Americans Are Gonna Love Our New Crossover, Mazda Claims

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

There’s no automaker with an American dealer network that can’t make do with another high-riding utility vehicle.

If you’re Ford, four is most definitely not enough, so there’s two more on the way — one exciting, the other decidedly not. If you’re General Motors, you’ve already green-lit the import of a Chinese-built crossover to fill a hole in a lineup. If you’re Hyundai, well, you’ve just s ummoned a product army.

Mazda needs a new crossover. There’s simply too many sales going unrealized in the United States, where the brand is on track to record a second yearly sales decline. Knowing there’s only one surefire way to boost volume these days, Mazda is placing its hopes on a new crossover made for America, made in America, that somehow won’t gobble up sales of its existing utility lineup.

Speaking to Automotive News, Mazda CEO Masamichi Kogai claims the new model could become the brand’s U.S. best-seller. For his company’s sake, let’s hope Kogai’s prediction holds more water than his one-time vision for 400,000 annual U.S. sales. The brand’s sales peaked at 319,184 units in 2015, falling under 300,000 in 2016.

Mazda’s mystery vehicle will emerge from a joint Mazda-Toyota factory in a still-unknown locale in 2021. All of Mazda’s allotted plant capacity will go towards the new vehicle. That’s a potential for 150,000 annual units, assuming the crossover finds buyers.

“We have big expectations,” Kogai said of the planned model. “This is our declaration that we are going to grow our business in the U.S.”

Mazda makes a habit of tailoring models towards certain markets. The CX-4 is built for China. The not-quite-right-sized CX-8 is for Japan’s eyes only. Whatever new crossover emerges from the new joint facility will be designed not just to woo U.S. buyers, but to prevent it from eating into the sales of the CX-3, CX-5, or CX-9. A tall order.

“We are actually going to introduce a totally new and different type of SUV,” Kogai said. “R&D is coordinating with our North American operations on that right now.”

It’s expected that, given the segment’s thirst for larger vehicles of this type, the new crossover will slot between the CX-5 and CX-9. Maybe we’ll even see a return of the CX-7 nameplate. Still, the space between the brand’s two larger crossovers isn’t a vast, endless plain. Many consider the CX-9 a little on the small side for three-row duty. How does Mazda split the difference?

One possibility lies in growing the next-generation CX-9, thus increasing the size gap. That model is due for a full redesign in 2022.

Whatever form the lineup takes, Mazda’s buyers are increasingly turning away from passenger cars. During the first half of the year, crossovers accounted for 53 percent of the brand’s U.S. sales. Through October, that tally rose to 57 percent. Mazda would like to bring it up to 60 percent.

As it awaits a new factory and vehicle, Mazda’s goals amount to greater profitability, fewer incentives, and the rollout of a new platform and the company’s Skyactiv-X gas compression ignition engine. A fully redesigned Mazda 3 arrives for the 2019 model year.

[Image: Mazda]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 12 comments
  • Sportyaccordy Sportyaccordy on Nov 25, 2017

    Mazda, please bring back the CX-7. Give it a back seat that can accomodate a rear facing infant seat behind my 5' 11" wife and we will have a deal. Compact crossovers are just too effing small and I want nothing to do with a 3 row. Our MKX is just about perfect.

  • Islander800 Islander800 on Nov 26, 2017

    I'll be following this with interest. I'm soon to downsize from two to one vehicles - an Element and a Fit to what I thought would be a CRV. But this could change things...

  • Master Baiter I told my wife that rather than buying my 13YO son a car when he turns 16, we'd be better off just having him take Lyft everywhere he needs to go. She laughed off the idea, but between the cost of insurance and an extra vehicle, I'd wager that Lyft would be a cheaper option, and safer for the kid as well.
  • Master Baiter Toyota and Honda have sufficient brand equity and manufacturing expertise that they could switch to producing EVs if and when they determine it's necessary based on market realities. If you know how to build cars, then designing one around an EV drive train is trivial for a company the size of Toyota or Honda. By waiting it out, these companies can take advantage of supply chains being developed around batteries and electric motors, while avoiding short term losses like Ford is experiencing. Regarding hybrids, personally I don't do enough city driving to warrant the expense and complexity of a system essentially designed to recover braking energy.
  • Urlik You missed the point. The Feds haven’t changed child labor laws so it is still illegal under Federal law. No state has changed their law so that it goes against a Federal child labor hazardous order like working in a slaughter house either.
  • Plaincraig 1975 Mercury Cougar with the 460 four barrel. My dad bought it new and removed all the pollution control stuff and did a lot of upgrades to the engine (450hp). I got to use it from 1986 to 1991 when I got my Eclipse GSX. The payments and insurance for a 3000GT were going to be too much. No tickets no accidents so far in my many years and miles.My sister learned on a 76 LTD with the 350 two barrel then a Ford Escort but she has tickets (speeding but she has contacts so they get dismissed or fine and no points) and accidents (none her fault)
  • Namesakeone If I were the parent of a teenage daughter, I would want her in an H1 Hummer. It would be big enough to protect her in a crash, too big for her to afford the fuel (and thus keep her home), big enough to intimidate her in a parallel-parking situation (and thus keep her home), and the transmission tunnel would prevent backseat sex.If I were the parent of a teenage son, I would want him to have, for his first wheeled transportation...a ride-on lawnmower. For obvious reasons.
Next