1983 Mazda Rx-7 Gsl on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why is it called Mazda CX-30? Plus other questions answered

GENEVA — Mazda just introduced its latest crossover, the CX-30, and it left us raising an eyebrow. It's planned for a global release, including the United States, and it's supposed to slot between two compact crossovers that one might not think had room for another model. Plus it has a name that doesn't fit Mazda's typical nomenclature. So we thought we'd take a little time to explain some of those things, starting with the name. Mazda arrived at the CX-30 name because of a self-created problem: the Chinese Mazda CX-4. The CX-4 name would be perfect for the CX-30, since it would fall right between the CX-3 and CX-5 where it's positioned. But with the name taken, and evidently no plans to discontinue, replace, or rename that Chinese model, Mazda needed something else, and fractions and decimals weren't on the table. So appending a zero was the plan. Talking with a Mazda representative, there were hints, though no concrete confirmation, that this naming scheme could possibly spread throughout the Mazda line. There would be advantages to such a system, such as bringing the CX-30 into line with other Mazda products, but it would also provide room for other in-between models named CX-35, CX-25, etc. Now for the size. Mazda says it fits between the CX-3 and CX-5, both of which will be sold alongside it for the foreseeable future. But is it closer to one than the other? Length-wise, the CX-30 is 4.7 inches longer than the CX-3 and 5.9 inches shorter than the CX-5. It's also an inch wider than CX-3 and 1.8 inches narrower than CX-5. Interestingly, the CX-30 and CX-3 are the same height, which is 5.9 inches shorter than the CX-5. The CX-30 does have a bit more ground clearance than the CX-3, but only by a few hundredths of an inch. To add some context outside the Mazda brand, the CX-30's size also puts it on par with crossovers such as the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, Subaru Crosstrek and Jeep Compass. All of those are sort of in-betweeners themselves. By contrast, the CX-3 is one of the smallest subcompact crossovers and aligns more closely with a Hyundai Kona. In other words, there actually was a segment gap Mazda could fill as the CX-30 fall pretty squarely between the CX-3 and CX-5. As such, we also imagine that pricing will fall between the two. The CX-3 starts at $21,435 and the CX-5 at $25,395. So about $23,000 seems reasonable for the base Skyactiv 2.0-liter engine, and probably more for the Skyactiv-X engine.

2018 Mazda CX-5 spied testing in Southern California

It appears the replacement for the Mazda CX-5 is on its way. The current model, though a few years old at this point, is still one of our favorite crossovers on the market. Its combination of handsome styling, practicality, and a genuine fun-to-drive nature make it a winner in our hearts. Hopefully this new model doesn't stray too far from that winning recipe. At least on the outside, that seems to be the case. The spy photos reveal Mazda's Kodo design language in full bloom. The general shape is the same as the current model, but the curves are a little tighter and appear similar to the new CX-9 and Chinese-only CX-4. The grille loses the horizontal bars for a deep-set mesh pattern, while the whole fascia appears to be more upright. The headlights and taillights look to be slimmer and slightly re-sculpted versions of the current shape. Other details for the upcoming CX-5 are scarce. The crossover is expected to debut next year as a 2018 model. It's unknown what engines or transmissions will be available, though the current powertrains are likely to carry over. There's also the rumor of a Mazda diesel making its way over, but, as always, it seems like a long shot. Related Video:

2016 Mazda CX-5 [w/video]

It's difficult for me to get excited about crossovers. I try hard not to be the stereotypical car guy: ignoring the fact that the rest of the world loves these tall hatchbacks, while yelling, "station wagons make more sense!" until I've voided my lungs of air. Deep down I am that guy, but I work around it. Historically the Mazda CX-5 is one crossover that has been quasi-immune to my knee-jerking. It doesn't weigh two tons, offers a manual transmission (in poverty spec, but still...), and looks faster than its competitors. Most importantly, the CX-5 can round a corner without wobbling like a Slinky at the top of the stairs. No item on that list of plaudits would likely crack the top ten "desirables" for average small CUV shoppers. So, for the 2016 update, Mazda instead upgraded the in-cabin experience along with the requisite nips and tucks to the exterior. I borrowed a 2016 model CX-5 to see whether or not those concessions to comfort affected the car-nerd stuff. And to see if the Mazda could still be my go-to CUV recommendation. Driving Notes The engine options are unchanged for 2016. You can still have the fine, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, with its 184 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque, or its wimpier 2.0-liter lil' brother. My fully spec'd Grand Touring came with the bigger engine, which feels adequately powerful for the class, but not quick. In an era where turbocharged engines are everywhere, revving the Skyactiv 2.5-liter up to its torque peak at 3,250 rpm takes some commitment. I'm annoyed that there's no manual offered with the 2.5L (a combo I can have in both the Mazda3 and Mazda6), but I don't hate the automatic transmission. The six-speed unit is unobtrusive 99 percent of the time; something I regretfully can't tell you about certain nine-speed autos. There are no paddles to play with, but you can tap the shift lever up and down if you're struck by a need for total control. With a new center console and dash, and the addition of the Mazda Connect infotainment system, the '16 CX-5 feels like a new vehicle from behind the wheel. An attractive, pliant, leatherish material swaths the neat console and surrounding real estate. And the perforated leather seats feel damn near upscale. I think that Mazda Connect's version of the central control knob (with handy adjacent volume knob) is almost luddite-proof in its simplicity. There's no latency between twisting and reaction on the screen.