2015 Volkswagen Golf SportWagen
By now you’ve heard all the Volkswagen turbo diesel fiasco. Residual values, VW stock prices, and brand image have all taken a beating over recent months. But, what’s been lost in all of the hubub is that there’s a new Golf Sportwagon. And, despite the diesel disaster, the Sportwagon deserves it’s time in the spotlight.
For those fans that were upset over the demise of the Jetta SportWagen, we have great news. It’s hasn’t really gone away, it’s just been re-designed, and renamed, as the 2015 Volkswagen Golf SportWagen.
And that means it is now using VW’s fantastic MQB architecture, and the benefits of that are almost endless. It weighs less, is more economical, and despite shifting from Jetta to Golf nameplates, it even has about the same amount of space inside.
We’re certainly okay with the expansion of the Golf lineup, as it has always been one of our favorite cars. But what we’re not fine with of course, is the recent news regarding Volkswagen’s deceptive practices when it came to getting their TDI diesel’s emission’s certified.
We spent time in a urea-injected TDI equipped SportWagen back in the summer, before all of this came to light. And averaged 37.0 miles-per-gallon, which is actually better than the Combined Government Fuel Economy Rating of 35, to go along with 31-City, and 42-Highway.
We’ve always been huge fans of the TDI and have always gotten exceptional fuel economy results, but perhaps in retrospect we should have known it was almost too good to be true. It’s not a total disaster however, as independent testing has concluded that with a software fix, fuel economy might decline as little as 5%.
Ultimately it will be the consumers that will decide the TDI’s fate when and if Volkswagen gets things sorted out.
We also drove a TSI-equipped gasoline fueled SportWagen; and here we also bested expectations, averaging 33.3 miles-per-gallon of Regular. The official Combined is only 29, with 25-City and 35-Highway. Its legitimate Energy Impact Score comes in at 11.4 barrels of oil consumed yearly with CO2 emissions of 5.0-tons.
The 1.8-liter I4 in the TSI is rated at 170-horsepower and 199 lb-ft. of torque and is available with either a 5-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission.
Compared with a Golf 5-door, there’s 12.0-inches of additional length, yet it rides on a wheelbase that’s actually been shortened by a bit. Overall length, however, is almost exactly the same as the departing Jetta SportWagen.
As far as design, there’s only so much you can do with the two-box wagon shape, the Golf’s take is without a doubt more purposeful and less bloated than the Jetta’s.
The forward portion of the interior doesn’t depart at all from the simple Golf theme, and we’re just fine with that. Material quality is good, and seat comfort better than expected.
Cargo capacity in the hold is down slightly to 30.4 cubic-ft., but after dropping the rear seat backs, the space expands to 66.5 cubic-ft. And that’s much more space than all of the rapidly growing subcompact crossovers have to offer.
And it’s much more fun to drive as well. Here at the track, it was as capable as we hoped, and handles way better than a car this big should. The extra 100-pounds or so of weight over the hatchback did nothing to compromise handling here; or ride quality on the way back to the office.
0-60 times were quicker in the TSI, as you would expect, though not by much. 8.7 TSI, verses 9.0-flat for the TDI. Both are a little sluggish off the line, while they wait for their turbos to spin up the boost.
So naturally, the TSI completes the 1/4-mile more quickly as well; taking 16.2-seconds to trip the lights at 88 miles-per-hour. Stops from 60 averaged a good 125-feet. Brake feel was great and fade was minimal.
With all of the pricy cars we test these days, at $22,215; the Golf SportWagen packs about everything you could want in a tidy, highly affordable package. 2016 editions tack on only a couple hundred dollars more. For the time being, the TDI is not available pending recertification. Expect about a three grand premium when it returns.
So, while VW’s deception has certainly tempered our enthusiasm for the 2015 Volkswagen Golf SportWagen, and it’s in fact difficult for us to recommend any Volkswagen at the current time, the SportWagen is still a good idea. But even good ideas need the proper timing to be great ones.
Specifications
- Engine: 1.8 liter I4
- Horsepower: 170
- Torque: 199 lb-ft.
- 0-60 mph: 8.7 seconds
- 1/4 mile: 16.2 seconds @ 88 mph
- EPA: 25 mpg city/ 35 mpg highway
- Energy Impact: 11.4 barrels of oil/yr
- CO2 Emissions: 5.0 tons/yr
2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid
CX-50 Gets Higher Mileage With A Little Help From A Friend
The CX-50 debuted for 2023 not as a replacement for Mazda’s CX-5 small crossover, but as a more deluxe option to be sold right alongside it. Well, that two-pronged approach continues today, only the CX-50 now gets a little something extra with help from an unexpected source.
This is the 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid, which joins the CX-90 and CX-70 as a new member of Mazda’s “electrified lineup.” Now, where the 70 and 90 are both plug-in hybrids, the CX-50 is more of your traditional hybrid, Mazda arriving here with some help from hybrid pioneer and partner Toyota.
It’s a familiar story, as Mazda’s first small crossover, the Tribute, shared its hybrid powertrain with former partner Ford’s Escape. The CX-50 is built in the same Alabama plant as the Toyota Corolla Cross, but rather than using its hybrid system, the CX-50 actually uses the larger RAV4 setup with a 2.5-liter I4 engine and a combined output of 219 horsepower. Though probably for cost reasons the CX-50 stores energy in a nickel-metal hydride battery instead of a lithium-ion battery as in the RAV4. Like all CX-50s, all-wheel-drive remains standard, though here it’s electric motor only for the rear wheels along with an e-CVT.
Not much else changes from the rest of the CX-50 lineup, but the Hybrid does come with a slightly reshaped lower front bumper and unique wheel designs. Mazda was able to do some fine-tuning to the hybrid setup, so the experience is not exactly like driving a RAV4. That includes throttle response, which is a little more immediate, and unique drive modes. The RAV’s Sport mode is missing, but we think that’s actually the default setting for the CX-50.
Of course, the CX-50’s chassis is a willing companion no matter what’s working away under the hood, and clever packaging everything under the rear cargo floor keeps cargo capacity mostly intact. Rear storage space falls only slightly from 31.4 to 29.2 cu-ft, yet rear seat folded max capacity is somehow exactly the same at 56.3 cu-ft.
None of [it's differences from the Turbo] are really a deal breaker if you’re looking for a more efficient CX-50.
Working our way forward through the five-passenger cabin, the rear seat room is good, and seats are comfortable, while front seats are equally cozy with a great driving position and the typical Mazda sporty feel. Hybrid availability starts midway up the CX-50 trim ladder at Preferred, which comes with a 10-inch infotainment display and leather seating. Premium plus adds ventilated front seats and a head-up display.
At the test track, the CX-50 proved pretty quick off the line, taking 7.6 seconds to get 60, which is only a tad slower than the 7.2 seconds we saw in the CX-50 Turbo. Power delivery stayed consistent down the track, but it’s not exactly thrilling, as it is mired with a eCVT which seems to run afoul of everything Mazda stands for. We’re not particularly fans either with consistently high engine noise throughout the quarter-mile which we finished in 15.8 seconds at 89 mph.
Brakes, however, were strong and consistent, stopping in 110 feet from 60 mph. There’s not a lot of weight gain here compared to the Turbo, though it feels like it with slightly less urgency to turn in. And the Hybrid’s skinnier tires also worked against it when it came to grip level through the cones. Overall though, it remains solid-feeling and quite capable, and we say all of that just to note the differences, none of which are really a deal breaker if you’re looking for a more efficient CX-50. And if you’re not, stick with the Turbo.
Regarding that efficiency, Government Fuel Economy Ratings are 39 city, 37 highway, and 38 combined. We averaged a good 37.8 mpg of regular, which is almost 50% higher than the CX-50 Turbo we had as part of our long-term fleet last year. All making for a much better than average Energy Impact Score using 7.8 barrels of oil yearly with 3.9 tons of CO2 emissions. Pricing starts at $35,390 for Preferred; top Premium Plus comes in at $41,470.
Currently, Mazda is taking a wait and see approach when it comes to full EVs, having discontinued their MX-30 EV two years ago. But they continue to spread electrification throughout their existing lineup, which, as we’ve been saying for years, is a much better approach.
The 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid is not necessarily a better CX-50 for all, as driving enthusiasts will still prefer the Turbo setup. But, it is a much more efficient way to go, one that sacrifices very little of the Mazda driving experience while delivering over 500 miles on a tank of gas.
Specifications
As Tested
- Engine: 2.5-liter I4
- Transmission: eCVT
- Horsepower: 219
- Torque: 163 lb-ft
- EPA: 39 City | 37 Highway | 38 Combined
- 0-60 mph: 7.6 seconds
- 1/4 Mile: 15.8 seconds at 89 mph
- Braking, 60-0 (avg.): 110 feet
- MW Fuel Economy: 37.8 mpg
