David Booth: I’ve got to give Mazda some serious props for the introduction of the Hybrid version of the CX-50. Not just because the automaker bought an entire powertrain — that which powers the RAV4 — from Toyota, but that it then invested beaucoup bucks fitting it into a vehicle that, as you’ll plainly see in a paragraph or two, was never designed for a hybrid powertrain.
What’s different — very different — is that Mazda makes no bones about the fact that it bought the technology. No “but we tuned it in-house” crapola. No “customized settings specific to Mazda’s DNA” B.S. Not even a boast that it’d somehow “Zoom-Zoomed” Toyota’s raucous little four into something sporty. It boasted the same advantages as Toyota does, highlighted the same features and Mazda’s spec-sheet for the CX-50 reads the same as Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive System. Total truth in advertising is not something you see from car companies. Kudos to whomever made that brave decision. It wasn’t going to out-engineer the father of hybridization in a couple of months and pretending that the CX-50’s powertrain was anything but Toyota’s would have stretched credibility.
That’s not to say that the transplant was a simple drop-in. Actually, that’s where the real props come in. First off, the 2.5L — and its ancillary electric motors, and planetary gear transmission — wouldn’t fit into the CX-50’s existing engine bay so the company had to build new, wider front frame rails to accommodate the extra girth. The battery, invertor and other bits, meanwhile, wouldn’t fit into the chassis, so Mazda built an all-new floorplan — the largest single component in a car — to fit everything in.
But that’s not all! The battery was still too tall to fit in its traditional under-the-rear-seat housing. So, Mazda raised the seat some 100 millimetres. Only now, there’d be no headroom for rearseat passengers. So, what does Mazda do? It raises the roof four inches, replacing the A-, B- and C-pillars, reconfigure the roofline and the window framing.
What that means, in no uncertain terms, is that the new CX-50 Hybrid is every CFO’s nightmare. Economies of scale — that which we’re constantly being told is the secret to building cheaper cars — require that as many pieces as possible on a production line be exactly the same. Instead, Mazda has completely re-engineered the little CX to fit the new powertrain and even had to redo its crash testing. And you can say all you like that you expect no less from an automaker, but the truth is that seldom do automakers go to so much trouble just to add a trim level to an existing model. Actually, make that never. Hence the major props for Mazda and its new CX-50.
Nadine Filion: You should indeed congratulate Mazda for not hiding the “Toyota” origins of its new CX-50 Hybrid. Personally, if I were a manufacturer that with opportunity brag that my new powertrain drives nearly two-thirds of the hybrid vehicles on the planet, I too would have gone to great lengths to accommodate it.
Kudos to Mazda’s engineers, meanwhile, for doing so while preserving the CX-50’s “interior” qualities. The cargo area, usually the first casualty when massive hybrid components are added to a vehicle, loses only 7% of its capacity between the rear seat and the tailgate (826 liters versus 889 liters for the non-hybrid CX-50). It even managed to keep a real spare tire in the underbody, instead of using a repair kit.
As you mentioned, the engineers had to raise the roof to provide clearance for the occupants. But it was necessary: both the “classic” CX-50 and its new hybrid version are among the least generous compact SUVs in this respect. With barely 952 millimetres of headroom in the rear, my 5-foot-6 was still a little cramped.
DB: Well dear, you must have been wearing your high heels because when I sat my 5-foot-11 in the rear seat I had just enough headroom. Oh, if I was taller, it would have become a “thing,” but I had no problem back there. Let’s, in the name of marital harmony, agree that there are crossovers with more generous headroom. Is that OK, love of my life?
Back to the important bits. When I said that Mazda bought the RAV4 powertrain lock, stock and barrel, I wasn’t kidding. Besides, the 2.5-litre, 219-horsepower Atkinson four, the three electric motors — one major traction motor at each axle and an additional motor/starter affair up front — and the invertor are all the same. Ditto the battery. I bet I could even find some Toyota-badged wires under its skin.
Unsurprisingly then, it performs pretty much like a RAV4. For instance, Natural Resources Canada rates the CX-50 to consume 0.2 L/100 km more than the Toyota. Overall, the RAV4 is rated for 6.0 L/100 km (5.8 L/100 km city, 6.3 L/100 km highway), while the CX-50 is 6.1/6.4 L per 100 km in the city and highway respectively and 6.2 L/100 km overall.
And that’s pretty much the spread I saw in some spirited highways driving around the Greater Toronto Area. At 100 kilometres an hour, the CX-50 sipped 6.2 L/100 km. At 120 km/h, the computer said it needed 6.8 L/100 km. Both of those numbers are exactly 0.2 L/100 km more than I averaged in the last RAV4 I drove. As for the reason for the difference: the CX-50 weighs 1,808 kilograms, some 88 kilos more than the comparable Toyota. It’s also worth noting that the Hybrid is significantly more fuel efficient (roughly 50%) than the 2.5L and Turbo version of the CX-50 which average 8.9 and 9.4 L/100 km, respectively.
NF: Fair enough, mon paramour, but my biggest regret is that Mazda didn’t distill some of its legendary Zoom-Zoom into the equation. Here, let me remind you that I loved the CX-50 in its turbo version. I love how the little SUV is designed to deliver spicy acceleration, driven by its 2.5-liter SkyActiv turbocharged four-cylinder engine with 256 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque — even if paired with an archaic six-speed automatic transmission.
I thought (perhaps naively) I’d find similar dynamism at the wheel of the Mazda CX-50 Hybrid. Instead, I was greeted by an impression of reluctance. So much so, in fact, that I stopped at the side of the road to lift the hood and check beneath it. There’s a weightiness to the Hybrid’s handling, steering and acceleration.
Perhaps it’s the continuously variable transmission that, unfortunately, tends to make the 2.5L engine sound worse as it drones on. I’d have liked a more disciplined CVT, perhaps like what Subaru has managed to achieve. But then, I guess when you adopt another company’s powertrain — and manufacture the new CX-50 Hybrid in the Alabama’s plant jointly owned with Toyota — you have to accept the good with the bad.
DB: You’re spot on, Nadine. With the most excellent fuel economy, you’re also inheriting the RAV4 Hybrid’s marbles-in-a-tin-can engine sound. Unless you’re accelerating hard, it’s not intrusive, but when you do get the hammer down, all the cacophony doesn’t quite fit with Mazda’s Zoom-Zoominess. On the other hand, the chassis — despite the torsion beam suspension in the rear — more than holds up its end of the bargain. The suspension is stiff(ish), sufficiently so that roll is well minimized for what is, after all, supposed to be an environmentally-oriented sport cute. The steering is well weighted, roll fairly well contained and there’s an eagerness to be flogged completely absent in the engine department.
My only criticism would be that the shock absorbers’ rebound damping doesn’t quite match the spring’s firmness. Get the CX-50 hustling through a bumpy turn — plenty plentiful in southern Ontario these days — and you’ll get more than a little bounce as you’re railing past the apex. Again, I’ll mention that this is supposed to be a fuel-sipping, emissions-reducing crossover. On the other hand, it does wear the Zoom-Zoom badge. That said, in normal driving, the new Hybrid’s ride is just fine and dandy, with excellent compression compliance and excellent stability over bumps.
NF: And Mazda brings that badge right inside the cabin. For you of the old guard, the infotainment system must have received a lot of criticism. But for my part, I find it easy to manage. You don’t have to stretch out your arm to smear the screen with your finger, since it’s not touch. Instead, you simply manipulate a control knob located near the gearshift lever, in gestures that not only quickly become instinctive, but don’t require you to take your eyes off the road.
As with other Mazdas, the selection of interior materials, the combination of colours and the finish are far more luxurious than the category demands. The equipment is also generous. As standard, the CX-50 Hybrid comes with — among other things — panoramic sunroof, power-assisted driver’s seat and tailgate, leatherette upholstery and one of the most complete safety suites on the market.
But the price tag is accordingly high. True to tradition, Mazda is pricing its CX-50 Hybrid higher than the competition — including its partner Toyota. The RAV4 Hybrid can be ordered for under $40,000 while the “entry-level” GS-L configuration of the Mazda CX-50 Hybrid starts at $42,950.
This is followed by the Mazda CX-50 Kuro (from $44,850), with essentially cosmetic additions, but the same 17-inch wheels. The Mazda CX-50 GT (from $48,350) is the only variant with 19-inch wheels, ventilated front seats, heated rear seat, a few safety extras (including adaptive headlights) and, above all, the Bose sound system.
For that audio alone, I’d opt for the GT version. You’ll tell me that there are many Bose-equipped vehicles on the market, but the CX-50’s Bose system, with its AudioPilot and Centerpoint modes, transforms the SUV’s interior into your own personal concert hall — perfect for blasting your favourite Bruno Mars song.
DB: I totally agree with you about the Bose system and Bruno Mars. I completely disagree with your assessment of the not-so-touchscreen, however. The problem for me is that I like to flick between Sirius XM stations and Mazda’s system is the slowest to change songs of any such system I have ever tested. Seriously, it’s about five seconds — a seemingly interminable delay when you’re staring at a screen that refuses to do your bidding — between command and action. Not sure why; only that it’s slow.
Otherwise, I quite liked the CX-50 Hybrid. Mazda thinks the Hybrid could eventually account for 30% to 40% of CX-50 sales. Most of those — assuming they care more about fuel economy than speed — will hardly notice the overly raucous engine as they sip fuel. For those who value internal combustion harmony, the 2.5L version of the CX-50 is a sweet thing. The CX-50 Hybrid, meanwhile is an excellent vehicle blending reduced emissions and e-AWD for our wintery roads. That awfully slow audio system would really drive me nuts though.
Sign up for our newsletter Blind-Spot Monitor and follow our social channels on X, Tiktok and LinkedIn to stay up to date on the latest automotive news, reviews, car culture, and vehicle shopping advice.