Comments by "Tony Sterbenc" (@tonysterbenc) on "CarGurus" channel.

  1. Looks to me like Mazda focus-grouped US customers, and they said the usual things: "The CX-5 would be perfect if it was just as it is, except with a more butch look and more rear-seat room, but don't charge more for it." So they added those things, cost-cut it to keep the price down, and expected it to replace the CX-5. Except the CX-5 keeps outselling it.
    2
  2.  @CarlOldyOlsen  Agree on all counts, Carl.
    2
  3. Many people disagree with you, including multiple reviewers and this poster.
    2
  4. Probably happened because the car is the oldest design in its class, forcing them to match newer competitors by adding those rear-seat features as an afterthought.
    2
  5. I think that was the plan, but the CX-5 flipped a wrench into it by outselling its heir apparent 3 to 1.
    1
  6. And poorer outward visibility and less rear seat room and less cargo versatility and no standard AWD. The CX-30 is a better Mazda3 in almost every way, and the CX-5 is roomier, more sophisticated and better than the CX-30.
    1
  7. The Edge is still viewed as one of the better-handling midsize two-rows, so that's quite a statement. Thanks for sharing it.
    1
  8. If they didn't, some in the comments section did.
    1
  9. For you they made the lower, squatter CX-50, but buyers continue to prefer the CX-5. So, not everyone agrees with you.
    1
  10.  @YankeeMav  Uh... who's Mayor Wu?
    1
  11. For you, there's the Mazda CX-5 and CX-50.
    1
  12. Seen luxury brands' prices lately?
    1
  13. Width isn't the same, either. The CX-50 is lower, longer and wider.
    1
  14.  @JamaicanMeCrazy  Compare the size of Mazda with the size of Toyota or Hyundai as companies, and their reuse of components across models will start to make a lot more sense. They simply don't have the development or tooling dollars their competitors do.
    1
  15. Also be advised that Mazda responded to the complaints that the CX-50's steering was too heavy by lightening its effort for 2024. So it could also be that the complaints you heard simply didn't apply to the car you drove.
    1
  16. For you, there's the US-built CX-50. But many disagree with you.
    1
  17. And, uh, to cut the cost.
    1
  18. I think the CX-50 was created expressly for buyers like you who liked the CX-5 but thought it was a half size too small. Problem is, you can only sell a larger car at the same price by cheapening it somewhere. It's the same problem that led VW to ruin the Jetta and Passat.
    1
  19. Then you don't buy a turbo?
    1
  20. I think they made the CX-50 for all the US focus group consumers who said exactly what you did ("Love it! Now make it wider with more rear seat legroom and a more macho look"). Except when you add size, you can't hold the line on price unless you cut costs somewhere, since this car was probably meant to replace the CX-5.
    1
  21. I guarantee they both stay as long as both sell well.
    1
  22. Nothing wil bring back the market for high-priced subcompact sedans. But the CX-5 is outselling the CX-50 by about 3 to 1, despite the CX-50 usually having more cash on the hood.
    1
  23.  @momichaux5054  Then how do you know the Japan-built one will have the same problem?
    1
  24. Better sit in the front!
    1
  25. The CX-50 was meant to be the redesign.
    1