Electric Cars

When navigating the compact SUV market, consumers often encounter compelling choices from the same manufacturer. Mazda, for instance, presents two strong contenders: the CX-5 and the CX-50. Although both models consistently earn high praise, including top rankings and editorial endorsements, they cater to slightly different buyer preferences. Understanding their distinct characteristics in terms of aesthetics, practical space, technological features, performance, efficiency, and ruggedness is key to selecting the ideal vehicle.

A notable distinction lies in their physical attributes and interior configurations. The CX-50 boasts a longer, wider, and lower stance, giving it a more athletic appearance, while the CX-5, especially its 2026 iteration, offers a slightly more generous passenger cabin and enhanced headroom, despite sharing a similar wheelbase with its counterpart. In terms of cargo, the CX-50 comfortably accommodates nine carry-on suitcases, setting a high bar for its class. Furthermore, the infotainment experience varies significantly. The updated CX-5 features a larger, more integrated touchscreen display, ranging from 12.9 to 15.6 inches, which consolidates many controls into a single interface. Conversely, the CX-50 maintains a more traditional setup with an 8.8-inch screen primarily operated via a control knob, though it does offer touchscreen functionality for smartphone mirroring.

Performance and utility also set these SUVs apart. Both models share a standard 187-horsepower 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine. However, the CX-50 expands its powertrain offerings with an optional 256-horsepower turbocharged variant and a hybrid option, the latter borrowing technology from the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid to deliver 219 horsepower and impressive fuel efficiency. While a CX-5 Hybrid is anticipated, details are still pending. For those requiring towing capabilities, the CX-50, particularly with its turbocharged engine, is the superior choice, boasting a maximum towing capacity of 3500 pounds, significantly more than the CX-5's 1500 pounds. In terms of fuel economy, both base models achieve similar combined MPG ratings, but the CX-50 Hybrid leads the pack with an impressive 38 mpg combined. Lastly, for adventurers, the CX-50 offers enhanced off-road readiness with greater ground clearance and a dedicated Meridian Edition featuring all-terrain tires, providing a more rugged aesthetic and capability than the CX-5.

Ultimately, both Mazda compact SUVs represent excellent engineering and design. The choice between the CX-5 and CX-50 hinges on individual priorities. If a sophisticated cabin with cutting-edge infotainment, generous passenger room, and a traditional SUV profile are paramount, the CX-5 might be more appealing. However, for those seeking broader powertrain options, superior towing capacity, a more adventurous exterior, and better off-road potential, the CX-50 stands out. Regardless of the selection, both vehicles embody Mazda's commitment to driving pleasure and quality, ensuring a rewarding ownership experience that encourages exploration and dynamic journeys.

Ford has announced a significant recall affecting more than 400,000 Explorer SUVs manufactured between 2017 and 2019. The reason for this action is a persistent problem with the rear suspension toe links, which are prone to fracturing. This defect, which has been identified in previous Explorer generations, poses a safety risk due to the potential for sudden loss of vehicle control. While two accidents have been reported globally in connection with this fault, thankfully, no injuries have been confirmed.

The current recall targets 412,774 vehicles from the 2017-2019 model years. What is particularly frustrating for owners is that this is not a new issue for the Ford Explorer. It is an expansion of an earlier recall (NHTSA recall 21V537) that covered 644,055 units of the 2013-2017 Explorer. This indicates that even with newer models, the fundamental design flaw or manufacturing inconsistency persists, leading to repeated safety concerns for consumers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is closely involved in overseeing this recall.

Detailed reports from the NHTSA confirm that the cross-axis ball joint components and the rear suspension toe links can fracture under specific stress conditions. These particular parts were integrated into production from May 2017 until March 2019. Interestingly, different manufacturers have supplied these components across the affected model years, with SAF being named in the current recall and ZF Friedrichshafen in the earlier one. The fact that the same problem recurs despite different suppliers suggests that the underlying design of these suspension elements might be inadequate for the loads exerted on a fully laden SUV, rather than solely a manufacturing defect.

Previous investigations in 2021 revealed instances where seized cross-axis ball joints led to bent toe links, eventually causing fractures. These occurrences were often linked to vehicles operating in regions where road salt is commonly used, suggesting corrosion as a contributing factor. Some cases also pointed to sealing failures in the components. New parts from SAF were introduced to mitigate these problems. However, in early 2026, the NHTSA alerted Ford that even vehicles equipped with these supposedly improved parts were still experiencing fractured rear toe links, prompting the latest recall.

The potential consequences of this suspension defect are severe. A fractured toe link can result in unsettling noises, abnormal handling characteristics, and even a misaligned rear wheel, significantly compromising the vehicle's stability and control. In the reported accidents, vehicles collided with road barriers or guardrails after experiencing a toe link fracture. Fortunately, Ford has stated that they are unaware of any related injuries, suggesting these incidents may have occurred at lower speeds, preventing more serious outcomes.

Ford is scheduled to inform its dealerships about the recall program, including searchable Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), by February 25th. However, owners of the affected Explorer SUVs will have to wait longer, with official notifications sent via mail between March 9th and March 13th. This timeline means a considerable delay before vehicle owners can have the necessary repairs completed, underscoring the ongoing challenges in addressing this recurring safety issue.