Hybrid compact crossovers are so hot right now, and it’s not hard to understand why. They’re practical, spacious vehicles that get outstanding fuel economy for their size and require nearly no changes in driving habits over gasoline-powered cars. That explains why almost everyone from Ford to Toyota has something in this segment, and now another manufacturer is throwing its hat into the ring with the 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid.
Having been on sale for a few years in naturally aspirated and turbocharged forms, the Mazda CX-50 is one of my favorite compact crossovers. Sure, the torsion beam rear suspension might not be the most sophisticated setup in the world, but this CUV drives well, its inputs feel great, its styling is razor wire-sharp, and its cabin is actually quite lovely. It’s a great base to start with, although the engineering underneath the hybrid model isn’t necessarily what you’d expect.
Under the hood of this new hybrid variant sits a rather different powertrain than we’re used to from Mazda. See, the hybrid CX-50 uses Toyota’s hybrid system, so you can almost think of this as filling in the mid-point between a RAV4 Hybrid and a Lexus NX when it comes to niceness. Combustion power comes from a Toyota-sourced 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, likely the exact same one as in a RAV4 Hybrid, seeing as the two share a bore, stroke, output, and compression ratio. Electrification comes from a two-motor eCVT on the front axle and an electric motor out back, fed by a 1.591 kWh nickel-metal hydride battery pack. Combined output? Identical to a RAV4 Hybrid at 219 horsepower.
Fuel economy is rated at 38 mpg combined, one less than an all-wheel-drive RAV4 Hybrid and one more than an all-wheel-drive Honda CR-V Hybrid and a Hyundai Tucson Hybrid. That puts the electrified CX-50 in good company, right in the mix of the competition on fuel economy, all while offering convincing premium style. Mind you, there is a tradeoff for electrification — two inches of rear legroom simply evaporates along with nearly an inch of rear headroom, the rear seat squab sits 1.2 inches closer to a raised floor, and towing capacity drops to 1,500 pounds. On the plus side, cargo area length with the rear seats up grows by an inch, but it seems that hybridizing the CX-50 required some serious surgery. The whole vehicle itself sits between 1.4 and 2.3 inches taller than a base, combustion-only CX-50, which would explain the hybrid-specific cladding.
The least-expensive CX-50 Hybrid, the Preferred trim, starts at $35,390 including a $1,420 freight charge, although it does include some decent equipment including half-leatherette seats, an eight-speaker audio system, heated power front seats, a power liftgate, and a wiper de-icer. Stepping up to the $38,820 CX-50 Hybrid Premium trim adds leather seating with an available hybrid-only red colorway, a panoramic moonroof, a Bose stereo, an auto-dimming rearview mirror, and satellite radio. Finally, there’s the $41,470 CX-50 Hybrid Premium Plus trim level, which adds 19-inch wheels, a heads-up display, power-folding mirrors, and a few trim upgrades just to make it seem a bit nicer.
While we’ll have to get our hands on the 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid to see what effects the packaging changes have on the vehicle’s overall practicality, it looks like a more stylish, more upscale alternative to a Toyota RAV4 Hybrid on paper. Expect it to roll into showrooms across the country later this year.
(Photo credits: Mazda)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The Mazda CX-5’s Controversial Infotainment System Has Finally Gone Touchscreen
-
The Mazda CX-70 Is A Great Argument For Buying A Mazda CX-90
-
The Mazda 6 Has Been Reborn As A RWD EV
-
The 2001 Mazda Protege MP3 Is a Forgotten Sport-Compact Legend
-
The 2024 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Woodland Edition Doesn’t Mess Around: Sensible Car Review
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
Maybe it’s just me but I really don’t think the CX-50 looks anywhere near as good as the CX-5, and the hybrid-specific tweaks are not an improvement. I realize everyone is drifting towards chunkier, tougher looks with their SUVs/CUVs at the moment but I am sad to see Mazda moving away from their ‘kodo’ philosophy (for me they peaked with the current 3).
I also prefer the CX-5. I don’t Hate the CX-50 if the CX-5 never existed i would probably be in love with it but the cx-5 is just more attractive in my opinion. My only critique on all of the new mazda cx-30/cx-50/cx-90 is that the ride height is just off. they would look better if they were lower or raised but whatever ride height they settled on is just the wrong one.
Fingers crossed for there to be a PHEV Mazda3 featuring Toyota’s drivetrain sooner than later. I mean, since Toyota doesn’t seem interested in releasing a non-Prius PHEV in a proper hatch…
the mazda 3 and prius have very similar cargo capacity. The trunk is almost identically sized.
https://shorturl.at/UV0LJ
https://shorturl.at/shs5K
I just like a proper hatch more than a lift back like the Prius. Nothing against the Prius, the redesign is quite nice; I’d just prefer the Corolla Hatch with the same drivetrain. It’s obvious we aren’t getting that in the States so the Mazda3 might be as close as we get…
I hope it improves the way these drive, because the turbo one was just woeful. I’ve been a Mazda fan for years, but the CX50 did not inspire confidence
I just can’t think of the hybrid drivetrain as the heart of this vehicle. I think the heart is really the fuel pump. Really the fuel pump is the left ventricle and the right side of the heart is the water pump and whatever pumps coolant to the batteries – or are these batteries air cooled. i think the battery pack would be most accurately described as the liver of this vehicle. the electric motor is fast twitch muscle and the gas engine is slow twitch muscle. So really I think what we have here is more a case of the mazda getting a toyota liver and if we could fix that or have jason clarify it’d be great.
I wonder at what ethanol percentage liver damage starts to happen then.
If the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell then i think the spark plug is the powerhouse of the ICE.
Bought a CX-50 last year and was beyond underwhelmed – between roof leaks, the engine burning a quart of oil in 4k miles, a series of qc issues (body panel alignment, lots of odd rattles and squeaks), and an underwhelming series of experiences with the dealer I don’t plan to ever get another. These new Mazdas don’t seem to have the same reliability as the older ones (Two family members had Mazdas for 10+ years with only routine maintenance).
Then you might like this one…since it has a Toyota motor!
I saw a YouTube review of the Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid, which comes out of the same factory as this car, and the presenter pointed-out some assembly quality issues with their tester. Toyota and Mazda are both generally known for good assembly, so it seems that this factory is letting them down.
New plant + new models ≠high-quality products.
I’ve heard similar stories about the Corolla Cross, seems to be a Mazda/Toyota Alabama issue.
Edit: Mr Fusion beat me to it.
I feel fairly confident chalking this up to an Alabama issue…
Headspace was already an issue on the Mazda SUVs, I guess that precludes me from wanting one.
Make a Cx-30 version and I’m in, I love my Niro but a Mazda would be a winner!
i just want the CX-30 to have one more inch of ride height and i wish it wasn’t torsion beam rear suspension. After driving so many torsion beam and solid axle vehicles i’m just over it. You don’t notice it 90 percent of the time but on the long concrete bridge i have to drive on every day it is SO much smoother if you have fully independent suspension!
I didn’t know that, my Niro is fully independent!
multi link ftw!
Mazda and Toyota are a better pairing than Toyota and Subaru/BMW.
I read elsewhere (the pr maybe?) that Mazda re-configured the throttle to have more “Mazda-like” response, so that seems encouraging. This could be a winner.
From the press release (https://news.mazdausa.com/2024-07-09-2025-CX-50-Pricing-and-Packaging):
i bet it just drives in the toyota “power” mode all the time. There is no real fuel economy hit driving in “power” mode it just increases response and gives you more throttle at 10-30 percent accelerator.
That’s the thing that a lot of folks don’t seem to understand. You see people complaining on the forums for some of these vehicles that their eco mode is getting worse efficiency, and it’s pretty much invariably because they just put their foot down to compensate for the throttle mapping. It’s kind of hilarious on the EV forums because of course it’s just throttle mapping. There’s no shift points or the like, so were they just expecting there was a magical more efficient mode that still let them punch it up to speed immediately?
yup. People don’t learn to drive efficiently they just buy an efficient vehicle and hope magic will make it sip gas. A car doesn’t “get” fuel economy it uses exactly as much gas as the driver tells it to.
I see a lot of partnership between Mazda and Toyota recently. I would love to see more money throw at Mazda from Toyota to help them grow, they don’t compete each other. Mazda is what Pontiac could be if GM did the right thing.
Part of the Hybrid CX-50 using the Toyota hybrid drivetrain is likely due to the CX-50 being produced in a Toyota Factory in the US if I’m not mistaken. I think it makes a ton of sense given Mazda is so much smaller than Toyota, so Mazda gets great value and useful tech, and Toyota gets… something? Quite frankly I like Toyota, but as a Mazda fanboy, I really love seeing what’s coming from the partnership.
MTM (Mazda Toyota Manufacturing) Huntsville Alabama.
Anybody know why it sits higher than the ice version? Drivetrain is just physically bigger? but I’d expect that to also require a new front subframe that should be able to counteract that. 1-2″ seems way too much for packaging a <2KW battery. Is it solely to go after the wilderness / badlands / whatever outdoorsy cladding package happens to be cool that day?
I was wondering the same, the way it’s written is a bit confusing but if sounds to me like it’s an increase in vehicle height, not ground clearance. I’d guess the Toyota hybrid engine and transmission unit is physically taller than the Mazda unit and they figured since they were needing to add some height in the front they might as well put the battery under the rear passenger floor rather than in the trunk like Toyota.
I agree with you, but can’t resist being a bit pedantic (sorry): The RAV4 hybrid battery is under the rear seats. It’s the PHEV with the larger battery that has batteries in the trunk.
I’m not at all the demographic for crossovers, but this pairing makes perfect sense.
Toyotas are generally considered to be bland to drive and their design language is not everyone’s cup of tea; Mazdas are good at both of those. Mazdas are usually not so great at fuel economy (skyactiv tech notwithstanding) and are decent reliability-wise but not exceptional; Toyotas are good at both of those.
Putting the best of both together in one car is *chef’s kiss*
I think I understand. We’ll make a Mazda slow like a 1st gen Prius.
This has 32 more horsepower than the base model. I doubt it will be as slow as you are implying.
The RAV4 Hybrid on which this is based is one of the quicker vehicles in this class. But maybe you shouldn’t go into the compact crossover segment expecting awesome performance in the first place.
As long as they don’t get everythig backwards like Nissan and Alfa Romeo did with the Arna.
You’d be forgiven for thinking “Japanese drivetrain with Italian styling? Yes please!” What you got was an Italian drivetrain with early 80’s Japanese styling…
I did not know the Nissan Arna existed and just looked it up and it looks adorable! i now unironically want one!
I didn’t expect the powertrain to be quite as exact RAV4, not that it’s really a surprise or a bad thing. I imagine with the new RAV4 around the corner, Toyota will keep some advancements to itself like we see in the new Camry, so the Mazda’s is a bit “legacy” tech (but no bad thing).
It fares really well against the CR-V hybrid pricing. The standard hybrid Mazda loses the sunroof but gains a power hatch and wireless CarPlay/Android Auto vs. a CR-V Sport, and the Mazda has AWD for about the same price as the Honda in FWD if you’re so inclined for that. The top Mazda has ventilated seats and HUD which the top Honda doesn’t.
According to Mazda’s spec sheet the hybrid CX-50 still includes a temp spare which the CR-V doesn’t, so that’s nice as well.
I looked at the CX-50 a while back. It was very obviously gunning for people cross-shopping the Outback- it’s lower and wider than most CUV’s, and it’s way nicer. Raising it up a tick seems to defeat that a little, but I can’t see how you could go wrong with this setup.
Raising it up while also reducing the interior space at the same time is concerning to me, but I will wait to see what the reviews say.
Reduced interior space would be an issue since it doesn’t actually have that much space – I certainly can’t get comfortable in one – but I’m assuming that it would be headroom that sees the biggest drop.
My feelings about this offering:
Shaq dunk – shattered backboard – no notes.
HE’S ON FIRE
tip hat to the NBA Jam reference!
Just like the ideal sports car would have an American V8 and Italian styling (Pantera), this now has best in class styling and drivetrain. Whoever brokered this deal for Mazda deserves a blank cheque raise.
IMO the Toyota hybrid system should be shopped around like the Cummins diesel.
I was still hoping Mazda would get the RAV4 Prime plug-in hybrid powertrain, but 38 MPG is impressive.
Seems like that’s unlikely if just the hybrid took that much surgery. Seems like development of this model started before Mazda and Toyota started taking things seriously
It’s the same for the Camry Hybrid. It’s very unlikely we’ll see a PHEV Camry anytime soon because adding the hybrid battery already raises the rear seats an inch compared to the outgoing ICE version. Anything more would end up unduly gimping trunk space.
Is it, though? 38MPG just doesn’t seem all that great these days, given the state of technology. It seems like we’re really trading a lot of efficiency for power and weight. Imagine how much better the mileage would be in something like a Mazda 3 hatch. It’s like the automakers are deliberately handicapping themselves on the efficiency front by making everything a CUV.
38 MPG combined is much better than you think. Some ICE sedans can crack 40 MPG on the highway, but their city numbers are way lower, usually in the high 20’s or low 30’s. Getting high 30’s MPG under most circumstances on a crossover platform is normal right now, almost exactly what the RAV4 Hybrid does.
By the way, the improvement is even more impressive in light of the CX-50’s fuel economy with the ICE: 24 MPG city, 30 MPG highway, 27 MPG combined for the non-turbo engine. So the hybrid manages to give you more horsepower than the base ICE (32 hp more to be exact) all while returning much higher fuel economy. That is definitely a win for Mazda.
If Mazda thinks there is a business case for a Toyota hybrid-powered Mazda 3 they’ll probably make one. Crossovers are what’s hot right now though, so they’ll definitely be spending the majority of their engineering dollars there.
exactly that. Some people might think 11 extra MPG is not anything to write home about but if you consider that’s about 35% better mileage for this particular application then it makes a lot of sense. I’d take it!
I went from driving a VW CC that got low 20s in town and low 30s on the highway (on premium!) to a 2014 Sportwagen TDI which does mid 30s in town and 40+ on the highway. It is a very noticable difference! Now, we’ve got hybrid crossovers that can do that or better, on regular gas. For better or worse, people will keep buying crossovers, so I’m glad they’re hybridizing one of the most popular vehicle segments.
I just drove a rented Toyota Yaris Cross, a compact CUV resembling a slightly smaller Corolla Cross, in a big loop from Milan up to Zurich and back down through Austria and the Dolomites, and the overall fuel economy was 4.2 litres/100km, or 56mpg, so 38mpg doesn’t seem that great.
At worst the YC cracked 5l/100km on an afternoon driving three of the highest mountain passes in the Alps, yet it had no trouble keeping up with the big German cars on the speed-limit free Autostrada. Engine is a big 3 cylinder engine that seems to spend much of its time charging the battery to keep the electric motor whirring. Miraculous little vehicle, shame it’ll never come to North America.
I wish the yaris cross would come to the USA so bad.
I mean, at the end of the day they have to sell cars. No one outside of the people who read and comment on blogs like this wants a Mazda 3. There have been plenty of efficiency maximizing tiny hybrids before, like the Insight, and unfortunately they’ve never managed to be anything other than a niche interest. A Mazda 3 hybrid would also be going against the new Prius, which by all accounts is an absolute juggernaut of a vehicle.
But do you know what people do buy? CUVs. While they’re obviously not the best form factor for efficiency, that doesn’t mean making them more efficient is a waste. They’re the most popular vehicles on the road by a country mile. I don’t know what the raw numbers would show, but logically speaking hybridizing crossovers has a massive impact.
Even if they only get 38 MPG, manufacturers sell hundreds of thousands of them every year. Making a chunk of them hybrids will cut into carbon emissions more than making small hatchback hybrids will because of the sheer volume differences.
And even those weird nerds want a Mazdaspeed3.
For under $20k.
hybridizing the larger vehicles net you the largest benifit in fuel savings. I’m all for it!
what are you smoking? my Honda fit would get 33mpg combined. this is a behemoth of a vehicle with over 200 horsepower!
The most surprising thing about this is that it wasn’t initially designed to accommodate the hybrid drivetrain without so much alteration. This has to be at least under consideration when the CX-50 was being developed. That said, while it would be nice if it had the slightly higher total output of the Camry’s AWD hybrid permutation, with luck this will be an alternative that allows one to enjoy the virtues of Toyota’s excellent hybrid system without the hard plastic and bland driving vices of the current RAV4.
They may have had hybridization in mind but didn’t build it to fit Toyota’s hardware, so the surgery was necessary because the plan changed? I don’t know, I just want to give them some credit on it.
Aren’t they building all CX-50s for the US and its northern suburbs in the joint plant alongside the Corolla Cross, though? My concern leading up to this is that they might try to shove the smaller Corolla Cross hybrid powertrain in the CX-50, which wouldn’t be enough motor for Mazda fans.
Regardless, yeah, this is a good move and a tempting option for the segment. Too bad Matt Hardigree already pulled the trigger on whatever he pulled the trigger on but won’t tell us about because he’s saving that for content to earn his filthy lucre.
An unexpected yet welcome pairing. This will fit nicely in the area once filled by the last gen Venza.
Unfortunately, it won’t come with Lithium batteries like the Venza (Harrier), that would most likely increase interior space and cargo capacity. But NiMH chemistry does perform better in colder climates, with that said, I don’t actually expect this model to make a lot of sales in colder climates though.
Honestly though, cutting the Venza was a mistake on Toyota’s part. They’re still making the Harrier, they’re just not selling them in the USA.
The worst part is, the rest of the world gets the PHEV model, the model everyone wants in the USA.
The Crown Signia keeps being touted as Toyota’s own replacement for the Venza but it’s in a higher price range rivaling Lexus. I’m sure the Venza didn’t sell all that well but it’s an odd choice to promote the Signia instead of it. Unless they planned for the CX-50 to supplement it all along.
I think the issue is mainly Toyota cutting back manufacturing.
I don’t buy the “can’t produce” xyz parts shortage problem.
With the Yen to USD disparity at an all time high and inflation driving the costs of cars up in the USA. Toyota has the option to purchase all the parts from other countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, etc and use Japanese labor to put everything together and make the Yen disparity work fortuitously for them.
And correct, the Venza being cheaper than the Crown Signia. However, it’s higher quality compared to any USA Made RAV4, plus the interior, in general, is nicer than the RAV4 Prime. The sales in the USA have always been high and over MSRP as well. They commanded a price premium over the USA Made RAV4 at all times.
Cutting the Harrier from sales in the USA is entirely a Toyota USA Marketing decision, not one based on actual numbers that weren’t cherry picked. If there were more Venzas in the right inventories, they’d have sold excessively well.
The problem is that most people remember the Venza from 2010 and old ladies in their 70s going to beach parties. If that’s not going to make anyone flacid, I don’t know what will.
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply the Venza was of lower quality because of its price. I agree that it’s a very nice vehicle and should have gotten more attention. My issue is with auto publications referring to the Signia as its replacement when they’re in different price segments.
I drive a RAV4 for work and would rather we had a Venza. Even the higher trim Ravs are very plain and plasticky inside.
Btw, the original Venza was a good alternative to the Subaru Outback, but it was as much a victim of poor marketing as the Rav-based Venza after it.
Good to know: this is worth looking at as a possible replacement for my daughter’s 11yo CR-V. With the added sneaky bonus that, once she drives a car that can be fun, she might become less of a suburban CUV mom.
Maybe
I feel like this is now the Goldilocks midsize crossover. Looks are subjective, but I personally think it looks way better than a CRV, RAV-4, Tucson, Sportage, etc. The interior can be kitted out to near luxury levels as well, and now it has some of the best fuel economy in its class.
Plus, the Toyota powertrain is bomb proof. Mazda has been having a lot of issues with their first round of PHEV CX90s, so having something tried and true behind this is a real plus. Honestly the only disadvantage I can think of is that having an E AWD system will more or less remove what little off road capability the CX50 had, but let’s be real here…none of these have ever seen more than a gravel road anyway and never will.
I think this will be a big win for Mazda and will become my go to recommendation for people in this class. You really can’t go wrong here, it’s all of the Toyota hybrid efficiency and longevity in a package that has what a RAV4 or CRV never be able to offer…character. I genuinely really like this and think it’s a surefire hit.
And now I’m sad that I couldn’t wait one year to get the hybrid CX-50 (as my ICE 2023 CX-50 stares forlornly at me from the street).
Did you get the turbo? I certainly wouldn’t blame you if you went that route even with a hybrid option. That’s a mighty fine engine and is probably still the best way to have this car if you care about driving engagement…which you probably do if you’re buying a Mazda.
I did get the turbo, and I couldn’t be happier with the choice. It’s as fun to drive as a non-exotic CUV can be.
If I were to suddenly need a new car it would be pretty high on my list.
The turbo engine really is killer, 320 lb-ft of torque in my CX-30 is downright overkill for what it is, and I adore it greatly. As much as I love my 30, I really do prefer the styling of the 50, but I had zero need for anything bigger than my 30, and the savings compared to the 50 was a nice bonus.
It looks very nice and very boring. Mazda will sell them for full asking price as fast as they can crank them out.
I can vouch for this powertrain. Only issue I’ve had with it is the 12v battery dying, 4 years of good maintenance and 0 problems with excellent fuel economy. Sounds terrible if you step on it but the savings is worth it.
This strikes me as weird question even to myself but… Could an exhaust bring it back? Is that even a thing?
*Googles “glass pack for RAV4″*
“Universal fitment” it says https://www.magnaflow.com/products/18125-magnaflow-35in-round-glasspack-performance-exhaust-muffler-18125
I mean, I’ve seen exhaust systems make air-cooled VW engines sound pretty badass, though in stock form they sound more like a lawn mower than anything. If they can do that, I’m sure someone could make Toyota’s dreary four cylinder sound a bit more exciting.
I do adore Mazda’s styling and ergonomics philosophy in their vehicles, and based on the mess of a PHEV system in the CX-90, adopting a Rav4 Hybrid drivetrain might be the single best reason to buy this.
Even if you’re concerned about Mazda reliability, which has generally been stellar since getting away from Ford Parts (CX-90 notwithstanding) you absolutely can’t deny the absurd longevity of a Toyota Hybrid system, now in a much nicer wrapper.
As a Mazda fanboy (my 2016 Mazda6 is my second after my 2008 Mazda3 and my wife also drives a 2016 CX-5), I love to see this. Hopefully, it does well for them. Maybe they can do a plug-in model a la the RAV4 Prime?
I’m also very much a fan of Mazdas, as is my entire family. My mom loves her CX-9, however when it goes she wants to downsize to a CX-50, and I’d wager the Hybrid will be the perfect option.
I didn’t see that coming… kind of weird that Toyota teamed up with Mazda on this, as Toyota can’t seem to keep up with Hybrid demand. That being said, I’d have this over a Rav4. The Hybrid CRV is still probably my favorite of the bunch.
I don’t think they’ve had much of a choice. There are problems with the hybrid system in the CX90. Their rotary-powered hybrid lasted two model years of poor sales.
If they want to change their direction, they need the boost Toyota’s name brings.
The MX-30 was a compliance car only available in California and not with the rotary range extender (other portions of the globe do now have the range extender). Not only was it for compliance, it was a massive compromise and didn’t make a whole lot of sense in today’s world. I’m not even sure if they expected to sell many at all.
Has it done well in other markets? I feel like I read some not great stuff when it came out, but haven’t followed it (obviously).
They announced a Mazda sourced hybrid for the next CX-5, so hopefully they fix the isssues plaguing the 70/90 (which seem to be mostly transmission related).