Video summary

Should You Buy a 2026 Mazda CX-5? Thorough Review By A Mechanic

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

2026 Mazda CX-5 (Mechanic review) — Key product takeaways

What’s new / main review thesis

  • Major 2026 change: no turbo engine anymore. Mazda moved to a non-turbo setup, which the reviewer attributes to most prior CX-5 buyers choosing non-turbo models.
  • The review emphasizes technical simplicity under the hood, drivetrain feel, updated interior/infotainment, and some exterior/interior quirks.

Powertrain & mechanical features (under the hood)

Engine: SkyActiv-G (non-turbo)

  • Described as very similar to the previous-generation CX-5 non-turbo.

  • Construction details:

    • Plastic valve cover
    • Aluminum block
    • Dual variable valve timing
      • Intake timing uses an electric motor with a gear mechanism to adjust cam timing.

  • Service/operation notes:

    • Oil use noted (exhaust still “uses oil”)
    • An oil control valve is accessible at the top
    • Direct injection only
      • Direct injectors under the intake manifold
      • The high-pressure fuel pump is on the side housing, praised for accessibility (less disruption if the valve cover must come off)
      • A vacuum pump supports the vacuum brake booster, with the reviewer noting direct-injection engines often produce less vacuum

Cooling system simplicity

  • Called “super simple”
    • Belt-driven mechanical water pump
    • Regular thermostat
    • No fancy valves/procedures

Emissions tech

  • Uses Miller cycle operation (late intake valve closure / small compression, large expansion).

Possible cylinder deactivation (uncertain)

  • The reviewer could not confirm from available data.
  • Mentions conflicting reports:
    • Some sources suggest cylinder deactivation on cylinders 1 and 4
    • Other sources say nothing about it

Transmission (one of the strongest positives)

  • 6-speed automatic (praised as not CVT, not DCT).
  • The torque converter uses a more sophisticated clutch strategy than a simple lock-up clutch.
  • Reviewer claims:
    • Smooth shifts
    • Linear feel
    • No hesitation / no “thinking” moments

Comparison context: Many rivals use CVTs, DCTs, or 8-speeds; this one feels straightforward.

Power output (trade-off)

  • Rated at 187 horsepower.
  • The review frames the downside as a reliability/simplicity vs. less power trade-off.
  • The engine may feel:
    • “labored”
    • louder, especially since the vehicle is bigger/heavier

Competitor comparison mentioned: Toyota’s A25A 2.5L non-turbo is rated over 200 hp, making CX-5’s 187 hp feel weaker by contrast.

Owner/repair experience & serviceability (mechanic focus)

The reviewer emphasizes simplicity for maintenance and potential future repairs:

  • No turbo hardware
    • The reviewer highlights the back side of the engine bay, describing it as “nothing/no complication.”
  • Spark plug access is portrayed as easy (not buried under complex components).
  • Cooling simplicity reduces complexity/bleed procedure concerns.
  • AC expansion valve accessibility
    • Located outside / right behind the AC line
    • Called “the coolest thing”
    • Claimed benefit: cheaper repair and less dashboard disassembly if it fails
  • Battery appears easy to access
  • Overall under-hood packaging:
    • Reviewed as high quality, with metal pipes, clean routing, and good-quality plastics where used

Underbody / chassis observations

  • Generally positive about build quality:
    • Steel lower control arm
    • Steel knuckles (the rear steel knuckle is specifically called out as a surprise)
    • MacPherson strut front suspension
    • Dual piston calipers
    • Multiple aerodynamic covers/braces
    • Well-finished fuel tank shield

Small caveat:

  • Some parts are combined:
    • The ball joint is part of the control arm, meaning it can’t be replaced separately (reviewer wished it were separate)

Exterior notes (design opinions + issues)

  • Styling direction:
    • Described as moving toward the CX-90 design direction (“CX-90 effect”).

Minor/possible quibbles:

  • Headlight “droop” into the housing
  • Perceived odd lines vs. the prior sharp look
  • Some front/body panel gaps are called “massive”

Major aesthetic negative:

  • A door crease that makes it look like the car was hit
    • The reviewer says it was present from delivery and finds it inexplicable

Other exterior dislikes:

  • Tail light design feels “off” (taste-based critique)
  • Badge/logo choices:
    • Mixed feelings, but notes the “CX-90 effect” is strong at the rear

Interior & tech (user experience)

Big changes

  • All-new dashboard approach
    • Giant screen for gauges (no traditional physical gauge cluster)
    • Very few physical buttons: only four called out:
      • Front defrost
      • Rear defrost
      • Parking brake
      • Auto hold
    • Most controls moved to the infotainment screen

Infotainment screen

Praised:

  • Responsive
  • High-quality display
  • Software generally fine after initial learning

Critiqued:

  • Icons/software can feel generic/cheap-tablet style

Specific usability frictions

  • No dedicated volume button
    • Volume changes via steering wheel controls, described as inconvenient (“push speaker and slide up/down”)
    • Reviewer wanted a simple physical volume knob
  • HVAC/auto indicator visibility
    • HVAC is on/near the lower screen area
    • The auto mode indicator color can be hard to see quickly (gray vs faintly different state)
  • Driver monitor system
    • May yell/beep when you look at the screen too much, potentially distracting
    • Suggested might be solvable via software

Comfort and driving feel

  • Seats: super comfortable
  • Overall driving:
    • Quiet, refined, composed
    • “Classy” feel with a CX-5 character
    • Not a race car, but slightly more athletic
  • Engine feel concerns are tied to the lack of power

Rear seat improvements (one of the clearest wins)

  • Strong praise for back-seat space and usability:
    • Bigger opening angle due to rear wheelbase distribution
    • 5‘7” fit: “a lot of knee room” plus good head room
    • Heated outboard seats
    • USB-C
    • Rear vents
  • Easy folding seats:
    • Simple pull handles and very straightforward operation

Comparisons made (explicit)

  • Against prior CX-5 (non-turbo)
    • Serviceability/simplicity are similar in spirit
    • The biggest “new” shift is modernized interior/tech plus removal of turbo
  • Against segment transmissions
    • Contrasts this 6AT against CVTs, DCTs, and many 8-speeds
  • Against competitor engines
    • Toyota A25A 2.5L non-turbo mentioned as over 200 hp, implying CX-5’s 187 hp feels weaker

Pros (as stated)

  • Very simple, non-turbo engine bay (less complexity, easier access)
  • Strong serviceability highlights:
    • accessible AC expansion valve
    • simple cooling system
    • good placement of fuel pump/vacuum components
  • Excellent transmission
    • smooth, linear 6-speed automatic
    • no CVT/DCT complexity
  • Interior comfort and refined ride quality
  • Rear seat space and features (major improvement)
  • Underbody build quality feels like a step up (reviewer’s view)

Cons (as stated)

  • Power deficit
    • 187 hp; feels labored and louder in use
    • trade-off tied to turbo removal
  • Interior/UX friction
    • no physical volume knob
    • HVAC auto indicator hard to read at a glance
    • driver monitor can be distracting
  • Design/aesthetic issues
    • perceived panel gap issues
    • headlight shape complaint
    • unusual door crease; tail light taste concerns
  • Unconfirmed info
    • cylinder deactivation is unclear/not fully validated

Overall verdict / recommendation (from the review)

  • The reviewer’s conclusion: the 2026 CX-5 is “near-perfect” / “as close to perfect as you can come” for 2026.
  • Recommendation tone:
    • Strongly favorable if you prioritize simplicity, refinement, and reliability over sporty performance
    • Warning for buyers: expect less power than you might get used to from turbo CX-5s; the engine can feel like it’s working

Different speaker views (if multiple speakers)

  • Subtitles indicate primarily one main reviewer/speaker (CarCareNut).
  • No distinct second reviewer is clearly identified beyond occasional narrator-like or audience-style commentary.
  • Some “we/folks” phrasing appears, but it remains the same person’s perspective.

Unique points mentioned about the product (complete consolidated list)

  1. 2026 CX-5: no turbo engine
  2. Mazda rationale: most buyers previously chose non-turbo
  3. Engine: SkyActiv-G
  4. Similarity to the older non-turbo generation
  5. Aluminum block and plastic valve cover
  6. Dual VVT
  7. Intake timing uses electric motor + gear mechanism
  8. Exhaust/exhaust-related note: exhaust uses oil
  9. Oil control valve accessible at the top
  10. Belt-driven mechanical water pump
  11. Regular thermostat; no fancy valves
  12. Direct injection only
  13. High-pressure fuel pump on side housing for accessibility
  14. Vacuum pump for brake booster
  15. Miller cycle operation described
  16. Possible cylinder deactivation is uncertain/contradictory in sources
  17. 6-speed automatic (not CVT/DCT)
  18. Torque converter has more sophisticated clutch behavior
  19. Transmission feel praised: smooth and linear, minimal hesitation
  20. Engine power: 187 hp
  21. Trade-off: engine may feel labored and noisy; “less power”
  22. Toyota A25A 2.5L non-turbo competitor cited as over 200 hp
  23. Underhood simplicity: easier spark plug/valve cover access; no turbo complication
  24. AC expansion valve externally accessible behind AC line
  25. Service implications: easier cooling/bleed avoidance; battery access
  26. Underbody quality: covers/braces; “step up” sentiment
  27. Front suspension: MacPherson strut
  28. Ball joint integrated into control arm (not separable)
  29. Brakes: dual piston calipers
  30. Rear steel knuckle
  31. Sway bar links: plastic internal portion
  32. Exhaust system quality notes (muffler/tips/flanges/hangers)
  33. Aerodynamics: multiple covers/braces
  34. Fuel tank shield and drivetrain-related packaging details mentioned
  35. Exterior: “CX-90 effect” influence
  36. Headlight shape: droop/shape complaint
  37. Body gaps: “massive” panel gap concerns
  38. Badge/logo styling changes (Mazda written; Skyactiv-G badges)
  39. Major aesthetic concern: door crease resembling an accident
  40. Rear door entry improvement: near-90°/big opening via longer-door design
  41. Rear end styling: tail lights perceived “off”
  42. Trunk/cargo: power back door; spare tire with Bose subwoofer in spare
  43. Cargo: easy second-row folding with simple handles
  44. Power tailgate mechanism notes (shock vs motor); wiring route; twist risk over time; trade-off with motor replacement
  45. Interior: gauge cluster replaced by giant screen
  46. Steering wheel: Mazda written instead of emblem; reduced physical tactility
  47. Almost no physical buttons (only 4 highlighted)
  48. Infotainment: responsive/high quality but somewhat tablet-like software feel
  49. Volume control: no dedicated button; multi-step changes via controls/screen
  50. HVAC controls: bottom of screen; subtle auto indicator color; driver monitor beeps potential distraction
  51. Driving feel: quiet/refined/comfortable; composed steering; not race-like
  52. Seats/comfort: comfortable, “classy” material feel
  53. Rear seat features: more knee/head room; heated outboard seats; USB-C; rear vents
  54. Overall conclusion: “near-perfect,” limited by power and infotainment/visibility/usability compromises
  55. Final comparison emphasis: Mazda “got the right memo” on CX-90 simplification direction

Original video