Outback has way more room to haul your shit around. Way more spacious cabin. Better visibility. If you're a girl, you'll get way more pussy. And, of course, vastly superior AWD.
On the flip side, it's ugly as frick and drives like a slow boat. CX-50 looks nice and drives pretty good. I'd take the CX-50 if I had to pick one of the two, but Outback has a lot of advantages.
I wish the CX-30/50 had a solid axle that would be sick. But that anon is kind of moronic, I think he saw "torsion beam" and got confused. They have trailing arms torsion beam rear vs multilink on the CX-5
As a Mazda fan, I test drove one. It's pretty nice, but I wouldn't buy it at MSRP. Just a CX-5 with a less soccer-mom look, but also more expensive. I just think the 30 and the 5 are better value, and I would recommend them over this to just about anyone.
The backseat is cramped on the 30, but you did save some money which is nice.
It's funny how people think spending $50k on a 400hp truck they won't "use" is stupid but they'll go ahead and spend $50k on a homosexual hatchback with AT's like this.
I think the CX-50 is too pricey for what you get, but it's a *lot* cheaper than a new 400hp trugg is going to be. It's not a hatchback, it's more like a wagon.
It's funny how people think spending $50k on a 400hp truck they won't "use" is stupid but they'll go ahead and spend $50k on a homosexual hatchback with AT's like this.
>$50k
I'm looking at brand new (base model) ones for around $30k.
As a Mazda fan, I test drove one. It's pretty nice, but I wouldn't buy it at MSRP. Just a CX-5 with a less soccer-mom look, but also more expensive. I just think the 30 and the 5 are better value, and I would recommend them over this to just about anyone.
The backseat is cramped on the 30, but you did save some money which is nice.
[...]
I think the CX-50 is too pricey for what you get, but it's a *lot* cheaper than a new 400hp trugg is going to be. It's not a hatchback, it's more like a wagon.
What kind of price range were the one you're looking at? I've been cross shopping a CX-30 & CX-50 and came to similar conclusions. The CX-30 is just a tiny bit too small, and the CX-5 is too tall & egg shaped. CX-50 is almost the perfect middle ground, but it's just pricer than the alternatives.
I don't think it's "bad value" necessarily, but definitely not as good value as the adjacent models. I'm finding base model non-turbos around $30k but am worried it would be a bit too slow.
Subarus are all out cause they're dog turd slow, all have auto start/stop and the interiors feel fisher price tier
What's odd about Mazdas is they look different when you actually see them on the road. The CX30 is so fricking cute and smol, it looks pretty much like a lifted hatchbacks. The CX50 they tried to make more "SUV" looking but this is purely size and cosmetic tweaks. Personally I prefer the 30, but I pretty much just want a car I can put bigger wheels on. I want the benefits of a sedan's small size without the cons of a sedan (riding too low and having bad cargo space). I'm gonna get it if I can't work out importing an even more adorable Jimny.
I did like the Cx-30, and it's definitely faster in all trims + slightly better fuel economy. If it was a "just commuting" car I would consider it, but the extra space of the 50 will be really nice for hauling our dogs and camping shit around. A souped up turbo CX-30 with some rally tires would be pretty fun.
In Leafistan, they start around 39k. Which is like 7k more than the cx5 and 11k more than the cx30. The cx5's are all made in Japan too, so I think it's hard to justify getting the 50 over the other models at that price. If you get the turbo, it can tow 3500lbs. But if you're going to be towing that much, it's probably better to just get a Ranger or a used F150 or something anyway.
Part of the problem is the CX-50 is just a newer product, different production line, etc. I will admit I am a huge sucker for "made in USA (or Canada)" and the CX-50's are made in Alabama (with international parts of course). The pricing isn't quite as bad here, about $1k more than the CX-5 but $5k more than the CX-30. I wouldn't be towing much (maybe 1 or twice a year at most) but the turbo trim is really nice for overtaking on the highway. Helps a lot if you get stuck behind someone slow on twisty roads with limited passing opportunities.
In Leafistan, they start around 39k. Which is like 7k more than the cx5 and 11k more than the cx30. The cx5's are all made in Japan too, so I think it's hard to justify getting the 50 over the other models at that price. If you get the turbo, it can tow 3500lbs. But if you're going to be towing that much, it's probably better to just get a Ranger or a used F150 or something anyway.
If they make a cx70 off road edition, I'll cream myself. Mazda ironically has the best potential to make a better land rover right now and it'd be possibly the greatest troll move of all time. The current defender is unibody irs + ifs and has a turbo 4 standard unless you spend $60k. A cx70 is around 41k, and all they need to do is raise the ground clearance and add skidplates and they're already made a better car.
>raise the ground clearance and add skidplates
You can do this aftermarket, I don't like the skid plates any manufacturer puts on stock anyway. They cut a lot of material to save weight so it's thin and barely gives any coverage. Unfortunately Mazdas don't have a huge aftermarket. You can get spacer lifts or longer suspension easy but a skid plate might require a custom job. Still not hard, it's about the easiest thing you can have custom made.
If Mazda really wanted to sell a offroader, they'd build a SUV version of their pickup. But that's just not the market they want to catter to in the US.
I'm looking at a used cuckover as a cheaper alternative to a trugg.
Is the Subaru outback that much better than its competition (Rav 4, CRV, Pilot, CX) at offroading/trails, or is it all basically the same shit?
I guess it depends on what you mean by offroading. I wouldn't take a stock Outback 'offroading-offroading', but it's good at trails, fire roads, dirt roads, shit like that. The AWD is a lot better than the competition, hands down. The trade off is they're ugly, slow, and gay. CRV and CX50 definitely drive nicer and look a lot cooler. I would rather by in the Outback in a snowstorm, thoughbiet.
>Is the Subaru outback that much better
It's that much worse lmao, I'd say the worst you've listed. The ONLY thing Subaru has going for it is their AWD system has the edge since it's full-time AWD. That costs gas, but if you're always driving in snow and up steep dirt hills it'll be useful. The other AWD systems aren't bad, and they're more efficient but they don't have that edge when pushed to the extreme edge of what AWD is capable of.
To mitigate the fuel consumption of their AWD systems, Subaru underpowers their vehicles and gives them a CVT in attempt to save more fuel. The CVT is trash, annoying to drive and doesn't have the longevity of a normal transmission. They also have boxer engines which aren't inherently reliable, and that's another reason why they underpower their vehicles so they don't blow out the head gaskets. First thing you'll want to do if you end up stuck with a nu slowbaru is throw a turbo in it to get a bit more power, but you'll void the warranty and be at risk of blowing out the engine. Simply put I don't like the boxer engine, CVT, underpowered trio. It's not worth the edge their AWD system gives, and the reason no other manufacturers use that is because of the fuel consumption. Be real, you probably don't need it, or maybe you do.
>that nose >that approach angle >these rubberband tires
Off roader my ass. My hybrid cuckover has better angles and I bet bigger tires too. And it can fit 60% sidewalls. And has more cylinders.
If they make a cx70 off road edition, I'll cream myself. Mazda ironically has the best potential to make a better land rover right now and it'd be possibly the greatest troll move of all time. The current defender is unibody irs + ifs and has a turbo 4 standard unless you spend $60k. A cx70 is around 41k, and all they need to do is raise the ground clearance and add skidplates and they're already made a better car.
Probably coping with something stupid like the wilderness version having another inch of ground clearance and actual A/T tires. But idk
>raise the ground clearance and add skidplates
You can do this aftermarket, I don't like the skid plates any manufacturer puts on stock anyway. They cut a lot of material to save weight so it's thin and barely gives any coverage. Unfortunately Mazdas don't have a huge aftermarket. You can get spacer lifts or longer suspension easy but a skid plate might require a custom job. Still not hard, it's about the easiest thing you can have custom made.
https://i.imgur.com/4qgg4kz.png
I'm looking at a used cuckover as a cheaper alternative to a trugg.
Is the Subaru outback that much better than its competition (Rav 4, CRV, Pilot, CX) at offroading/trails, or is it all basically the same shit?
I guess it depends on what you mean by offroading. I wouldn't take a stock Outback 'offroading-offroading', but it's good at trails, fire roads, dirt roads, shit like that. The AWD is a lot better than the competition, hands down. The trade off is they're ugly, slow, and gay. CRV and CX50 definitely drive nicer and look a lot cooler. I would rather by in the Outback in a snowstorm, thoughbiet.
Well the marketing is easy to explain; its just marketing they'll say whatever sounds popular with the kids (which is "outdoorsy shit to cope with the fact I only take it to the grocery store and justify the AWD"). The outback isn't a real "offroader" either for that matter. When your boomer dad hear's "off road" he's like oh yeah, like going down the rock quarry or up a mountain, a willy's would be perfect. When a zoomer/millenial hear's "off road" they usually mean there's a gravel road they occasionally have to drive down.
Why so many anons are sipping the coolaid, I cannot say
We want decent fuel economy and road performance out of something capable on paths, but can't get Jimnys. I wouldn't call a crossover an off-roader, I'd call it an on-path vehicle. It can handle a pothole, angled driveway, lesser paved dirt roads, and some unmaintained vehicle paths. Personally I've never had a problem going where I need to go. Had a Rav4 and only got stuck in loose sand once and hit a rock due to the massive frog gut front overhang that thing has. Just understand that it's a car slightly modified for decently flat dirt roads, but most people want their vehicle to drive like a car and only really need a car. Cuckovers are fine, but it ain't no Landrover or Jimny.
Also snow is a thing in some places, your 2wd dragging on the ground car isn't going to do well.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>We want decent fuel economy and road performance out of something capable on paths
Say what you meant in normal English, I don't want to discuss the specific meaning you put into these vague words. >but can't get Jimnys
Why? It's the SUV for midgets anyway, and you still have Wranglers. >I'd call it an on-path vehicle. It can handle a pothole, angled driveway, lesser paved dirt roads, and some unmaintained vehicle paths
There's a word for that. It's "road". > Personally I've never had a problem
"Works on my machine" isn't an argument. >Just understand that it's a car slightly modified for decently flat dirt roads
I do. A lot of people don't, and that's what I meant by that post. >but most people want their vehicle to drive like a car
The first truck I bought was a GMT800 with coil springs in the rear and I was astonished how similar to a car it drives and steers. Modern trucks and truck-based SUVs are even more car-like, this point is moot. >Landrover
Have IFS and IRS in all of their model range. The last Defender with solid axles is like 8 years old, Discovery is about 20. >Also snow is a thing in some places, your 2wd dragging on the ground car isn't going to do well.
I've used to live in a very snowy country. Tires (including the ability to deflate them) matter way more than the ground clearance.
I said the cx70 could possibly be a better defender. Where was I wrong? The defender is on paper almost identical, with the exception that it comes with a 4 cylinder in base config and has british reliability
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If they make a cx70 off road edition, I'll cream myself.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, the inline 6 powered mazda. Not the better rav4 mazda. Dial back the head you're giving yourself and read
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>wants even more marketing wank in a car that's already a marketing wank
Hint: look at the post 27617370 I was replying to
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Hint: the marketing wank part was still in discussion of the cx50. A cx70 would be a real platform for mazda to support an off road trim in, along with directly competing with land rover
Pro tip: double check posts before replying for attention.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh no, an "offroad* trim" for a slightly bigger crossover is definitely not a marketing wank, because it's a real car™ platform, got it. Two more cylinders, trust the plan, amirite?
No one said the Land Rover is not a wank, and I'm hardly replying for attention, I'm just calling several people fools because I think they posted stupid shit. It's these people who got the attention because of their stupid shit.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The CX-70/90 is a completely different, rwd based longitudinal engine platform. The CX-50 is literally a stretched CX-30. What is so hard about this for you to understand?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Thats what I'm trying to tell this guy, and yet he keeps trying to act like he's the callout king for hating on a mazda post. He sounds like a genuine moron bent on complaining about mazda
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
How does the engine layout change the fact that marketing these abominations as anything offroady or "utility" is misleading?
Thats what I'm trying to tell this guy, and yet he keeps trying to act like he's the callout king for hating on a mazda post. He sounds like a genuine moron bent on complaining about mazda
>mazda >mazda
Never mentioned the manufacturer specifically, did mention the Land Rover, and yet here you are thinking it's all about the brand you built your identity around.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
This entire thread is about mazda's you fricking moron. >Whuh? How does a completely different platform change anything?
Hold on let me huff some glue, that should destroy enough braincells that I can successfully communicate with you
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>evades the question >resorts to ad hominem instead
I think you have to lay off the glue for a while.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>How does the engine layout change the fact that marketing these abominations as anything offroady or "utility" is misleading?
Because an off road trim cx70 would be able to do well since it already has longitudinal awd and could be coupled with selectable 4wd and skid plates + greater ride height to be a competent off road platform akin to a land rover while remaining significantly cheaper. Longitudinal layout literally changes everything and for some reason you don't think so even though your whole point is that the cx50 is a cheap marketing scheme to pass a mom car as a 4x4
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>competent off road platform
Are you kidding or shilling? It's literally the
https://i.imgur.com/kiv2aZV.jpeg
>that nose >that approach angle >these rubberband tires
Off roader my ass. My hybrid cuckover has better angles and I bet bigger tires too. And it can fit 60% sidewalls. And has more cylinders.
plus >fake tire sidewalls
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh my frickin God, this guy.
off road platform
It is not, the point was they SHOULD make an off-road version of that platform, as it would be conducive to the overall needs of an off-roader. >It's literally
No it literally is not you brain damaged mongoloid.
The CX-50 is QUITE LITERALLY a stretched CX-30. The CX-70 is LITERALLY a completely different platform
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
> the point was they SHOULD make an off-road version of that platform
Yeah, I remember that one. You guys are ready to cream yourselves over half an inch increase of the ground clerance and plastic skidplates. My point is that the car has more fundamental problems to take care of, that's the general direction the crossovers are going and this direction has very little to do with offroading or utility. >No it literally is not you brain damaged mongoloid.
Read the text in the post please, don't need to be upset. If you're still unable to, I can repeat and word it differently this time: your real™ longitudinal crossover suffers from the same problems many other crossovers have, transverse or not. It doesn't matter how you place the engine if you can't deflate your tires or are going to break your plastic bumper painted in three different glossy colors on the first stone that's six inches high instead of five.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Brother your last 2 braincells must be working overtime time. You said (and I quote) >it's literally the
https://i.imgur.com/kiv2aZV.jpeg
>that nose >that approach angle >these rubberband tires
Off roader my ass. My hybrid cuckover has better angles and I bet bigger tires too. And it can fit 60% sidewalls. And has more cylinders.
Which is a pic of the CX-50
Do you know what "literally" means?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Do you know what "literally" means?
I told you to read the text in that post, didn't I? Is that so hard?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ignoring your obvious moronation, what "problems" does the CX-90 platform have? I am not talking about the current CX-90 which is clearly road going, rather the inherent characteristics of the platform that make it unworthy of a theoretical off-road trim?
A bumper is extremely easy to change as a trim option, as would be adding an air compressor. The Buick Rendezvous (Aztek) had a compressor option for fricks sake
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You remind me of EV shills. They can't read, they have no idea what they are talking about, but they push some model or idea nevertheless and there's always a bit about how things will change in the near future. Adding an air compressor kek
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Pray tell what is even being shilled here. There is no off-road trim for sale the entire discussion is theoretical. The platform being discussed in that conversation is not the one pictured in the OP in the first place.
was loaned one for a day while my CX-30 was at the dealer for warranty repair (dead battery, had to overnight a new one). was excited to drive something nicer for a day for free and was disappointed.
I was shocked at how flimsy the interior felt. it's as if mazda made a car slightly cheaper than a cx-30, made it bigger, and threw in a slightly larger screen and ventilated seats to gaslight you into thinking it was a nicer car.
How do you like the NA 2.5? What specifically didnt you like about the CX-50 interior?
I've been cross shopping both and driven Base and Turbo models for all, though to be honest I could not tell much of difference interior wise (apart from the CX-50 being wider).
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Though I've only been in each car for about 20 minutes or so
power’s good with the turbo
CVT’s fine, no gear hunting cruising up mountain passes. Occasionally the solenoids go bad, but with fluid changes it lasts
interior is greatly improved from previous generations
great softroading cruiser
Outbacksisters what now?
Probably coping with something stupid like the wilderness version having another inch of ground clearance and actual A/T tires. But idk
Sea vee tee
>wilderness version
Outback has way more room to haul your shit around. Way more spacious cabin. Better visibility. If you're a girl, you'll get way more pussy. And, of course, vastly superior AWD.
On the flip side, it's ugly as frick and drives like a slow boat. CX-50 looks nice and drives pretty good. I'd take the CX-50 if I had to pick one of the two, but Outback has a lot of advantages.
The outback has competent multilink rear suspension, not a fricking solid rear axle, so it's not super threatened here
Outback also has a cvt that is known to explode at random. I wouldn't buy either, just saiyan is all.
solid axles are based
live axles sure, but not torsion beams on fail wheel drives
I wish the CX-30/50 had a solid axle that would be sick. But that anon is kind of moronic, I think he saw "torsion beam" and got confused. They have trailing arms torsion beam rear vs multilink on the CX-5
Neat its like a less dykey subaru.
Probably should have got one over the 30 turbo, hauling 3 dudes plus deer stands in mine kinda sucks. The 30 do be faster tho
As a Mazda fan, I test drove one. It's pretty nice, but I wouldn't buy it at MSRP. Just a CX-5 with a less soccer-mom look, but also more expensive. I just think the 30 and the 5 are better value, and I would recommend them over this to just about anyone.
The backseat is cramped on the 30, but you did save some money which is nice.
I think the CX-50 is too pricey for what you get, but it's a *lot* cheaper than a new 400hp trugg is going to be. It's not a hatchback, it's more like a wagon.
It's funny how people think spending $50k on a 400hp truck they won't "use" is stupid but they'll go ahead and spend $50k on a homosexual hatchback with AT's like this.
>$50k
I'm looking at brand new (base model) ones for around $30k.
What kind of price range were the one you're looking at? I've been cross shopping a CX-30 & CX-50 and came to similar conclusions. The CX-30 is just a tiny bit too small, and the CX-5 is too tall & egg shaped. CX-50 is almost the perfect middle ground, but it's just pricer than the alternatives.
I don't think it's "bad value" necessarily, but definitely not as good value as the adjacent models. I'm finding base model non-turbos around $30k but am worried it would be a bit too slow.
Subarus are all out cause they're dog turd slow, all have auto start/stop and the interiors feel fisher price tier
What's odd about Mazdas is they look different when you actually see them on the road. The CX30 is so fricking cute and smol, it looks pretty much like a lifted hatchbacks. The CX50 they tried to make more "SUV" looking but this is purely size and cosmetic tweaks. Personally I prefer the 30, but I pretty much just want a car I can put bigger wheels on. I want the benefits of a sedan's small size without the cons of a sedan (riding too low and having bad cargo space). I'm gonna get it if I can't work out importing an even more adorable Jimny.
I did like the Cx-30, and it's definitely faster in all trims + slightly better fuel economy. If it was a "just commuting" car I would consider it, but the extra space of the 50 will be really nice for hauling our dogs and camping shit around. A souped up turbo CX-30 with some rally tires would be pretty fun.
Part of the problem is the CX-50 is just a newer product, different production line, etc. I will admit I am a huge sucker for "made in USA (or Canada)" and the CX-50's are made in Alabama (with international parts of course). The pricing isn't quite as bad here, about $1k more than the CX-5 but $5k more than the CX-30. I wouldn't be towing much (maybe 1 or twice a year at most) but the turbo trim is really nice for overtaking on the highway. Helps a lot if you get stuck behind someone slow on twisty roads with limited passing opportunities.
In Leafistan, they start around 39k. Which is like 7k more than the cx5 and 11k more than the cx30. The cx5's are all made in Japan too, so I think it's hard to justify getting the 50 over the other models at that price. If you get the turbo, it can tow 3500lbs. But if you're going to be towing that much, it's probably better to just get a Ranger or a used F150 or something anyway.
I saw it on the road a few times and it looks too wagony. I mean that as a flaw, wagontards.
Beautiful vehicle.
Would have considered one if MT was offered.
If they make a cx70 off road edition, I'll cream myself. Mazda ironically has the best potential to make a better land rover right now and it'd be possibly the greatest troll move of all time. The current defender is unibody irs + ifs and has a turbo 4 standard unless you spend $60k. A cx70 is around 41k, and all they need to do is raise the ground clearance and add skidplates and they're already made a better car.
There already is a better defender
>twin turbo V6
>in an offroad vehicle
holy frick no thank you
Too big, fatass.
You might even say that would be the greatest CX of all time. The GOAT CX.
>raise the ground clearance and add skidplates
You can do this aftermarket, I don't like the skid plates any manufacturer puts on stock anyway. They cut a lot of material to save weight so it's thin and barely gives any coverage. Unfortunately Mazdas don't have a huge aftermarket. You can get spacer lifts or longer suspension easy but a skid plate might require a custom job. Still not hard, it's about the easiest thing you can have custom made.
If Mazda really wanted to sell a offroader, they'd build a SUV version of their pickup. But that's just not the market they want to catter to in the US.
Isn't that a D-Max? The relevant SUV would be the MU-X then
Yep, exactly
release that i6 sedan already you cowards
>i6 sedan
Those are a diamond dozen. Get a Bimmer,
Why would they do that? It's not like you're going to buy one new.
looks like pure sex
I'm looking at a used cuckover as a cheaper alternative to a trugg.
Is the Subaru outback that much better than its competition (Rav 4, CRV, Pilot, CX) at offroading/trails, or is it all basically the same shit?
I guess it depends on what you mean by offroading. I wouldn't take a stock Outback 'offroading-offroading', but it's good at trails, fire roads, dirt roads, shit like that. The AWD is a lot better than the competition, hands down. The trade off is they're ugly, slow, and gay. CRV and CX50 definitely drive nicer and look a lot cooler. I would rather by in the Outback in a snowstorm, thoughbiet.
>Is the Subaru outback that much better
It's that much worse lmao, I'd say the worst you've listed. The ONLY thing Subaru has going for it is their AWD system has the edge since it's full-time AWD. That costs gas, but if you're always driving in snow and up steep dirt hills it'll be useful. The other AWD systems aren't bad, and they're more efficient but they don't have that edge when pushed to the extreme edge of what AWD is capable of.
To mitigate the fuel consumption of their AWD systems, Subaru underpowers their vehicles and gives them a CVT in attempt to save more fuel. The CVT is trash, annoying to drive and doesn't have the longevity of a normal transmission. They also have boxer engines which aren't inherently reliable, and that's another reason why they underpower their vehicles so they don't blow out the head gaskets. First thing you'll want to do if you end up stuck with a nu slowbaru is throw a turbo in it to get a bit more power, but you'll void the warranty and be at risk of blowing out the engine. Simply put I don't like the boxer engine, CVT, underpowered trio. It's not worth the edge their AWD system gives, and the reason no other manufacturers use that is because of the fuel consumption. Be real, you probably don't need it, or maybe you do.
I like my outback, it’s been a great car for the 7 years I’ve had it. No problems at all
Frick japanese trash.
Buy a RAM.
>Another cuckover
>Unibody
>Auto only
>FWD-biased AWD
>4 whole cylinders
Oh yay!
>i am looking for a hardcore offroader
>this car that was never designed to be hardcore doesn't meet my criteria
wowzerz
It's not a softcore offroader either
>car that was never designed to be hardcore
so why are they marketing it like it was
Which demographic do you think is bigger: People who are actually into hardcore offroading vs people that just want to fantasize hardcore offroading.
Driving on gravel road surrounded by rocks isnt hardcore. Its casual ass "overlanding" aka camping on camping grounds.
To cash in on the larper crowd
"Off-road" coded advertising nowadays sends a subtle message of "your wife won't frick this up going over the curb at the Starbucks drive through"
I remember the time when this was true for 90% of the traffic. Or closer to 100% if you exclude enthusiast-oriented sporty models.
Yeah. Long gone are the days of sedans & wagons with adequate ground clearance that can take a curb at 40
I don't.
>that nose
>that approach angle
>these rubberband tires
Off roader my ass. My hybrid cuckover has better angles and I bet bigger tires too. And it can fit 60% sidewalls. And has more cylinders.
I hate to break it to you, but its not actually an offroader. Its just marketing wank. Its a nice looking crossover is all
Of course, but look at the OP pic or these fools
I demand you take me out of your post until you actually read what I said.
Which one are you?
Well the marketing is easy to explain; its just marketing they'll say whatever sounds popular with the kids (which is "outdoorsy shit to cope with the fact I only take it to the grocery store and justify the AWD"). The outback isn't a real "offroader" either for that matter. When your boomer dad hear's "off road" he's like oh yeah, like going down the rock quarry or up a mountain, a willy's would be perfect. When a zoomer/millenial hear's "off road" they usually mean there's a gravel road they occasionally have to drive down.
Why so many anons are sipping the coolaid, I cannot say
We want decent fuel economy and road performance out of something capable on paths, but can't get Jimnys. I wouldn't call a crossover an off-roader, I'd call it an on-path vehicle. It can handle a pothole, angled driveway, lesser paved dirt roads, and some unmaintained vehicle paths. Personally I've never had a problem going where I need to go. Had a Rav4 and only got stuck in loose sand once and hit a rock due to the massive frog gut front overhang that thing has. Just understand that it's a car slightly modified for decently flat dirt roads, but most people want their vehicle to drive like a car and only really need a car. Cuckovers are fine, but it ain't no Landrover or Jimny.
Also snow is a thing in some places, your 2wd dragging on the ground car isn't going to do well.
>We want decent fuel economy and road performance out of something capable on paths
Say what you meant in normal English, I don't want to discuss the specific meaning you put into these vague words.
>but can't get Jimnys
Why? It's the SUV for midgets anyway, and you still have Wranglers.
>I'd call it an on-path vehicle. It can handle a pothole, angled driveway, lesser paved dirt roads, and some unmaintained vehicle paths
There's a word for that. It's "road".
> Personally I've never had a problem
"Works on my machine" isn't an argument.
>Just understand that it's a car slightly modified for decently flat dirt roads
I do. A lot of people don't, and that's what I meant by that post.
>but most people want their vehicle to drive like a car
The first truck I bought was a GMT800 with coil springs in the rear and I was astonished how similar to a car it drives and steers. Modern trucks and truck-based SUVs are even more car-like, this point is moot.
>Landrover
Have IFS and IRS in all of their model range. The last Defender with solid axles is like 8 years old, Discovery is about 20.
>Also snow is a thing in some places, your 2wd dragging on the ground car isn't going to do well.
I've used to live in a very snowy country. Tires (including the ability to deflate them) matter way more than the ground clearance.
I said the cx70 could possibly be a better defender. Where was I wrong? The defender is on paper almost identical, with the exception that it comes with a 4 cylinder in base config and has british reliability
>If they make a cx70 off road edition, I'll cream myself.
Yeah, the inline 6 powered mazda. Not the better rav4 mazda. Dial back the head you're giving yourself and read
>wants even more marketing wank in a car that's already a marketing wank
Hint: look at the post 27617370 I was replying to
Hint: the marketing wank part was still in discussion of the cx50. A cx70 would be a real platform for mazda to support an off road trim in, along with directly competing with land rover
Pro tip: double check posts before replying for attention.
Oh no, an "offroad* trim" for a slightly bigger crossover is definitely not a marketing wank, because it's a real car™ platform, got it. Two more cylinders, trust the plan, amirite?
No one said the Land Rover is not a wank, and I'm hardly replying for attention, I'm just calling several people fools because I think they posted stupid shit. It's these people who got the attention because of their stupid shit.
The CX-70/90 is a completely different, rwd based longitudinal engine platform. The CX-50 is literally a stretched CX-30. What is so hard about this for you to understand?
Thats what I'm trying to tell this guy, and yet he keeps trying to act like he's the callout king for hating on a mazda post. He sounds like a genuine moron bent on complaining about mazda
How does the engine layout change the fact that marketing these abominations as anything offroady or "utility" is misleading?
>mazda
>mazda
Never mentioned the manufacturer specifically, did mention the Land Rover, and yet here you are thinking it's all about the brand you built your identity around.
This entire thread is about mazda's you fricking moron.
>Whuh? How does a completely different platform change anything?
Hold on let me huff some glue, that should destroy enough braincells that I can successfully communicate with you
>evades the question
>resorts to ad hominem instead
I think you have to lay off the glue for a while.
>How does the engine layout change the fact that marketing these abominations as anything offroady or "utility" is misleading?
Because an off road trim cx70 would be able to do well since it already has longitudinal awd and could be coupled with selectable 4wd and skid plates + greater ride height to be a competent off road platform akin to a land rover while remaining significantly cheaper. Longitudinal layout literally changes everything and for some reason you don't think so even though your whole point is that the cx50 is a cheap marketing scheme to pass a mom car as a 4x4
>competent off road platform
Are you kidding or shilling? It's literally the
plus
>fake tire sidewalls
Oh my frickin God, this guy.
off road platform
It is not, the point was they SHOULD make an off-road version of that platform, as it would be conducive to the overall needs of an off-roader.
>It's literally
No it literally is not you brain damaged mongoloid.
The CX-50 is QUITE LITERALLY a stretched CX-30. The CX-70 is LITERALLY a completely different platform
> the point was they SHOULD make an off-road version of that platform
Yeah, I remember that one. You guys are ready to cream yourselves over half an inch increase of the ground clerance and plastic skidplates. My point is that the car has more fundamental problems to take care of, that's the general direction the crossovers are going and this direction has very little to do with offroading or utility.
>No it literally is not you brain damaged mongoloid.
Read the text in the post please, don't need to be upset. If you're still unable to, I can repeat and word it differently this time: your real™ longitudinal crossover suffers from the same problems many other crossovers have, transverse or not. It doesn't matter how you place the engine if you can't deflate your tires or are going to break your plastic bumper painted in three different glossy colors on the first stone that's six inches high instead of five.
Brother your last 2 braincells must be working overtime time. You said (and I quote)
>it's literally the
>that nose
>that approach angle
>these rubberband tires
Off roader my ass. My hybrid cuckover has better angles and I bet bigger tires too. And it can fit 60% sidewalls. And has more cylinders.
Which is a pic of the CX-50
Do you know what "literally" means?
>Do you know what "literally" means?
I told you to read the text in that post, didn't I? Is that so hard?
Ignoring your obvious moronation, what "problems" does the CX-90 platform have? I am not talking about the current CX-90 which is clearly road going, rather the inherent characteristics of the platform that make it unworthy of a theoretical off-road trim?
A bumper is extremely easy to change as a trim option, as would be adding an air compressor. The Buick Rendezvous (Aztek) had a compressor option for fricks sake
You remind me of EV shills. They can't read, they have no idea what they are talking about, but they push some model or idea nevertheless and there's always a bit about how things will change in the near future. Adding an air compressor kek
Pray tell what is even being shilled here. There is no off-road trim for sale the entire discussion is theoretical. The platform being discussed in that conversation is not the one pictured in the OP in the first place.
Make a wagon of the bravo chassis already
i like Mazdas but the Outback mogs the frick out of this thing.
was loaned one for a day while my CX-30 was at the dealer for warranty repair (dead battery, had to overnight a new one). was excited to drive something nicer for a day for free and was disappointed.
I was shocked at how flimsy the interior felt. it's as if mazda made a car slightly cheaper than a cx-30, made it bigger, and threw in a slightly larger screen and ventilated seats to gaslight you into thinking it was a nicer car.
What trim was the loaner, and your CX-30?
i dont remember but it had power folding mirrors, ventilated seats, but was not a turbo
oh and my cx-30 is a non-turbo premium
How do you like the NA 2.5? What specifically didnt you like about the CX-50 interior?
I've been cross shopping both and driven Base and Turbo models for all, though to be honest I could not tell much of difference interior wise (apart from the CX-50 being wider).
Though I've only been in each car for about 20 minutes or so
It looks better in pictures. Saw one in person today and it was hideous, the back of it looks like a 400lb Bonquisha
power’s good with the turbo
CVT’s fine, no gear hunting cruising up mountain passes. Occasionally the solenoids go bad, but with fluid changes it lasts
interior is greatly improved from previous generations
great softroading cruiser
they look nice but grand cherokees exist
Totally different market segment. The CX-50 is a "compact" SUV, the Grand Cherokee is a "midsize" and about 1,0000 lbs heavier.
That I'll have another crossover clogging up trails they are not rated for.
>panoramic moonroof
>entirely covered by luggage on the rack
lmao
how else are you going to check if your luggage is still on the car and not stolen?
The things people do to avoid buying proper trucks...
>unibody cuckover
>cylinder deACKtivation
>ACKinson cycle
>~~*off-road ready*~~
What's wrong with cylinder deactivation and Atkinson cycle anon? It's free efficiency.