Mazda CX-50 vs Subaru Outback: 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 $2,100 for the Subaru Outback. That $500 yearly gap compounds to roughly $2,500 over five years and $4,000 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 Mazda CX-50 leads in both cycles — 39 mpg city and 37 mpg highway against 26 and 33 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Mazda CX-50 is recorded with 2 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, SIDI & PFI; Hybrid), the Subaru Outback with 3 (SIDI, 2.5, 3.6). Across 10 recorded Mazda CX-50 configurations and 26 for the Subaru Outback, 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 Mazda CX-50 is offered with 4-Wheel Drive, the Subaru Outback with All-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 Mazda CX-50 emits 233 g/mile of CO2 versus 308 g/mile for the Subaru Outback. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.