2022 Mazda CX-60 PHEV

[ssun30]

I just don't understand their idea to make four different vehicles instead of two. I just don't get it why you would do CX-60 and CX-70 unless the changes in production tooling are minimal

Narrowbody vs. widebody for all markets vs. NA. They already do that with CX-8 in Japan/China/SEA and CX-9 in NA.

But what I don't understand is CX-60 is not really narrowbody at 1890mm...

 

[Sulu]

A summary of BestCar's latest scoop on Mazda 6:

Development of Mazda 6 sedan and its coupe version has been suspended as there is doubt within Mazda whether the R&D cost of the new "Large Product Group" FR platform could be recovered.

Development of LPG started when sedan and coupe sales have not declined so much. But later Mazda realized the market space for a midsize sedan and coupe is now very limited, so the decision was made to prioritize SUVs.

There was always the talk about sharing LPG with Toyota/Lexus to achieve economy of scale. However this connection is now very weak ("the line is thin").

LPG is mainly an ICEV platform and conversion to BEV platform is possible but there are no plans for it. So now its future is uncertain. Mazda's vice president, who pushed the LPG development, resigned earlier this year due to unknown reasons. He was supposed to become Mazda's new president.

Mazda 6 will still arrive in the near future, but as a major refresh to the older FF generation. FR Sedan/coupe development will only resume if the four SUVs could prove economically feasible and after R&D cost of the platform is recovered.

My view is Mazda internally is conflicted about its future directions, and the LPG might be a strategic failure.

I am not usually one to gloat, but... I told you so.

This is a very expensive adventure for small automaker Mazda: A totally new FR platform; a totally new FR 8-speed transmission; new Inline-6 3.0-litre SkyActiv-X and 3.3-litre SkyActiv-D engines (although it looks like these engines may be extensions of the existing 4-cylinder 2.0-litre SkyActiv-X and 2.2-litre SkyActiv-D engines). And given Mazda's go-it-alone nature, the platform, transmission and engines (no I6 SkyActiv-G engine, yet?) are Mazda's products that do not share development costs with another automaker.

I just don't understand their idea to make four different vehicles instead of two. I just don't get it why you would do CX-60 and CX-70 unless the changes in production tooling are minimal

Mazda has different crossovers for the Old World (Japan and Europe) and the New World (North America). The even-numbered (CX-60 and CX-80) models are narrower for the Old World, and the odd-numbered (CX-70 and CX-90) models are wider for the Americans who want and appreciate the little bit of extra elbow room. Other than length and width differences, each of the 4 vehicles are essentially the same as the others (sharing the same platform and powertrains), so all 4 could be built on the same assembly line.

 

[Levi]

Mazda, Lexus/Toyota and Alfa Romeo/Lancia, same story, if they wanted RWD, they should have done it before, better yet not even switched to FWD, what shortsightedness!

As for Jaguar, that is puzzle: same crap reliability as Range Rover, but the later sells like crazy above Maserati prices, the former doesn't even sell at Dacia prices.

 

[mediumhot]

Mazda, Lexus/Toyota and Alfa Romeo/Lancia, same story, if they wanted RWD, they should have done it before, better yet not even switched to FWD, what shortsightedness!

As for Jaguar, that is puzzle: same crap reliability as Range Rover, but the later sells like crazy above Maserati prices, the former doesn't even sell at Dacia prices.

Jaguar is really a puzzle. XJ got hot during early 2000s and with new XK around the corner at the time I was so certain they would turn it around. Even new XJ was super hot, imo it was the best looking flagship sedan back then but I guess Jaguar buyers couldn't care less. Really weird.

 

[Gor134]

Jaguar is really a puzzle. XJ got hot during early 2000s and with new XK around the corner at the time I was so certain they would turn it around. Even new XJ was super hot, imo it was the best looking flagship sedan back then but I guess Jaguar buyers couldn't care less. Really weird.

And don't' forget the XF. Made a HUGE splash with it's supercharged V8 and stunning design, followed up by R variants. The second gen of Jaguar's design language after launching the XE and F Pace is where it all started falling apart, lack of updating models nor improving quality

 

[Sulu]

Mazda, Lexus/Toyota and Alfa Romeo/Lancia, same story, if they wanted RWD, they should have done it before, better yet not even switched to FWD, what shortsightedness!

As for Jaguar, that is puzzle: same crap reliability as Range Rover, but the later sells like crazy above Maserati prices, the former doesn't even sell at Dacia prices.

Automakers switched to FWD because that was where the market was going. There is no great demand to switch back to RWD now. I know that is not something you want to hear. Stubborn Mazda is one (a lonely one) that believes that there is a large enough demand for RWD vehicles to produce a whole lineup of RWD vehicles; no other automakers are switching to supply large numbers of RWD vehicles.

Similarly, there is no demand for cars (sedans), especially in the large North American market; the market, especially for mid-size and full-size sedans, has been replaced by crossovers and unibody SUVs. It looks like Mazda is realizing this now. This is something else that enthusiasts do not want to hear but it is reality.

Jaguar is really a puzzle. XJ got hot during early 2000s and with new XK around the corner at the time I was so certain they would turn it around. Even new XJ was super hot, imo it was the best looking flagship sedan back then but I guess Jaguar buyers couldn't care less. Really weird.

Jaguar lost its way and has not yet found its way back. It became evident when the last generation of XJ lost its iconic styling and -- especially -- gave up its unique, oh-so-British interior styling, instead gaining the any-car interior styling. That was also about the time that the market shifted to crossovers and SUVs, abandoning cars.

 

[mediumhot]

Narrowbody vs. widebody for all markets vs. NA. They already do that with CX-8 in Japan/China/SEA and CX-9 in NA.

But what I don't understand is CX-60 is not really narrowbody at 1890mm...

That's what I'm thinking too. That's already X3/RX footprint so why do you need to go wider?

 

[F1 Silver Arrows]

I told all of you guys that the Mazda inline-six won't be worth jack sh*t for a Lexus hahahahahahaha. I said it for a long a** time and everyone still kept saying that Lexus would use the Mazda inline-six lol.

 

[ssun30]

Only took Mazda 34 years to match the 1JZ and RB26 in output. That's less power than most inline-4s and a certain inline-3 engine in this class.

I don't understand why people hype up Mazda so much. The only worthy product they make today is the MX-5.

I'm increasingly convinced Mazda realized LPG was a mistake. They are trying to be the new value premium brand like Genesis, and using an expensive Inline-6 engine to compete against very high volume inline-4 models isn't ideal to put it lightly. It's almost like there's no people with accounting background in their high level management.

 

[Gor134]

They did mention that the CX-70 and CX-90 will be getting different power outputs for this 3.3, so it is likely there may be a close to 350hp variant. The current 280hp variant is for Australia, not for North America.

I *doubt* it'll be that high but I am hopeful. And if Toyota(or Lexus) does end up using this motor for the A100 I'm sure it would be highly modified from it's current state of tune.

 

[ssun30]

Why do people hope Toyota build less desirable products just so another Japanese brand can survive? They are not a charity last time I checked.

 

[JustADude]

They did mention that the CX-70 and CX-90 will be getting different power outputs for this 3.3, so it is likely there may be a close to 350hp variant. The current 280hp variant is for Australia, not for North America.

I *doubt* it'll be that high but I am hopeful. And if Toyota(or Lexus) does end up using this motor for the A100 I'm sure it would be highly modified from it's current state of tune.

Screw that Mazda 3.3L Toyota should make their own off the G16E lol maybe 3.2L I6

 

[Levi]

I told all of you guys that the Mazda inline-six won't be worth jack sh*t for a Lexus hahahahahahaha. I said it for a long a** time and everyone still kept saying that Lexus would use the Mazda inline-six lol.

Following your logic, the saame applies to Toyota/Lexus turbocharged I4 (T24). 0.4l bigger than competitors, less power, slower acceleration. B48 wipes the floor with it.

 

[carguy420]

Would be so funny if all those rumours from Best Wishes about Toyota and Mazda sharing parts for their future RWD cars turn out to be just yet another baseless rumour. They are doing their own separate things but some of you here are still clinging onto that rumour.

 

[JustADude]

Following your logic, the saame applies to Toyota/Lexus turbocharged I4 (T24). 0.4l bigger than competitors, less power, slower acceleration. B48 wipes the floor with it.

I mean if they tuned it for power like if it was in an IS350, we'd see much more power out of it. The 275hp tune is just for their appliance bread and butter vehicles.

 

[LateToLexus]

I have no horse in this race, but this thread has been a fascinating read.

It's a good looking Mazda.

Agree with price concerns, though at least in my region, most people are probably over leveraged with their vehicles unless everyone can afford $70k+ trucks now.

 

[mediumhot]

This is not a turbo engine. This is efficient petrol engine for European market CX-60 and CX-80 to offset the price of the inline diesel and PHEV.

 

[JustADude]

This is not a turbo engine. This is efficient petrol engine for European market CX-60 and CX-80 to offset the price of the inline diesel and PHEV.

No it's a turbo engine, detuned maybe for good emissions. If it comes to NA it would definitely have more power.

 

[Levi]

It has less power, but more torque (I thought that is what counts), and more cylinders, so it will be smoother, and being less boosted, more fuel efficient compared to smaller displacement I4 under load.

 

[ssun30]

Following your logic, the saame applies to Toyota/Lexus turbocharged I4 (T24). 0.4l bigger than competitors, less power, slower acceleration. B48 wipes the floor with it.

A slightly larger inline-4 isn't going to make it much more expensive to build.

The problem is Mazda needing 2 extra cylinders and thus hurting its value premium brand strategy.

Also the B48 wipes the floor with any mainstream inline-4 engine.