Mazda EV Takes Shape Ahead of Tokyo Reveal

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Mazda’s upcoming electric vehicle sheds its cloaking in Tokyo on October 23rd, becoming the first mass-market EV from the gas-loving brand. While the automaker hasn’t provided much in the way of details on the model’s layout, the fact that it chose a CX-30 crossover as a test mule for the brand’s in-house-developed powertrain suggests a crossover is on the way.

On Tuesday, the automaker afforded viewers a peek inside the upcoming vehicle.

Promising “a unique sense of openness and connection,” Mazda boasted of the model’s sustainable furnishings, with materials “carefully selected for their unique texture and quality.” Surely this will have TTAC readers salivating at the thought of cork. Yes, there’ll be much cork.

Mazda designers are known for their obsessive focus on harmonious cabin environments, taking great pains in selecting the right materials to compliment a model’s design language. To give the cabin of the small, unnamed EV a sense of openness, Mazda opted for a svelte, floating center console, seen here in a side profile. Clearly, the brand’s sticking with its rotary dial-actuated infotainment system.

In September, Mazda showed off its CX-30-based e-TPV prototype, allowing journos to take the front-drive vehicle for a spin to gauge the tech’s suitability. The powertrain’s output wasn’t overwhelming. A relatively small 35.5 kWh battery pack fueled a single electric motor rated for 141 horsepower and 195 lb-ft of torque. Just the kind of output you’d expect to find in a small EV.

Mazda stressed at the time that the e-TPV was not the production vehicle headed for the Tokyo Motor Show, though it stands to reason that the automaker would go for maximum utility and consumer appeal by opting for a crossover bodystyle. While the vehicle’s battery pack wouldn’t afford the kind of range preferred by American consumers (overseas specs put it at 124 miles), the brand’s range-extender (a rotary engine, disconnected from the drive wheels, that serves as a generator) will help the vehicle go the distance after the battery pack taps out.

We’ll know more about the Mazda EV before long.

[Image: Mazda]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 9 comments
  • Ajla Ajla on Oct 15, 2019

    "The powertrain’s output wasn’t overwhelming." Still a Mazda. If they do sell this in the US I expect it will be the slowest BEV in the market.

  • Imnormlurnot Imnormlurnot on Oct 15, 2019

    Spiderman?

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next