Lexus NX vs Mazda CX-50: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mazda CX-50 burns about $1,600 of fuel annually against $1,900 for the Lexus NX. That $300 yearly gap compounds to roughly $1,500 over five years and $2,400 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Lexus NX leads in both cycles — 42 mpg city and 38 mpg highway against 39 and 37 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Lexus NX is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI; Hybrid, SIDI & PFI, SIDI & PFI; PHEV), the Mazda CX-50 with 2 (SIDI, SIDI & PFI; Hybrid). Across 58 recorded Lexus NX configurations and 10 for the Mazda CX-50, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Lexus NX is offered with Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive, the Mazda CX-50 with 4-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Lexus NX emits 87 g/mile of CO2 versus 233 g/mile for the Mazda CX-50. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.