2014 CX-5 180hp engine release date?

B

Bmiddy

Member
:
2014 Cx5 (hopefully)
Wondering if anyone can help me with some information...it would be greatly appreciated!

I've started the process (...and believe me, it's a process) of buying a new car. I had initially settled down to two cars, the Mazda Cx5 and the Honda CrV. While I like both equally (for different reasons), I think the 180hp trim 2014 Mazda Cx5 would seal the deal for me, but I can't find any solid information on it's North America release date. If it's January 2013, it's a no-brainer...but if it's more toward the middle of the year I'm back on the fence with my decision.

Thanks in advance for your help!
 
mpnret said:
Lots of info complete with links here: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/show...LA-auto-show-details-on-2014-CX-5-new-options

And here: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/show...n-can-we-expect-the-official-2014-EPA-numbers
Click to expand...

Thanks for those links...a lot of good information/speculation on the new engine (2.5) vs. current engine (2.0). I may have missed something, but I didn't see anything about a release date for the 2.5 engine option.

I called a local dealership, and they said they would get back to me on it, but haven't...though I'm guessing people on these forums tend to know just as much, if not more in some instances :)
 
Bmiddy said:
Thanks for those links...a lot of good information/speculation on the new engine (2.5) vs. current engine (2.0). I may have missed something, but I didn't see anything about a release date for the 2.5 engine option.

I called a local dealership, and they said they would get back to me on it, but haven't...though I'm guessing people on these forums tend to know just as much, if not more in some instances :)
Click to expand...

Mazda officially said "The 2014 CX-5 will go on sale in North America in January 2013" when announcing the 2.5L engine for the CX-5.
 
ALafya said:
Mazda officially said "The 2014 CX-5 will go on sale in North America in January 2013" when announcing the 2.5L engine for the CX-5.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much! That settles it then...now which color? Leaning Metropolitan Gray :)
 
Bmiddy said:
Thanks for those links...a lot of good information/speculation on the new engine (2.5) vs. current engine (2.0). I may have missed something, but I didn't see anything about a release date for the 2.5 engine option.

I called a local dealership, and they said they would get back to me on it, but haven't...though I'm guessing people on these forums tend to know just as much, if not more in some instances :)
Click to expand...

You can probably get better info here than from your dealer. The official mazda press release in in one of the links I provided and it's January 2013 as stated above.
 
Bmiddy said:
Thank you so much! That settles it then...now which color? Leaning Metropolitan Gray :)
Click to expand...
Not to discourage you, but there is some wiggle room in Mazda's press-release. Probably unlikely, but they never say that the 2.5L will be offered in January, only that the 2014 CX-5 will. Also the say "go on sale" which is not the same as getting delivery ... so you may order a 2014 but wait for delivery.

BTW, I looked at the CR-V, which has excellent Fuelly avg MPG, good price but I really don't like the styling of the rear. The front ain't pretty too. I also heard you might need to rev it high to get enough torque to get it going, as it has only 163 lb-ft @ 4400. It's engine is the same 2.4L Honda has been tweaking for years, not the new DI found in the new Accord. At least as per Honda site, should you want roof-rails with cross-bars, they charge way too much for it.
 
ALafya said:
Not to discourage you, but there is some wiggle room in Mazda's press-release. Probably unlikely, but they never say that the 2.5L will be offered in January, only that the 2014 CX-5 will. Also the say "go on sale" which is not the same as getting delivery ... so you may order a 2014 but wait for delivery.

BTW, I looked at the CR-V, which has excellent Fuelly avg MPG, good price but I really don't like the styling of the rear. The front ain't pretty too. I also heard you might need to rev it high to get enough torque to get it going, as it has only 163 lb-ft @ 4400. It's engine is the same 2.4L Honda has been tweaking for years, not the new DI found in the new Accord. At least as per Honda site, should you want roof-rails with cross-bars, they charge way too much for it.
Click to expand...

Did you check out the new 2014 Subaru Forester? Febuary order taking for March delivery. For me it's either the Forester or the CX-5.
 
mpnret said:
Did you check out the new 2014 Subaru Forester? Febuary order taking for March delivery. For me it's either the Forester or the CX-5.
Click to expand...

Well, I was seriously considering Subaru before and waited for them to offer either a fuel-efficient wagon or Forester without their antiquated 4AT. However, I changed my mind when I started following Impreza and Forester owner forums. It turns out that Subaru's new non-DI FB engine found in the Forester and Impreza is susceptible to oil-consumption. I believe most owners have only mild case but some owners need to top-off few times before oil-change. I would not have deterred me except that Subaru simply refuses to fix this unless it is worse than 1qt per 1200 miles.
In addition, owners discovered a whole slew of quality-control issues, which affect some portion of owners. This include improper draining of water from the front doors, squeaky driver's seat, long/hard to start, bad front passenger sensor, which could prevent air-bag deployment, bad brake master cylinder (TSB for that) and 2 TSBs for ECU patches for correcting CVT behaviour.
Also, Impreza w/ CVT has 36/27 MPG rating, but owners actually get 28MPG on average. With short/in-town/cold-weather trips, some owners get low 20's, well below 27MPG. Given that the new Forester is bigger than it ever was, I have good reason to believe it too will struggle to get its advertised 32/24, so you may be looking at 25MPG on average and you might suffer from oil-consumption, or other quality issues.
I decided to look elsewhere.
 
I would not overlook the Forester. Long term ownership in previous years shows reliability better than Mazda SUV & COVs.
 
ALafya said:
Well, I was seriously considering Subaru before and waited for them to offer either a fuel-efficient wagon or Forester without their antiquated 4AT. However, I changed my mind when I started following Impreza and Forester owner forums. It turns out that Subaru's new non-DI FB engine found in the Forester and Impreza is susceptible to oil-consumption. I believe most owners have only mild case but some owners need to top-off few times before oil-change. I would not have deterred me except that Subaru simply refuses to fix this unless it is worse than 1qt per 1200 miles.
In addition, owners discovered a whole slew of quality-control issues, which affect some portion of owners. This include improper draining of water from the front doors, squeaky driver's seat, long/hard to start, bad front passenger sensor, which could prevent air-bag deployment, bad brake master cylinder (TSB for that) and 2 TSBs for ECU patches for correcting CVT behaviour.
Also, Impreza w/ CVT has 36/27 MPG rating, but owners actually get 28MPG on average. With short/in-town/cold-weather trips, some owners get low 20's, well below 27MPG. Given that the new Forester is bigger than it ever was, I have good reason to believe it too will struggle to get its advertised 32/24, so you may be looking at 25MPG on average and you might suffer from oil-consumption, or other quality issues.
I decided to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I have been on the Forester and Outback forums for a while now but not the Impreza. I will have to check out the Impreza forum for problems. I know the new FB engine for the Forester in model year 2011 had some initial oil consumption problems which have been fixed long before model year 2012 came out. I have been following it to make sure it was fixed before I traded in my 2010 Outback (EJ engine) for a 2013 Outback (FB engine). My new OB has no oil consumption issues and there are a large number of FB engine Outbacks without any problems reported. Most owners on the forum are following the 7500 mile oil change interval without any oil use. The FB engine/CVT trans is a nice combination. The CVT does a good job of keeping a smaller engine in it's sweet spot so it feel like a more powerful engine. But I was willing to give up the CVT for my next planned move which was to trade my 2010 Legacy (EJ engine) for a CX-5. I was holding off a little due to all the bad press about not enough power. I think I could have lived with it but would have been very disappointed once the 2.5 came out so I waited. In the meantime I hear about the Forester redesign. Forester XT with 2.0 also looks interesting. Subaru is claiming Febuary ordering with March delivery. So I am not sure what it will be yet but before summer a 2014 CX-5/2.5 or a 2014 Forester will be in my driveway.
 
Last edited:
Yes, not every FB engine consumes oil in a severe manner and some do not at all. With my luck, I did not want to risk it for a vehicle which was borderline desirable to me anyway and get stuck with a vehicle Subaru won't fix. That was the last cement chunk to break the camel's back, so to speak. OB owners, AFAIK, are happy. The FB engine has just been introduced to the Outback for MY 2013, so there are not many owners with sufficient mileage to tell. BTW, I was speaking only about oil-consumption after break-in.

Both of the following threads are active. I've been following the NASIOC more closely though.
Forester oil burning thread: http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f183/2011-burning-lot-oil-96178/index49.html
Impreza: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2357460&page=82 there is another similar thread.

Of course, everyone is welcome to make their own decision.
 
Last edited:
alafya, mpnret,

count me in as another person deciding between the new forester and the 2.5L cx-5.

waiting for the final specs to be released, crash test results for the forester, and test drives before making my choice.

(2thumbs)

by the way, don't forget the cx-5 has it share of issues: transmission clunk, rough startup, hood/mirror vibration,...
 
Last edited:
jason330i said:
alafya, mpnret,
by the way, don't forget the cx-5 has it share of issues: transmission clunk, rough startup, hood/mirror vibration,...
Click to expand...

The transmission issues are the ones which concern me a little. Could be a costly proposition to have to replace transmission after the warranty expires...
 
ALafya said:
BTW, I looked at the CR-V, which has excellent Fuelly avg MPG, good price but I really don't like the styling of the rear. The front ain't pretty too. I also heard you might need to rev it high to get enough torque to get it going, as it has only 163 lb-ft @ 4400. It's engine is the same 2.4L Honda has been tweaking for years, not the new DI found in the new Accord. At least as per Honda site, should you want roof-rails with cross-bars, they charge way too much for it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you and I have some of the same thoughts. The CrV looks too much like a mini-van in my opinion...and as you pointed out, it's expensive to add running boards, roof rails, etc...to try and spruce it up. I do like that Honda's generally hold their resale value, and the whole "reliability" thing...which I admit may just be marketing.

...but the handling on the Cx5 is pretty much what balanced those factors out for me. I also like the leather interior materials better and the keyless ignition, blind spot monitoring, and of course the styling. The added HP tips the scales...at least I think it would...need to test drive it, of course :)
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Issue after replacing standard 2014 CX-5 halogen headlights with LED ones (AFS function)
Replies
4
Views
621
Kedis82ZE8
K
M
Potential CX-5 Owner with questions
Replies
3
Views
775
arks
A
K
ECM and other software module updates (2018 CX-5 GT)
Replies
5
Views
2K
cz5gt
cz5gt

Latest posts

Back