https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a71175446/2026-ford-explorer-st-vs-mazda-cx-90-turbo-s-premium-plus-comparison-test/The most interesting part of this test was the reviewers saying the Ford engine was much smoother. The Ford also makes much more power, but at the expense of worse fuel economy (20 vs 22 mpg)The Mazda is 1.1 seconds slower in the rolling start. But Ford wants 10k more for the Explorer, and the interior is DREADFUL. Rental car cheap, not even much nicer than the Escape's, and just low-effort in general. The Mazda is a bit fussy and outdated interiorly - my Kia will let me put in nav directions and use the touchscreen while driving after accepting a disclaimer, a VW I had wouldn't let me use it - point to Kia, but Mazda uses far nicer materials for the interior than Ford (or Kia). This review didn't complain about the transmission programming for the Mazda, but most reviews do, and Mazda seemingly has done nothing to fix it, let alone just throw out their in-house transmission suck up the cost and buy a normal ZF 8 speed. Also the other disappointing aspect of the Mazda is that, in part because of its longitudinal engine and RWD format, it is pretty cramped inside, and this being the biggest model, there's nothing more capacious.
Without a doubt the better machine is the CX-90. But is the actual better machine what you want or need, or do you need NPC consensus, in which you should be picking the Ford.I can't speak to the infotainment because I personally don't care. You probably care a lot, so who knows.The Mazda transmission is totally mechatronic, like a DSG but the gearset is planetary. It requires some miles to learn and fine tune shift quality.Even if you don't care about the engineering, Build quality and materials, it won't be a question. Point Mazda
>>28939982Eh they make the engine in the Ford sound nicer, even though I remember some earlier reviews of the 3.5T used in the Ford F-150 describing is as agricultural in character. If Mazda can't nail basic details of the engine and transmission, the rest of the package being nice won't matter. And, it being too cramped dooms it in the American market. >like a DSGum wouldn't a DSG be planetary it just has two sets of planets on two different rodsI tested an early DSG GTI and the transmission was AWFUL, far worse than the 4 and 5 speeds VW was using for autos at the time - I'm sure its better than then, this was 20 years ago, but a bad transmission ruins a car.
>>28939992Not sure what 'nail' means in this context. No DSGs are typical dual shafters like a manual transmission. The Mazda is the first to DSG planet gears. The clutches are wet, not dry like they were in older Fords whichi were notoriously abominable
>>28940002succeed at yeah but on each shaft is a couple different planets, they are just divided between two shafts, vs one on a normal automatic transmission (im not a tech expert by any means obvi)hyundai had some business about making two separate dual clutch transmissions one is wet one is dry clutch and one fails a lot, the other doesn'tthey just phased out the bad DCT with this model year I think for the Santa Fe.
