Article by Sam Winebaum, Renee Krusemark, Michael Ellenberger, and Peter Stuart
Hoka Mach X 2 ($190)
Introduction
Sam: The Mach X is Hoka’s lightweight bif cushion uptempo trainer to racer. Hoka’s marketing headline for the Mach X 2 is “Everyday Miles, Elevated”. I agree, as long as those daily miles are on the faster side. Hoka has plenty of other “daily” max cushion plated that are more mellow riding including Skyflow and Skyward X. See my comparative review which also includes mach X2 and Cielo X 1 here
For the X2 edition, we see an increase of 5 mm in stack height of PEBA top foam (the EVA layer below remains the same) to a super max level of 44mm at the heel . At the same time, weight drops to race shoe levels to about 8.5 oz / 241g US9. Its plate continues as a plastic PEBAX Renew but it is redesigned with stabilizing winglets and more flex, although it remains a mostly rigid rocker snappy flex type shoe.
It is a lot of shoe for very little weight helped to get there by a new single layer woven upper and more minimal outsole coverage. All taken together it is a significantly improved and more versatile shoe than its first edition was for me.
Pros:
Versatile: Uptempo training with lots of cushion, race shoe weight: Sam/Michael/Peter
More shoe: Drop in weight and +5mm increase in stack height over prior: Sam/Michael/Peter
Cushioned and lively: +5mm more PEBA foam with a more flexible plate: Sam/Michael/Peter
Stable yet also agile: slightly narrower platform (-5mm) and redesigned plate: prior rear blocky feel is reduced without compromising stability while increasing front snappiness as rocker is extended and shoe is also more flexible: Sam/Peter
Good choice if some pronation control is needed in a race fast paces type shoe: Sam
Cons:
Rear of the new upper is unpadded and rough at its top edge. Wear longer rear padded socks! : Sam/Michael/Peter
Rear stabilizing high walls could be reduced to make rear less rigid: Sam
Although less, still to much firmer EVA lower layer for my tastes: Sam/Michael/Peter
Feels sluggish as compared to other options: Renee
Foot sits down in the heel, feeling like a negative drop shoe: Renee
Most comparable shoes
ASICS Magic Speed 4
Mizuno Neo Vista
Brooks Hyperion Max 2
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 8.5 oz / 241g US9
Prior Version Weight: men’s oz / g
Sample Weights:
men’s 8.24oz / 234g US8.5 (prior version 8.7 oz / 246g US8.5)
women’s sample 7.7 oz / 218 g (US W8)
Stack Height:
men’s 44mm heel / 39mm forefoot, 5mm drop (prior version: 39 mm heel / 34 mm forefoot)
women’s 42mm heel 37mm forefoot
Platform Width:
Mach X 2: 85mm heel / 70 mm midfoot / 105 mm forefoot US8.5
Prior Version: 90 mm heel / 75 mm midfoot / 110 mm forefoot US8.5
$190 Available now.
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Sam: The upper is a single layer fairly rigid fibers woven material that reminds me of ASICS Motion Wrap. It is not plush or padded with the only overlays a few linear knit in areas around the heel to give it some structure, low along the lateral side and the area of the soft toe bumper giving it some structure and height.
The upper is significantly different than the X 1’s which had a mono mesh with knit upper similar to the Mach 6’s and Skyflow’s which were more plush, denser and less breathable although of similar volume.
Also of note in the photo below the differences in heel area construction and padding. The X 1 had a solid rigid heel counter which is no longer in the X 2. See more comments about the rear of the shoe below.
The tongue is an unpadded leatherette with gusset. The laces are quite thick, broad, and softer than what we usually see in a “speed” type trainer racer. Lace up is fine with the midfoot hold excellent.
The heel area is minimal. Just two long inner bolsters incorporated into a supportive leatherette inner wrap starting at lace up. The top edge of the ankle and achilles collar is a fairly stiff stitched on strip that also runs forward as the eyelet holder.
It is a bit crude and not that comfortable but I have had no issues with irritation as some of our testers did. There is a touch of slip in the non rigid heel counter so I recommend well padded socks that are not “slippery”.
The fit is true to size and not highly voluminous and is less roomy than the Cielo X which has a very similar upper. It is about the same volume as the Mach 6’s upper and toe box but the lighter materials here, while non-stretch provide more give.
Given the potential for heel slip I do not think it is a good idea to size up here so if you have a broader foot so trying them on is important. That said this is a performance oriented shoe on a very high platform that is not particularly broad so a snug fit is important to lock the foot to the platform.
Renee: Sam has the details. I did not have issues with heel irritation. For sizing, I’m between half sizes and usually prefer the half size lower for Hoka. I wore a women’s 8 for the Mach X 2, and I think a 7.5 would work better. This could be a reason I did not have heel irritation because my heel was somewhat loose in the shoe. I wore thicker socks for each run, just to be safe.
Not to say the security is poor. I found the upper to be light, breathable, and comfortable overall.
Michael: The upper! I was really looking forward to this one; the shoe just looks fast (as, to be fair, did v1’s!
In practice, the upper is… fine. It’s thin, but it’s kind of plastic-y, and it didn’t come across as particularly breathable (they were drenched after a treadmill run, though this isn’t unique).
Outdoors, I did feel like they ran hot, which was (again) a surprise, given the material and the vibe but, again… it’s relative, and this is a nit I’m picking, so definitely not a deal-breaker. I think I prefer v1’s upper.
Potential heel irritation is the most-discussed element of the shoe (even Running Warehouse has a disclaimer about it) keep the socks longer here. While I can count myself among the victims (a mild case, no blood - just a chafe!)… I also have to give the caveat that racing in way-too-short socks in brand new Alphafly already left my heel in a vulnerable state.
All that to say - while I can attest that the heel can be irritating, I did not come into this from a neutral footing. Realistically, by my third run in these, I had forgotten all about it. And! The lack of a stiff or plastic heel collar (as v1 had) was a major win for me. Very little Achilles irritation here, especially from a 5mm drop.
Peter: The heel of the Mach X 2 ate my left achilles. I wound up very bloody with a big blister a few miles into my first run. That said, I made some adjusments to lacing (did a looped lace lock on top eyelets) and my subsequent runs were blood free. The Mach X2 could really use a pull tab/heel loop to help pull them on.
Overall the security in the upper is good. Once I sorted out the irritation on the back of the heel, the X2 was actually pretty darn comfortable. It’s a good looking and lightweight upper that holds the foot just fine.
Midsole & Platform
Sam: The midsole (and ride) are where the big changes are. No change in materials as we have a top layer of softer and rebounding PEBA foam (white) with below a relatively dense and firm but light compressed EVA (yellow). I detect no changes in firmness to pressing of either foam but the overal feel changes significantly on the run.
What changes is that the PEBA layers grows 5 mm as does the overall stack heigh by 5mm . At 44 mm at the heel we are in max max cushion territory.
At the same time, the platform width heel/midfoot/forefoot shrinks 5mm. I was skeptical how stable the X 2 would be at those heights and weights for this neutral shoe runner. Then I remembered how overly blocky and firm the rear of the X 1 was.
We retain the high stabilizing rear sidewalls in the X 2 and they are yet higher and more extensive especially on the medial side but that rigid blocky feeling is mostly but not entirely gone while the shoe remains commendably stable for such a high and narrow platform.I do think the walls are a bit overdone in height for my preferences.
Changes to the rocker, which is extended, and to the PEBAX Renew plate landings make the X 2 smoother, less harsh and with a distinct sensation of plunging down into that now deeper PEBA foam upfront to toe off.
The narrow platform and some flex of the very snappy stiff variety at midfoot and then at toe off gives the X 2 a very agile quick feel for such a big shoe, and especially one with a giant 39mm of stack upfront. It reminds most of the ASICS Magic Speed 4 with similar stats which has a somewhat firmer foam and a rigid carbon plate.
Renee: Again, refer to Sam’s details. I prefer a midsole that’s not overly soft, so in terms of a balance between dynamic and comforting, the Mach X 2 is great. The stack height is massive, much more than I prefer for a shoe I’d use for multiple runs each week. While the midsole itself is a win, the ride didn’t mesh well for me (see ride section). Sam’s comment about the “high stabilizing rear sidewalls” is likely the reason the underfoot ride is not for me, despite the great midsole. The midsole under heel is soft, and because of stack height, the drop felt negative at times, especially uphill.
Michael: There aren’t many shoes stacking up at 44mm, but they do tend to be a pleasure (even if an uneven one!), so I was pretty excited to try this. A little over 30 miles in and… I’m pleased! Not, like, this-is-the-shoe-of-the-year jazzed, but very happy.
I, too, skew towards wanting a firmer shoe, and this is a great balance - I wouldn’t call it “harsh,” but it’s definitely not “squishy soft,” either. The high stack does, truthfully, make it feel mildly unstable, but the firm platform underfoot helps a lot, and there’s some stabilization happening in the rear third of the shoe that chips, in, too. These aren’t “Adios Pro 2 levels” of unstable, but I still felt like I had to catch myself on turns when running hard. No issues on the treadmill.
Peter: The Mach X2 is firm but not too firm. I agree completely with Sam that the changes from the X1 to the X2 make the shoe feel smoother, less harsh and ultimately less blocky. The Mach X OG was not a great shoe for me. While I thought it would be a more cushioned daily trainer version of the Mach 5 or 6 it turned out to be a heavier, chunkier less fun version. The Mach X2 returns some fun to the equation.
Outsole
Sam: The outsole is said to have a new “sticky” rubber. To date my runs have been on dry pavement so I have not been able to test its wet or sloppy ground grip.
Left to Right: Mach X 1, Mach X 2. Mach 6
The pattern is fairly standard for today’s up tempo shoes and resembles the Mach 6 (above). It differs significantly upfront from X1’s having much better front decoupling if less coverage. Despite the 5mm added stack height the X 2 is more flexible and quicker to turn over as a result.
Renee: As Sam wrote, the outsole rubber and coverage is fairly standard of this type of shoe. The cutouts reduce weight, and like the Cielo X 1 can trap small gravel. The shoe is lightweight, so taking a few small pebbles along the way that wasn’t a problem.
Michael: We’re in a drought, so just like Sam, I only wore these in dry - and no issues!
I can see how rocks would get stuck in that outsole gap. Pretty ample rubber on the outsole; I suspect these will have good durability, but I haven’t quite run enough to say for sure.
Peter: I ran through some puddles and didn’t slip around. Not exactly rain tested, but totally fine on any surface.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Sam: Hoka scores multiple strong points with the X2: very light weight for a very big stack height, increased lively PEBA foam depth, and a propulsive yet friendly PEBAX plate. It “outscores” its direct competition such as the ASICS Magic Speed 4, Mizuno Neo Vista and Brooks Hyperion Max 2 underfoot for me when the focus is faster paces at really any distance but doesn’t quite have the smiles factor those do.
X2 has a very lively yet also stable ride that in some ways seems improbable given how light and streamlined it is. As such it can also be a racer for those seeking a touch of rear pronation control or an overall more stable race ride. Additionally, its narrow platform, springy PEBA top layer and snappy flex make it “quick” feeling, if on the firm side and as such can be a very solid race choice for me and one that is less than $200...
To get there something had to give and I would say it is the upper’s rear construction which, while giving me no obvious issues, is a bit crude and rough around the rear of the foot. It is understandable given a rigid heel counter is eliminated that solid top edge hold is in order. It is for sure solid in hold helped by the high rear midsole side walls. I do think reducing the sidewalls a bit and toning down the stiff top strip along the collar edge might be looked at.
The Mach X 2 is a solid choice for a well cushioned, snappy, responsive riding trainer to racer for faster pace workouts (and racing) at any distance due to its lightweight, excellent foams and stability. It is not an ideal slower paces trainer. Hoka has plenty in that category such as the new Skyflow. It is a good choice for the racer seeking a max cushionshoe with some built in stability. It could use a bit more bounce (less lower EVA) and less rear rigidity or even more heel to toe drop for my personal tastes.
Sam’s Score: 9.1 /10
Deductions: Rear of shoe and wish for more PEBA depth in the mix
😊😊😊
Renee: Personal preference here, but the Mach X 2 did not work great for me. I like low drop shoes, but the Mach X 2 felt like a negative drop for uphill efforts. For flat ground speed work, I didn’t get the same effortless ride as I do with similar shoes (see comparison list). My heel sits low within the shoe, and I can’t get a good flex under my forefoot because of the massive stack height.
I found the shoe stable on gravel, which is an asset for anyone running on smooth crushed rock. I had only one true speed workout in the shoe of 20 minutes easy, 15 minutes tempo, 5 minutes easy, then 4 x 3 minutes at 10k paces.
Clearly, the shoe is much more dynamic and useful at tempo or fast paces than at easy paces. Even then, it’s just too much shoe for me at those few minutes of faster efforts.
I think the best use of the shoe is long efforts or mid distance tempo work. I’ll elect for a lighter carbon plated shoe for those runs when I really need a “super” shoe to help my effort.
Renee’s Score: 8.6/10
(-massive stack felt sluggish, slow for hills, low feels lower because of heel fit)
😊😊
Michael: There’s nothing inherently wrong with the X2, I must attest - the upper, while mildly dangerous, is quite comfortable, certainly light, and looks the part. The midsole is the best part of the shoe - firm without a harsh edge, and sufficiently roll-y to get you onto your toes.
t’s just that - despite the hype, the massive stack, and the $190 price point, this does felt… bland. I don’t know how else to say it, really.
The Mizuno Wave Neo was similarly profiled and much more engaging, in my book. The ASICS Magic Speed 4 feels faster and more aggressive (if a bit harsher). The Pegasus Turbo is bouncier and a bit more refreshing to my legs. The X2 stacks up with all of those shoes, and I think there are compelling reasons to choose the X2 over those shoes, but there’s no one wow factor in the X2.
Even so - this is a shoe I enjoy running in, and have plenty of opportunities to add it to my lineup (a shoe built for medium-paced running? Count me in). I don’t want this to be an overly negative for a very good shoe - I’m just voicing that, for all the hype, I think the X2 falls a little short (even if expectations were sky high).
Michael’s Score: 8.9/10
😊😊😊😊
Peter: Okay, I had to get over the Mach X2’s attempt to kill me on the first run. Once I got past that, I actually kind of liked the X2. Call it trauma bonding if you want, but we’re good now.
The ride is fine at daily training paces, but I really like it at MP or a little faster. I did some 1k repeats at MP the other day and really enjoyed the shoe. I think it could be a hair softer, but overall once I dialed in the upper and got past the blister issues, the Mach X2 became a nice uptempo trainer to keep in the stable. I agree with Michael that there’s no real WOW factor here. I LOVE the Cielo and would race in it any day. For my money I’d either get the Mach 6 and roll with that, or on faster days I’d use the Cielo. Also agree with Michael that for a shoe with these specs, I’d choose the Mizuno Neo Vista first (although it’s definitely less stable.
Peter’s Score 8.7 /10
Heel fit needs to be dialed in, ride could be a bit softer.
😊😊😊😊
8 Comparisons
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Hoka Mach X 1 (RTR Review)
Renee: The ride of the Mach X 1 felt blocky in comparison, so I’m inclined to say the Mach X 2 is an improvement. That said, for me, the massive height, high sidewalls, and feeling like it had a negative drop shoe make the improvements a wash out.
Michael: While I prefer the upper of the X1, I think the X2 actually has an improved ride (less race-y and more bouncy, I think - no doubt thanks to the extra stack!) and the upper isn’t so much worse to make me choose the X1. The price hike is a bummer, and I would take the X1 on sale over this, I think - but there is definite improvement here.
Peter: X2 rides way smoother and is more fun than the X1.
ASICS Magic Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Sam: Very very similar shoes in design and purpose. Both are high stacked and have a combination of soft underfoot supercritical foam with below a denser EVA blend. Both weigh about the same, light for their big stack heights. The ASICS has about the same heel height but has a 8mm drop to the 5mm for the X2. Their platforms widths are almost identical. The Magic Speed 4’s plate is a more rigid carbon to the more flexible PEBAX in the Hoka. Further, both ASICS foams are slightly firmer with both ending up about as stable even if the ASICS doesn’t have the rear high sidewalls.
The rides end up quite similar although I find the plunge into the softer front PEBA foam and its plate more dynamic and pleasing while the ASICS is more responsive, if stiffer. Uppers…clear win for the ASICS. Volume is similar with the lighter Hoka upper a bit roomier upfront. At the heel the ASICS collars are clearly more polished and less rough. Overall a slight win for the Magic Speed 4 for me and it would be a big win if the Magic Speed 4 had a non carbon more flexible plate.
Michael: The Magic Speed 4 came across more harsh and rigid to me (it also felt like a racing flat more than a plated trainer), though I had a loaner pair for only a few runs. The upper on the ASICS was better, though, and I preferred the 8mm drop. I’d rather race in the ASICS, but train in the Hokkaido.
Hoka Skyflow (RTR Review)
Sam: The Skyflow is somewhat lower in stack height at40/35 and pricing at $160 and is Hoka’s non plated super cushion trainer. Its supercritical EVA foam is not quite as lively as PEBA and is in a single density with no plate. Its upper is more conventional, a denser mono mesh with knit in similar to the Mach 6 and with a similar true to size fit to that shoe.
Peter: Ugh, Skyflow felt like a moon boot to me. It’s a lot of work. Much prefer the X2.
t is a more mellow paces friendly shoe than the Mach X 2 and makes a good two trainer pairing if you seek max cushion and are a Hoka fan.
Hoka Mach 6 (RTR Review)
Sam: The Mach 6 has a single foam supercritical EVA midsole, a 7mm lower overall stack height and somewhat lighter weight. It has no plate. The result is a more conventional riding daily trainer which is more slow pace friendly but not as dynamic due to the lack of a plate and its not quite as reactive midsole foam. Its upper has similar volume with a denser, thicker snugger overall fit front to back.
Hoka Cielo X 1 (RTR Review)
Renee: I was “meh” about this shoe in the initial review because of the cost and weight as compared to other plated, race-focused shoes. The more I wore it, however, the more I liked it. I used the Cielo for multiple back to back long runs (20-28 miles x 2). The bounce mellowed and actually worked better for gravel running. The shoe is comfortable at slow paces too. The mid foot rocker is intense while I can’t feel the rocker in the Mach X 2.
Peter: Cielo X 1 is a masterpiece of a race shoe for me. I much prefer it to the Mach X 2
Mizuno Neo Vista (RTR Review)
Sam: The Mizuno is similarly stacked at the heel but higher drop at 8mm (vs Mach X2 at 5mm) and also 0.75 oz heavier at 9.25 oz, It also has dual foams with in its case a fiberglass infused plate. The Neo Vista is for sure a more fun shoe due to inverting its foams with soft at the ground and slightly firmer above with noticeable bounce but it has less rear stability than the Hoka. Its stretch knit upper will accommodate wider feet but may struggle if you have narrower ones.
Peter: Neo Vista is one of my shoes of the year. So fun! Much more fun, if less stable, than the X2.
Brooks Hyperion Max 2 (RTR Review)
Sam: The Max 2 was a big update with new DNA Flash v2 supercritical foam and more of it and a redesigned plastic plate. Its stack height is lower at 36.25 mm heel / 30.25 and its weight higher at 9.25 oz this, mainly, I think due to its far more refined upper. It is equally as stable as the Mach X2 sharing similar rear high sidewalls. Not quite the light speedster the Mach X2 it is a better choice as an all around daily trainer for me.
Nike Pegasus Plus (RTR Review)
Michael: The Nike is turning itself into my shoe of the year; every time I take it for a new type of run, it excels. Soft enough for easy and recovery runs, responsive enough for hard running, I seriously have not found a type of run I don’t enjoy in the Peg Plus. So, of course that’s my pick. But, I like the mega-stack of the X2, and if the Pegasus Plus does anything wrong, it’s slightly too soft (which the Hoka does right). I like the Nike better, but the Hoka has its perks.
Also please read Sam’s 2024 Max Cushion Trainer/Racer Comparative Review: Skyflow, Mach x 2, Cielo X 1 and Skyward X
Tester Profiles
Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is in his 60’s with 2024 Sam’s 52th year of running roads and trails. He has a decades old 2:28 marathon PR. These days he runs halves in the just sub 1:40 range if he gets very, very lucky. Sam trains 30-40 miles per week mostly at moderate paces on the roads and trails of New Hampshire and Utah be it on the run, hiking or on nordic skis. He is 5’9” tall and weighs about 164 lbs, if he is not enjoying too many fine New England IPA’s
Renee is a former U.S. Marine journalist, which is when her enjoyment of running and writing started. She isn’t that awesome of a runner, but she tries really hard. Most of her weekly 50-60 miles take place on rural country roads in Nebraska, meaning mud, gravel, dirt, hills, and the occasional field. She has PR’s of 1:30:59 for the half marathon and 3:26:45 for the marathon.
Michael is a patent attorney and graduate of Northwestern University Law School. Prior to law school, he competed collegiately at Washington University in St. Louis (10,000m PR of 30:21). Michael’s PRs include a 67:43 half-marathon (Chicago Half-Marathon) and a 2:21:19 marathon PR at the 2023 Grandma’s Marathon. Michael continues to race on the roads, and is chasing a sub-2:20 marathon and potential OTQ in the future.
EUROPE Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
1 comment:
Love everything about the shoe, aside from the heel fit. I've managed to keep the blisters at bay with some Compeed heel pads (https://amzn.to/4euz4lz), but really wish they were more forgiving at the back.
As always, thanks for the review!
Post a Comment