You keep making comparisons to "the non-hybrid" but there are two non-hybrid options available: NA 2.5 and a Turbo 2.5. The non-hybrid you keep referring to sounds like the Turbo version. The numbers you are quoting (torque, hp, etc) are all for thr turbo. The hybrid has better numbers than the NA 2.5 but worse than the than Turbo
Yes! I was referring to the turbo. I mention at the end that the hybrid makes more power than the base engine and it could be a better option all around than that version.
@drakemoschkau yes but at the end is the only time you even suggest that there's a third powertrain option. Throughout the entire video you make it seem that there are only 2 options: hybrid and non-hybrid with non-hybrid = turbo. The way you word the pricing at the end is suggesting the hybrid is about $3k more than the turbo - it's not. It is $3k more than the base engine. Overall I enjoyed watching your driving impressions & only realized the differences because I have been heavily researching this as my next vehicle. I wish you well on your channel
Just went and sat in one of these. At 6'3" I couldn't get my head off the ceiling with the sunroof. Was told only the lowest trim level could be had without it, and they didn't expect to see one of those for months yet. So the search continues.
Darn that sucks. I am 61 and look at that issue closely and even when I sit in the back it’s not a problem. Maybe keep the moonroof curtain always open or have the seat modified (some people actually do)?!
Why don't any of these reviewers mention that combined torque is actually much higher than advertised? Toyota/Mazda don't add in the electric motor torque. The combined number is around 250 lb-ft. I guess it's too much to ask that a reviewer have basic information.
I didn't buy the CX5 five years ago because it seemed cramped plus the cargo space was small for its class. The CX50 costs a lot more than the CX5 in Canada.
Thanks for this one. This certainly crosses this one off my list. Not enough Zoom Zoom in this one compared to the regular cx-5 (even the older ones with less power). That's alright because Mazda has options.
Mazda doesn't have a luxury segment to protect, unlike Toyota / Lexus and Honda / Acura, so they're not holding back on the styling. The hybrid has wider cladding because they had to raise the body to accommodate the Toyota hybrid system. This caused them to also make the cladding wider over the wheels to keep it proportional. Toyota only provides the power stats for the ICE engine, not with the electric motor added. The electric assist makes the hybrid faster to 60 by about 2 seconds over the regular CX-50, and only about 1.5 seconds slower than the turbo model. For me, what's disappointing about the CX-50 is that they pulled back on amenities for the top tier, which caused features that should be lower tier to float upward.
You keep making comparisons to "the non-hybrid" but there are two non-hybrid options available: NA 2.5 and a Turbo 2.5. The non-hybrid you keep referring to sounds like the Turbo version. The numbers you are quoting (torque, hp, etc) are all for thr turbo. The hybrid has better numbers than the NA 2.5 but worse than the than Turbo
Yes! I was referring to the turbo. I mention at the end that the hybrid makes more power than the base engine and it could be a better option all around than that version.
@drakemoschkau yes but at the end is the only time you even suggest that there's a third powertrain option. Throughout the entire video you make it seem that there are only 2 options: hybrid and non-hybrid with non-hybrid = turbo.
The way you word the pricing at the end is suggesting the hybrid is about $3k more than the turbo - it's not. It is $3k more than the base engine.
Overall I enjoyed watching your driving impressions & only realized the differences because I have been heavily researching this as my next vehicle. I wish you well on your channel
Had me confused.
Does the Mazda still have the cable gate corrosion issues like the RAV4? Or is the cable inside the vehicle?
Just went and sat in one of these. At 6'3" I couldn't get my head off the ceiling with the sunroof. Was told only the lowest trim level could be had without it, and they didn't expect to see one of those for months yet. So the search continues.
Darn that sucks. I am 61 and look at that issue closely and even when I sit in the back it’s not a problem. Maybe keep the moonroof curtain always open or have the seat modified (some people actually do)?!
I just bought a CX-50 Preferred trim level for this same reason. I am 6'4" and my head hit the roof in the Premium and Premium Plus trims.
Mazda CX-50 and Sabaru Outback....which one should I choose
Why don't any of these reviewers mention that combined torque is actually much higher than advertised? Toyota/Mazda don't add in the electric motor torque. The combined number is around 250 lb-ft. I guess it's too much to ask that a reviewer have basic information.
Torque does not add the same way horsepower does with hybrid engines
Nice video Drake!
Great review!
I didn't buy the CX5 five years ago because it seemed cramped plus the cargo space was small for its class. The CX50 costs a lot more than the CX5 in Canada.
Thanks for this one. This certainly crosses this one off my list. Not enough Zoom Zoom in this one compared to the regular cx-5 (even the older ones with less power). That's alright because Mazda has options.
I have a Toyota Crown Signia; I like it but the engine is fairly anemic.
Mazda doesn't have a luxury segment to protect, unlike Toyota / Lexus and Honda / Acura, so they're not holding back on the styling. The hybrid has wider cladding because they had to raise the body to accommodate the Toyota hybrid system. This caused them to also make the cladding wider over the wheels to keep it proportional. Toyota only provides the power stats for the ICE engine, not with the electric motor added. The electric assist makes the hybrid faster to 60 by about 2 seconds over the regular CX-50, and only about 1.5 seconds slower than the turbo model. For me, what's disappointing about the CX-50 is that they pulled back on amenities for the top tier, which caused features that should be lower tier to float upward.
10 k overpriced
$67k! No thank u