Might have to say goodbye to the CX50, here's why

4332 Views 73 Replies 20 Participants Last post by citizen_zero, 7 d ago

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · 2 mo ago

I have 20 lease payments left, so it ain't anytime soon and truth be told, for the money I paid I planned I keeping this gal for a long period of time long after the lease was over. As someone who came from the GM side to Mazda, I had expectations of quality from a brand that's been ranked higher than Toyota in reliability. But here are a few of the reasons I've already briefly begun looking at a potential successor. I believe this thread will be beneficial to those in the market and doing their due diligence looking for first hand owner experiences on the web.

1. Jittery or jerky transmission.
2. Poor fob design/reliability
3. MPGs are comparable to that or a Ford Ranger or Nissan Murano, both equipped with a V6
4. Safety systems are in need of work
5. Sluggish or"sleeper" acceleration when in normal mode

I still have yet to see another CX50, not a CX5, CX30 or CX9, on the road. But I'm beginning to wonder if there's a reason why that might be. I mentioned the MPGs above, I fully expected to pay more in gas in exchange for more cargo room and higher ground clearance, but I have yet too break past 24.4. For all I know a year from now, the best move might be to stick with the car and finance it outright. But Mazda already hasn't left a good taste in my mouth. The only thing that would keep Mazda from losing me as a customer is the facts that made me choose the brand in the first place is AWD being standard and a luxurious touch to the cabin in even the base trim.

But at least my Chevy didn't jerk or have fob issues for years (in fact, the battery was never changed once in either fob). Funny to think Chevrolet might possibly be more of a solid brand than Mazda, my experiences seem to point Chevy might be doing something right. Lets see how I feel at 10, 15k in mileage but so far, the waters are rocking back and forth. Especially for $430 a month, I expected more from you Mazda.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

1 - 20 of 74 Posts

Trickster

· #2 · 2 mo ago

Best of luck to you finding the ‘dream machine’.
Let us all know when you find it.
Sorry to hear you are not 100% happy with the 50.
I have yet to experience any of your issues stated, but time will tell I suppose.
Jump on over to any other manufacturers forums and read about the issues being had there, and yours may not seem as bad.
They just don’t build a solid perfect vehicle it seems and with todays pricing it really is disheartening.
Cheers.

Reactions: 1

Litfuse

· #3 · 2 mo ago

It’s frustrating when you have issues with your vehicle, that you are paying for with your hard earned money. I will say that I have owned a vehicle from about every manufacture, besides ultra high end cars, and every single one of them had an Achilles heel. I have been lucky and have had little to no problems with most vehicles I owned. When you get rid of your 50, be sure to do a lot of research.

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #4 · 2 mo ago

Trickster said:
Best of luck to you finding the ‘dream machine’.
Let us all know when you find it.
Sorry to hear you are not 100% happy with the 50.
I have yet to experience any of your issues stated, but time will tell I suppose.
Jump on over to any other manufacturers forums and read about the issues being had there, and yours may not seem as bad.
They just don’t build a solid perfect vehicle it seems and with todays pricing it really is disheartening.
Cheers.

True. I’ve heard of various electrical and braking issues with the Trailblazer I was set on. But I’ve also read about the braking system in the 50 being a bit touchy. I like the Blazer, but too much money for a Mexican made vehicle. Hell, I wouldn’t touch the 30 either fit that.

If it’s not out of design people here will come to dislike the fobs, it’s the battery life lasting barely a year, as stated by the manual. So I’m bound to say you’ll come in contact with that issue eventually. As I stated in the OP, my batteries in my old fob lasted for years, and the fob itself felt more solidly built too. I’ve already had the back come off for one of the 50 fobs, without trying. Something cheap about them should be suspect here. Very cheap.

Without diving into every bullet point from my OP and why everyone will experience it at some point, the jerky tranny is one of the biggest issues with the 50 (but I was spared of the dash rattling). The painful irony is I avoided a Nissan over its transmission and safety systems disabling in the cold. And it’s ironic I’ve still had both.

And most importantly, the heated steering not coming with heated seats on a top trim standard…must be a Mazda thing. You expect these amenities once you break $40k.

See less See more

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #5 · 2 mo ago

Litfuse said:
It’s frustrating when you have issues with your vehicle, that you are paying for with your hard earned money. I will say that I have owned a vehicle from about every manufacture, besides ultra high end cars, and every single one of them had an Achilles heel. I have been lucky and have had little to no problems with most vehicles I owned. When you get rid of your 50, be sure to do a lot of research.

If the monies there for another down payment next time around, or I might have to hold onto the 50. The options get a bit limited when you won’t consider something Mexican built (which is ironic that my Cruze Premier was Mexican built, and happened to give no issues the first 3 years. Of course, I didn’t know it was Mexican made), then having Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, and Subaru crossed off from day one

RandGM67

· #6 · 2 mo ago

I doubt this thread will be of much use to any potential buyers, tbh.
Any manufactured item can have issues and vehicles are no exceptions. Sorry to hear that you've drawn the short straw but the truth is that issues have been sporadic and small among the 30k or so buyers. It may seem like more since people who complain are more likely to post than those of us with no issues in almost a year.

To your points:

1. jerky transmission.

Not experienced that.

2. Poor fob design/reliability

One could argue about the design but no reliability issues.

3. MPGs are comparable to that or a Ford Ranger or Nissan Murano, both equipped with a V6

Reported MPGs are higher so a non-issue.

4. Safety systems are in need of work

Compared with what?

5. Sluggish or"sleeper" acceleration when in normal mode

Again, no issues.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #7 · 2 mo ago

RandGM67 said:
I doubt this thread will be of much use to any potential buyers, tbh.
Any manufactured item can have issues and vehicles are no exceptions. Sorry to hear that you've drawn the short straw but the truth is that issues have been sporadic and small among the 30k or so buyers. It may seem like more since people who complain are more likely to post than those of us with no issues in almost a year.

To your points:

1. jerky transmission.

Not experienced that.

2. Poor fob design/reliability

One could argue about the design but no reliability issues.

3. MPGs are comparable to that or a Ford Ranger or Nissan Murano, both equipped with a V6

Reported MPGs are higher so a non-issue.

4. Safety systems are in need of work

Compared with what?

5. Sluggish or"sleeper" acceleration when in normal mode

Again, no issues.

Reported MPG's don't match up, that;'s the thing. For a vehicle that has seen 90% of its mileage on the highway, its reached halfway toward 25 so what the window sticker says fuel wise is not a good source o go by. Since I used the Murano as a comparison, that vehicle is said to get 23 combined. One short of what my 50 averages on a weekly basis. In colder months, its been int he ballpark of 20-22. So a Murano is a good comparison. To further illustrate my point you can't go off reported MPG's, my old 2018 Cruze had reported MPG's of 38. Do the math at the pump, it was 18 at 3-5 years of age. Moral of the story, don't go by the sticker.

The jerky acceleration is in slow to moderate speeds, mostly stop and go traffic or initially pulling out of parking lots. You'll feel it when it happens. It's also a common complaint with the 50, so you might've lucked out.

Fob reliability issues in fairness idk if Mazda designed this "sleep" feature in their fob or if its fob changes in general since 2018. If the design of the fob isn't superb, that can affect how reliable it is. 4 months into ownership and I've swapped out for my second fob because I thought the first one was just acting up, but its had its own set of issues with unlock/locking the car, being sensed by the car, I physically have to take it out of my pocket so the car can sense it. First two months fobs were spotless, after that not so much.

As for the safety systems, I'll use my observation when I was in my brothers Crosstrek he had bought early last year over Christmas. Compared to the 50, I could tell the blind spot monitoring in his car was able to pick up vehicles that were a bit more in the actual blind spot compared to when my 50 picked them up. I also noticed on my Christmas road trip the passenger side picked up passing traffic slightly less than the drivers side did. There's also the concern of where and how Mazda designed their safety systems that, like the Nissan Rogue, they are susceptible to being disabled in cold conditions. Not that there is a life or death situation when this happens, but it points out potholes in the overall design.

This is not the turbo version, but sluggish acceleration on the highway should be a concern to anyone. I'm just not a fan of eating up more gas in sport mode to give it a get up and go feeling. I've floored it before to get the car to pass on 40 without sport mode engaged at 70-80 MPH. If you got the turbo, you likely won't have this problem with the added horsepower.

See less See more

RandGM67

· #8 · 2 mo ago

Info from the Daily Motors highway cruising MPG tests for gas mileage info on the CX-50 and some of the other cars within, around the segment and some out far out there. Not the most scientifically accurate but gives a good idea of where it stands.
CX-50 Turbo: 32mpg
Honda HRV: 31mpg
Kia Telluride: 25mpg
Kia Sportage Hybrid: 34mpg
Chevy Equinox: 29mpg
Subaru Forester Wilderness: 26mpg
Lexus RX500h: 26mpg
Chevy Blazer: 26mpg
Infiniti QX60: 25mpg
Hyundai Venue: 35mpg
Mazda CX-9: 27mpg
Honda Passport: 25mpg
Volvo V60 Cross country: 34mpg
Nissan Rogue (3-cylinder): 35mpg
Ford Bronco Raptor: 18mpg
Audi Q3: 34mpg
Chevy Silverado: 24mpg
Volvo XC40: 32mpg

See less See more

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #9 · 2 mo ago

RandGM67 said:
Info from the Daily Motors highway cruising MPG tests for gas mileage info on the CX-50 and some of the other cars within, around the segment and some out far out there. Not the most scientifically accurate but gives a good idea of where it stands.
CX-50 Turbo: 32mpg
Honda HRV: 31mpg
Kia Telluride: 25mpg
Kia Sportage Hybrid: 34mpg
Chevy Equinox: 29mpg
Subaru Forester Wilderness: 26mpg
Lexus RX500h: 26mpg
Chevy Blazer: 26mpg
Infiniti QX60: 25mpg
Hyundai Venue: 35mpg
Mazda CX-9: 27mpg
Honda Passport: 25mpg
Volvo V60 Cross country: 34mpg
Nissan Rogue (3-cylinder): 35mpg
Ford Bronco Raptor: 18mpg
Audi Q3: 34mpg
Chevy Silverado: 24mpg
Volvo XC40: 32mpg

I'll have to see how those tests work exactly, because so much goes into those numbers. FWD or AWD? CVT or no CVT? Smaller cylinders I'm not as surprised about if the numbers are true. I want to know what they actually go off of. Because I found their site, I found reviews, but I couldn't find a dedicated page breaking down their testing to a T. Because I can't a page with that information on the Daily Motors site. Are they driving on a full tank until the light comes on? Are they taking the amount of miles used prior to fueling up and dividing that by the gallons used to get the real number? You realistically only have 250 miles from full to use in a 50 before its due for a fuel up at 1/4s a tank.

According to their testing, I'm getting the same MPG's as a Silverado. I'll look into Daily Motors a bit more here, because these figures area bit hard to believe. Yes, some of them have the CVTs and smaller engines, that will boost the numbers but the CX50 Turbo getting 32 MPGs while a non-turbo barely breaks 25 is a little suspicious.

See less See more

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #10 · 2 mo ago (Edited)

To further break that down even further, because I remember reaching 250 is slightly below 1/4s of a tank. Realistically, you have 260-250 miles in between fueling up.

260 divided by 10 gallons of fuel inserted: 26 MPGs, not too bad but you likely need more than that
260 divided by 11 gallons of fuel inserted: 23.63 MPGs, matches the Murano
250 divided by 10 gallons of fuel inserted: 25 MPG's
250 divided by 11 gallons of fuel inserted: 22.72 MPGs

That's if the pump stops itself at 10 or 11 gallons even, your real world number will dip even lower if you need more than that. Math hurts. I observed in the Daily Motors video for the CX50 Turbo that the test was done on a 83 degree day, and being a turbo that runs on a higher and cleaner grade of fuel and since premium burns best in the hotter months, that alone will potentially boost your numbers some before the test begins. Aside from all four tires at 35 psi, which is that climate would be more like 36-37.

EDIT: So I watched the whole video, Daily Motors ain't doing the testing right. Of course MPGs will look prettier if you calculate with less fuel consumption. You have to wait until a 1/4ths of a tank to really start seeing a solid reading. So it's unlikely that the turbo version actually gets 32 MPGs by the time you realistically fuel up.

See less See more

RedBaron

· #11 · 2 mo ago

TheRedWagon said:
To further break that down even further, because I remember reaching 250 is slightly below 1/4s of a tank. Realistically, you have 260-250 miles in between fueling up.

260 divided by 10 gallons of fuel inserted: 26 MPGs, not too bad but you likely need more than that
260 divided by 11 gallons of fuel inserted: 23.63 MPGs, matches the Murano
250 divided by 10 gallons of fuel inserted: 25 MPG's
250 divided by 11 gallons of fuel inserted: 22.72 MPGs

That's if the pump stops itself at 10 or 11 gallons even, your real world number will dip even lower if you need more than that. Math hurts. I observed in the Daily Motors video for the CX50 Turbo that the test was done on a 83 degree day, and being a turbo that runs on a higher and cleaner grade of fuel and since premium burns best in the hotter months, that alone will potentially boost your numbers some before the test begins. Aside from all four tires at 35 psi, which is that climate would be more like 36-37.

EDIT: So I watched the whole video, Daily Motors ain't doing the testing right. Of course MPGs will look prettier if you calculate with less fuel consumption. You have to wait until a 1/4ths of a tank to really start seeing a solid reading. So it's unlikely that the turbo version actually gets 32 MPGs by the time you realistically fuel up.

Again, you are comparing trip computer mileage. I have (admittedly) found the computer to be inaccurate. For the past few weeks (10-12) I've been driving round town/suburbia and averaging over 23mpg on my turbo, based on gallons to fill, vs odometer miles between fills. Furthermore, as I have said before, on a 1000mile highway trip with roof rack and Kayak I got over 26mpg - so I would expect 28-29 if clean. I don't find that too shabby, frankly.

Reactions: 1

RandGM67

· #12 · 2 mo ago

Product Handwriting Gesture Post-it note Tie

See less See more

Reactions: 1

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #13 · 2 mo ago

RedBaron said:
Again, you are comparing trip computer mileage. I have (admittedly) found the computer to be inaccurate. For the past few weeks (10-12) I've been driving round town/suburbia and averaging over 23mpg on my turbo, based on gallons to fill, vs odometer miles between fills. Furthermore, as I have said before, on a 1000mile highway trip with roof rack and Kayak I got over 26mpg - so I would expect 28-29 if clean. I don't find that too shabby, frankly.

I personally don't go by what the computers reading, just because I know math at the pump will reveal all. If the computer was accurate, and the math confirmed it was accurate, then I'd go by the computers reading. I'm simply basing MPGs off the amount of fuel I'm purchasing. In my experience, even prior to the 50, the computer hasn't been right. My old car could go 400 some miles on a fuel tank, though I never calculated how many miles I actually had to use by 1/4s a tank. The computer on that car said I was averaging 29-31, despite fueling up every four days. Math went on to show I was getting 18 MPGs.

RedBaron

· #14 · 2 mo ago

TheRedWagon said:
Math went on to show I was getting 18 MPGs.

Jeez, that's horrible. Then I suggest you go back to the dealer and have them investigate... there's something very wrong. Maybe a slow fuel leak, or corrupted ECM...

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #15 · 2 mo ago

RandGM67 said:
View attachment 1231

Watch the DM video on the CX50 Turbo. You'll see they're inflating their numbers, because they only used 107 miles of a tank and put it no more than 3.5 gallons of fuel. So of course that number will look prettier. Do you feel up every 107 miles? Highly unlikely that's even at half a tank in that video, aside from optimal weather conditions for fuel efficiency.

TheRedWagon

Discussion Starter · #16 · 2 mo ago

RedBaron said:
Jeez, that's horrible. Then I suggest you go back to the dealer and have them investigate... there's something very wrong. Maybe a slow fuel leak, or corrupted ECM...

My Cruze was totaled in October, but the culprit was clogged fuel injectors that were also causing sputtering. Learned the lesson the hard and expensive way to use higher grade fuel in vehicles with turbochargers. And quality grade fuel at that, after three years of putting in low grade, cheap 87 Walmart fuel.

Litfuse

· #17 · 2 mo ago

TheRedWagon said:
My Cruze was totaled in October, but the culprit was clogged fuel injectors that were also causing sputtering. Learned the lesson the hard and expensive way to use higher grade fuel in vehicles with turbochargers. And quality grade fuel at that, after three years of putting in low grade, cheap 87 Walmart fuel.

Gotta use top tier fuel!

Reactions: 2

ndotym13

· #18 · 2 mo ago

Im saying good bye to my cx50 it was in a accident, they cannot find parts until middle June 2023

RedBaron

· #19 · 2 mo ago

ndotym13 said:
Im saying good bye to my cx50 it was in a accident, they cannot find parts until middle June 2023

Sad to hear, hope you're OK. What parts? Pictures?

Billyt

· #20 · 2 mo ago

I have to say that compared to my Genesis GV70 the CX50 brakes are my favorite. In a year with the Genesis never got used to the grabby brakes. Mazda like my wifes nissan have a perfect linear modular feel. Have the top turbo trim and have plenty of power. Now with 1000 miles will see how the transmission shifts. The Hyundai 8 speed was the best in all.modes and of course the full-time rear bias awd was nice but I'm hoping for quality with my new Mazda. My last and only other Mazda was an RX2!! The rotary engine was so fast it was scary. Thanks for the thoughts and best of luck.

1 - 20 of 74 Posts