Mazda CX/MX range discussion

  • Thread starter 05XR8
  • 400 comments
  • 44,157 views
dice1998
Huh..I wonder how smaller the CX-8 is compared to the CX-9 or is it the same body but different engine choice? I also now wonder is Mazda will eventually bring that to the US after the CX-5 diesel (and market it as an option for the CX-9)
Click to expand...
There's also a CX-4 that's China only. I still don't understand some of Mazda's product placement, as that car would be another option in the line up here. Is it cheaper to build a CX-8 than offer the CX-9 with a diesel option? I don't know.
 
Hey.

You heard it here first. The CX-5 is most likely getting the Turbo 4cyl the Mazda6 and CX-9 have.
 
dice1998
Hey.

You heard it here first. The CX-5 is most likely getting the Turbo 4cyl the Mazda6 and CX-9 have.
Click to expand...
Confirmed.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/09/21/2019-mazda-cx-5-turbo-g-vectoring/

Mazdacx5doc+copy.jpg
 
I'm driving a CX-9 right now and guess what?

I think I hate it.

Driving position is god-awful. The dead pedal is way too close to my body, scrunching my legs. The steering wheel doesn't telescope nearly enough (I'm talking like it needs 3-4 more inches) forcing me to stretch for it. The armrests are too low, meaning that to be comfortable and actually use the armrests my seat has to be artificially low, meaning my legs are even more uncomfortable.

Overall, because they chose to benchmark a human with 2-foot legs and 4-foot arms, the driving position is awful. Maybe they focused it more toward shorter women, and I can understand that, but if they did then the seat would be high and that means the armrests would be even further away and more useless.

My absolute biggest gripe with the car is that the steering wheel doesn't telescope nearly enough. If it had another 3-4 inches most of my complaints would go away. But this problem seems to be engineered into the platform - I have also rented a 6 and a CX-5, and both of them have this problem. The steering wheel doesn't get close enough to the driver to be comfortable. How can they possibly say these cars are sporty if you have to drive them with dangerously outstretched arms?

Anyway, I haven't gotten my hands on a new Miata yet but I'm tragically disappointed with the Mazda CXs and 6 I've driven. I definitely would not spend money on them. Hyundai and Kia are doing this whole business better than Mazda...and they also don't put the volume control on the center console where nobody wants it, ever.

EDIT: I should say the things I do like. I do like the brake pedal, it's fine and inoffensive, not too soft. The gas pedal is smooth to operate and not too aggressive on tip-in like Fords are. It's easy to drive smoothly from stops or in parking lots.
 
Keef
I'm driving a CX-9 right now and guess what?

I think I hate it.

Driving position is god-awful. The dead pedal is way too close to my body, scrunching my legs. The steering wheel doesn't telescope nearly enough (I'm talking like it needs 3-4 more inches) forcing me to stretch for it. The armrests are too low, meaning that to be comfortable and actually use the armrests my seat has to be artificially low, meaning my legs are even more uncomfortable.

Overall, because they chose to benchmark a human with 2-foot legs and 4-foot arms, the driving position is awful. Maybe they focused it more toward shorter women, and I can understand that, but if they did then the seat would be high and that means the armrests would be even further away and more useless.

My absolute biggest gripe with the car is that the steering wheel doesn't telescope nearly enough. If it had another 3-4 inches most of my complaints would go away. But this problem seems to be engineered into the platform - I have also rented a 6 and a CX-5, and both of them have this problem. The steering wheel doesn't get close enough to the driver to be comfortable. How can they possibly say these cars are sporty if you have to drive them with dangerously outstretched arms?

Anyway, I haven't gotten my hands on a new Miata yet but I'm tragically disappointed with the Mazda CXs and 6 I've driven. I definitely would not spend money on them. Hyundai and Kia are doing this whole business better than Mazda...and they also don't put the volume control on the center console where nobody wants it, ever.

EDIT: I should say the things I do like. I do like the brake pedal, it's fine and inoffensive, not too soft. The gas pedal is smooth to operate and not too aggressive on tip-in like Fords are. It's easy to drive smoothly from stops or in parking lots.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm of similar build to you (based on your Tesla 3 post) and I've had no ergonomic torment in the CX-5 or 6 (haven't driven a CX-9, but I imagine it's similar). I generally find Mazdas to have pretty good driving/seating position. I know that in my 2 I brought the seat fairly close to the steering wheel (no telescoping column) and used a fairly upright seating position. It was maybe not the same settings I would use in other cars (set more relaxed in my Porsche for instance, with the steering wheel brought closer) but it worked pretty well and I never felt tired or cramped driving it.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Interesting. I'm of similar build to you (based on your Tesla 3 post) and I've had no ergonomic torment in the CX-5 or 6 (haven't driven a CX-9, but I imagine it's similar). I generally find Mazdas to have pretty good driving/seating position. I know that in my 2 I brought the seat fairly close to the steering wheel (no telescoping column) and used a fairly upright seating position. It was maybe not the same settings I would use in other cars (set more relaxed in my Porsche for instance, with the steering wheel brought closer) but it worked pretty well and I never felt tired or cramped driving it.
Click to expand...
I'm used to a sports car/race car-style seating position. Not leaned back a lot but enough to keep you settled against the backrest without a belt forcing you back. The thigh support angled up to keep the correct hip angle (basically take a normal person's upright position and just tilt the entire seat back 15 degrees). This means your shoulders are further away from the wheel. But that means the wheel needs to get closer to you. I find sitting upright to be very fatiguing over long drives. My legs should be able to extend with my knees bent at a wider angle than my hips.

My driving position isn't an issue in most rear-drive cars but I assume because of packing reasons most front-drive architectures are unbearably bad. Chrysler's Durango and GC are among the best "normal" SUVs for me. Pickup trucks are surprisingly good. The Kia Stinger does me right with vast adjustment to spare. Oddly, while the Dodge Charger is pretty good the Challenger isn't quite as good. Volvo is excellent with a lot of adjustment available. The Model 3 had a long steering wheel telescope which was nice. Virtually all rear-drive luxury cars are great, including my 1998 Lexus GS and German brands (except older BMWs with no steering wheel telescope). Ford cars and crossovers are among my most hated rentals and are unbearable. The Chevy Malibu is fine. I actually choose Hyundai Elantras when I can because they are in another league of driver ergo when it comes to small cars, even the base models without a lot of seat adjustment.

My goal is to be absolutely relaxed with all controls effortlessly in reach. Most cars can't accommodate that unless they're actually designed for it, like the Stinger and other sports sedans/luxury cars. Or pickup trucks, apparently.
 
Keef
My goal is to be absolutely relaxed with all controls effortlessly in reach. Most cars can't accommodate that unless they're actually designed for it, like the Stinger and other sports sedans/luxury cars. Or pickup trucks, apparently.
Click to expand...

Have you sat in a Subaru Legacy/Outback?
 
dice1998
Have you sat in a Subaru Legacy/Outback?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I spent a month in a 2017 Outback last year. It wasn't perfect but it would own one. Plus it was dope and I went rock crawling with it, but that 4-cylinder is pathetic. Literally the slowest rental car I've had yet. Uncomfortably slow.
 
The Apple Car Play will be a bigger feature than the turbo. Customers have been wanting Apple connectivity for years.
 
Keef
I find sitting upright to be very fatiguing over long drives.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then this sounds less like a Mazda thing and more an SUV thing in general.

From the sounds of it, my normal seating position isn't dissimilar to yours. I assume I'm shorter than you (at 5'8" I'm an inch below the average height of adult males in the US) so I probably sit naturally a little closer to the wheel, but I also like the wheel relatively close, and the seat base relatively tilted. Depending on the car I also like the backrest relatively upright, though I'll recline some backwards further as I find many cars lack padding below the normal lumbar area and an upright seat leaves me with no support to the very base of my spine.

However, that does change in SUVs. You're sitting at a higher angle above the pedals (pressing them down rather than pressing them in), so the driving position does have to change for it to really work, unless the manufacturer has deliberately made the driving environment more like that of a car, with more outstretched legs and a lower position in relation to the wheel and dashboard. More usually, it means having to have a flatter seat base to tilt you more towards the wheel and pedals.
My driving position isn't an issue in most rear-drive cars but I assume because of packing reasons most front-drive architectures are unbearably bad.
Click to expand...
I'd say most front-drive cars these days in general are more similar to the Elantra you rate later on than what you describe here. I can't remember the last time I drove something truly bad - manufacturers do work a lot harder on that kind of thing these days.

Usually it's more detail stuff that lets particular cars down - not enough telescoping in the wheel like you describe, weird padding in certain seats. As a rule I'm less comfortable in German stuff because most German companies insist on really hard foam in their seats. That might work if you're 6'+ or weigh another 50lbs over what I do but I find non-German (or non-German owned) European companies, Japanese and Korean firms and American companies all do more comfortable seats with more padding.

In terms of Mazdas specifically, the ND MX-5 is really hit and miss for people. I know a lot of taller drivers have problems, though the facelift car with the telescoping wheel apparently reduces that slightly. I'm the perfect size physically for it, but I find my NA more comfortable over distance, because the ND trips up on the lack of lower-back support I mentioned above - the seats seem to have virtually zero padding low down the backrest. The lower cushion does at least tilt, but not quite enough for me either. Plus the one I ran for a year had leather seats so you slide all over them, which I hate.
 
homeforsummer
I'd say most front-drive cars these days in general are more similar to the Elantra you rate later on than what you describe here. I can't remember the last time I drove something truly bad - manufacturers do work a lot harder on that kind of thing these days.
Click to expand...
I just rented a Hyundai Tuscon - instantly comfortable. Good wheel telescope, good dead pedal and armrest placement. Instantly better than the Mazdas and it's not even close. It look about 10 seconds to move the seat and wheel to the perfect position and I could sit in this thing for hours.
 
Much as I like Mazda's current design language, I still think the first-gen CX-7 is a more dynamic-looking car than any of the current CXs. It's a shame Mazda applied its happy-smiley face to it at the facelift, but before that it was just simply a good-looking sporty SUV.
 
homeforsummer
Much as I like Mazda's current design language, I still think the first-gen CX-7 is a more dynamic-looking car than any of the current CXs. It's a shame Mazda applied its happy-smiley face to it at the facelift, but before that it was just simply a good-looking sporty SUV.
Click to expand...
I feel, everything looking like an RX-8 back then, was wearing thin on me. I still like the RX-8 though.
How that new RX-Vision and Vision Coupe design language translates, is what I can't wait to see.
 
homeforsummer
Much as I like Mazda's current design language, I still think the first-gen CX-7 is a more dynamic-looking car than any of the current CXs. It's a shame Mazda applied its happy-smiley face to it at the facelift, but before that it was just simply a good-looking sporty SUV.
Click to expand...
I actually greatly dislike the "dynamic" thing. It's inelegant. The current Mazdas mix aggression with maturity and do it classier than the competition.
 
I'm betting this will be geared towards being a Crosstrek fighter here in the US. The CX-3 is too small and the CX-5 is too big for the particular segment, and its one that is quite hot right now. As much as I dislike crossovers, I'm quite fond of the purposeful nature of the Crosstrek.

Manual, Mazda? Pleeeeease.
 
05XR8
I take it, this will be CX-4 the rest of the world(China only st the moment) will finally get.

mazda-cx4-i.jpg
Click to expand...

That could be the next-generation CX-3. Multiple sources (including Motor1) claim it will be much bigger than the current model and become comparable in size to the Toyota C-HR.
 
Keef
Because it will be built on the new 3 platform instead of the 2 platform.
Click to expand...

Right. I personally feel naming it CX-4 is probably a good move, to signify that it is larger than the old CX-3 and just generally one more. Like I don't think the CX-3 has much nameplate affinity to consider, it wasn't a huge seller.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Right. I personally feel naming it CX-4 is probably a good move, to signify that it is larger than the old CX-3 and just generally one more. Like I don't think the CX-3 has much nameplate affinity to consider, it wasn't a huge seller.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think it should be CX-3 since it's based on the 3. That basically tells customers what to expect. That's what most people already assume about the CX-3, that it's based on the 3, and then they wonder why the hell the interior is so much smaller.
 
Keef
I disagree. I think it should be CX-3 since it's based on the 3. That basically tells customers what to expect. That's what most people already assume about the CX-3, that it's based on the 3, and then they wonder why the hell the interior is so much smaller.
Click to expand...
Shoot, the CX-3 IS priced like the 3. :sly:

I guess if Mazda named it CX-2 and it's nearly twice the price of a 2, might have seemed a bit worse off. I take it this new one will be priced just below a CX-5, but more than the 3. May seem illogical, but that's how I'm seeing a possible reason why Mazda numbered them so(I haven't sat down with marketing, so I don't know).
 

Latest Posts

Back