the reviewers by the Mazda PR people.
Ride quality may be related to the tires. Those 20″ need a low-profile to fit. I suspect that the standard 17″ tires provide a noticeably nicer ride. Too bad those cars are flogged to the reviewers by the Mazda PR people.