Over the next few weeks, we'll be getting to know the 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid. Here is the third chapter of our long-term test of the model.
See also: 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid Long-Term Review, Part 1: Let's Talk!
See also: 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid, Long-Term Review, Part 2: The Same, But Not
This week, three questions about the 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid: Does it represent an attractive financial proposition? Why an "old" battery? And why not a PHEV version?
You have to spend an extra $3,000 to get a hybrid version of the CX-50. For example, a non-hybrid CX-50 GT starts at $48,815. The same GT but as a hybrid: $51,815. In the U.S., by the way, the electrified vehicle demands an extra $3,500 from buyers.
We saw last time that the hybrid model can stick to an average consumption of 6.0L/100 km. Let's say the regular CX-50 gets by with an average of 9.0L/100 km.
Considering gasoline at $1.50 per litre, we can deduce that the Hybrid will cost $9.00 to travel 100 km, versus $13.50 for the non-hybrid (using 87 octane). That’s a saving of $4.50 per 100 km.
In other words, once you've driven 66,666 km with your CX-50 Hybrid, you'll begin to justify your investment. A very reasonable proposition, it seems to me.
These calculations differ a bit once you feed your ride with premium gasoline, but the end result is the same: the Mazda CX-50 Hybrid eventually eases the burden on your wallet, while polluting a tad less.
How many litres exactly?
Mazda's website says the regular CX-50's gas tank can hold 60 litres of fuel. In the hybrid, the capacity is reduced by 5 litres because the installation of Toyota's hybrid system has encroached on a part of the tank. In short, you carry less fuel - but then you use less, remember.
It should be noted that some CX-50 Hybrid owners question this 55-litre measurement, with one noting that they couldn't get more than 42 litres in at the pump.
When I filled the tank to the brim, the gauge on the dashboard told me I had a range of 720 km. If the tank truly holds 55L of fuel and my vehicle consumes 6.0L/100 km, I could drive some 917 km before running dry. A rather improbable feat, even if the Toyota system occasionally grants me a few kilometers in purely electric EV mode.
It's important to know that the software displaying the range takes our recent driving habits into account to predict it. If I've driven the last few km in optimal conditions, the system will show more optimistic predictions than if I had been speeding on the highway for hours.
So many factors influence our consumption: tire size and pressure, wind, temperature, topography, acceleration, coasting, etc.
With the GS-L or Kuro versions of the Hybrid, the 17-inch wheels save drops of fuel compared to the 19-inch rims of the GT, which are more impressive but cause greater friction with the ground, negatively impacting consumption. Not to mention, they induce a firmer ride than more modest wheels.
A declining standard
Mazda revolutionized the industry with its rotary engine, but it accepted Toyota's hybrid technology, a technology Toyota has mastered since the first Prius turned a wheel in Japan in 1997.
But why use an NiMH battery for the Mazda CX-50 Hybrid when we hear so much more about lithium-ion batteries?
A question of cost, quite simply.
The nickel-metal hydride battery has proven itself over 25 years. It is robust, cold-tolerant, less prone to overheating and, very importantly, cheaper to produce. The lithium-ion battery, on the other hand, is more compact, more efficient, less stable in extreme cold, better at recovering kinetic energy (during braking) and more expensive. This is why the former has been reserved for non-rechargeable hybrid vehicles and the latter for PHEVs.
That said, the nickel-metal hydride battery is in decline. Toyota juggled both types of batteries for a long time, installing NiMH in its base versions, but today, more powerful lithium-ion batteries are spreading across the entire Prius and RAV4 lineup, for example.
Why not a PHEV?
In reality, the real question should be why the CX-50 isn't a plug-in hybrid. After all, Mazda already sells PHEV versions of its CX-70 (5-seater) and CX-90 (7-8 seater), and plug-in CX-60 and CX-80 models in Europe.
Besides, Toyota builds a RAV4 PHEV. Since partners are already exchanging technologies, why not a plug-in CX-50?
If that were in Mazda's plans, a new platform would be needed to accommodate a bulkier powertrain, including a larger battery. The capacity of the CX-50 Hybrid's NiMH battery is 1.59 kWh, while that of the CX-70 and CX-90 PHEVs is 17.8 kWh.
There are also undoubtedly limits to the agreement between Toyota and Mazda. It's one thing to share simple hybrid technology; it's another to share all your PHEV secrets. Plus, Toyota customers already have to wait a very long time to get their hands on a RAV4 PHEV (formerly called Prime); the arrival of a Mazda cousin that's suddenly a PHEV would worsen the delays.
But get this: Mazda does not owe the PHEV system in the CX-70 and CX-90 to Toyota. The Hiroshima-based manufacturer actually developed it in-house!
The e-Skyactiv PHEV technology has existed since 2022: a 2.5L engine + 68-kW electric motor + 17.8-kWh Li-ion battery + 8-speed automatic transmission, for a total output of up to 323 hp depending on the octane rating of what you put in the tank. All of this is laid out on the PMA (Premium Multisolution Architecture) platform specific to Mazda's large models.
In other words, the day Mazda gives its CX-50 a new platform capable of receiving its PHEV system, it could introduce a plug-in CX-50 without needing Toyota. Sometime between 2027 and 2029?
Perhaps Mazda also prefers to reserve PHEV technology for its more upscale models. By remaining a simple hybrid, the CX-50 can afford to attract more budget-conscious consumers.
Next week: Thanks, Trump!