2023 Mazda Cx-50 2.5 S Select Package 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.

Mazda CX-5, Mazda6 and Mazda3 could stall due to software glitch

Mazda is recalling 262,220 vehicles due to a software error that could cause the engine to unexpectedly stall out. The recall affects 2018-2019 CX-5 crossovers, 2018-2019 Mazda6 sedans and 2019 Mazda3 models.  According to NHTSA recall No. 19V497000, which was filed June 27, a programming issue in the powertrain control module (PCM) on select Mazda vehicles could cause the engine to shut down. More specifically, "the software controlling the hydraulic valve clearance adjuster may operate improperly when transitioning from cylinder deactivation to full cylinder activation modes." This could potentially cause the intake valve rocker arm to come out of position and hit something else in the engine. If this occurs, the engine could misfire, the engine could lose power, and the Malfunction Indicator Light would be triggered. The recall affects 143,004 2018 CX-5s, 81,236 2019 CX-5s, 18,295 2018 Mazda6s, 2,551 2019 Mazda6s, and 17,134 Mazda3s. Some cars from those model years received the improved software at the factory and won't be affected by the recall. Although the first report of a related issue was chronicled in January 31, 2018, no injuries tied to the problems have been reported. Mazda is expected to start its recall on or before August 26, 2019, and will reprogram the PCM with improved hydraulic valve adjustment control programming for free. Contact Mazda at 1-800-222-5500, reference No. 3719F, for more information.

Crash test videos show how rust compromises safety

These recently released Swedish videos serve as a reminder that rust isn't just a cosmetic flaw, when it comes to cars. The insurance company Folksam and the homeowner organization Villaagarnas Riksforbund gathered examples of two relatively popular, but by now rusty cars, and then performed crash tests with them at the Thatcham Research facility in Britain. The results are sobering. The rustier cars chosen for the tests were first-generation Mazda6s, cars that have a reputation for early-onset rust in salty surroundings, such as the Nordic countries in Europe or the Salt Belt in the U.S. The cars in the other end of the spectrum were fifth-generation Volkswagen Golfs, which thanks to their body treatment only really start to show rust at over ten years old. But rust isn't just on the surface, it goes bone deep. While the Mazda did decently well in Euro NCAP testing as a new car, there's now a 20 percent higher risk of death in the 2003-2008 Mazda due to the degradation of its bodyshell. In the rusty car, the chassis rail separates from the floor, the footwell ruptures, the sill gives way, the seat mountings move and the dummy's head hits the B-pillar; all important failures, despite Thatcham saying the cars actually performed better in the crashes than they expected with all the rust. But still, the corroded structure isn't able to transmit loads in the way it was originally designed to do. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. The Golf does significantly better — despite rust flakes flying when the Golf hits the wall — as the years have only caused it to lose a single point. An important thing to remember is that the cars aren't tested in comparison to corresponding new, 2018 cars: the tests are in reference to the crashworthiness standards in place when they were new. The cars' airbags inflate like they were supposed to, but on the Mazda the dummy's head bottoms out the airbag due to the car's structure failing, meaning the airbag cannot perform as designed. Driven cautiously, an older car is still mostly fine for driving around. But tests like these remind us that it's not enough that a car runs and drives, if the body has turned into Swedish knackebrod. And if you repair the visible rust and the structure underneath remains as compromised as ever, there's an ugly truth under all the bondo. Perhaps it isn't such a bad idea to have yearly roadworthiness inspections.