Engine Size

M

moatazfarahat

Member
:
Mazda CX 5
I've got a 2015 CX5 2.5L with AWD. Unfortunately i don't feel its power at all to the extent that i feel that its engine is 2.0L and not 2.5L. How could i know the engine size knowing that there is no plate under the hood?
Is there a VIN code breakdown available for mazda CX5?
 
They are both naturally aspirated four cylinder engines so you will not be winning a Grand Prix with either engine. The 2.5L will have a bit more grunt but either engine is more than adequate for driving in normal traffic. I would only get the 2.5L if I lived in an area, and drove primarily on big highways, where it was uncomfortable to travel at 70 mph or less. Not that the 2.0L can't handle this type of traffic but it will require more use of 4th and 5th gear (and the associated higher rpm's) from time to time.

The CX-5 may be sporty for a CUV but there are no CUV's that I would consider well adapted to high speed (80 mph+) driving. That said, it still handles amazingly well for a CUV at higher speeds.
 
You must have an authorized Mazda importer/distributor in your country. Call them with the VIN and get them to confirm engine size. Are there engine options within each available trim level there? That's not the case in the US.
 
Mine has a sticker under the hood that says the displacement. It's near the latch on the underside of the hood itself.
 
Y
MikeM. said:
The CX-5 may be sporty for a CUV but there are no CUV's that I would consider well adapted to high speed (80 mph+) driving. That said, it still handles amazingly well for a CUV at higher speeds.
Click to expand...

Lol I drove mine 80+mph on the Pennsylvania turn pike though the mountain tunnels and winding turns like a sports car. Very impressive handling for an SUV.
 
Heritage07 said:
Lol I drove mine 80+mph on the Pennsylvania turn pike though the mountain tunnels and winding turns like a sports car. Very impressive handling for an SUV.
Click to expand...

I like the sporty handling of the CX-5 but if you think it handles like a sports car when driven really hard, it makes me wonder what kind of sports cars you've driven! When driven on tight twisties at higher speeds (or as slow as 50- 60 mph if the turns are tight enough) the difference to a real sports car is more than readily apparent. It's simply not designed for at the ragged limit handling due to it's high center of gravity. Although Mazda did manage to tame the high COG rather well. The high COG is one reason I really wanted a CX-5 without a sunroof (30 pounds less up on that really high roof). But life is all about compromises and a CUV is all about compromises.
 
Last edited:
OP I think there is a vin interpretation in the service manual which has a link posted somewhere...
 
Try this Vin checker.
http://www.vindecoder.net/

Some times expectations are high so the delivered performance falls short.
when I first bought my last car an Xtrail 173ps I thought Nissan had fitted the wrong engine, it turned out the modern emissions were responsible for stunting the delivery.

I only buy Turbo engines myself as I prefer lots of low down torque.
 
MikeM. said:
I like the sporty handling of the CX-5 but if you think it handles like a sports car when driven really hard, it makes me wonder what kind of sports cars you've driven! When driven on tight twisties at higher speeds (or as slow as 50- 60 mph if the turns are tight enough) the difference to a real sports car is more than readily apparent. It's simply not designed for at the ragged limit handling due to it's high center of gravity. Although Mazda did manage to tame the high COG rather well. The high COG is one reason I really wanted a CX-5 without a sunroof (30 pounds less up on that really high roof). But life is all about compromises and a CUV is all about compromises.
Click to expand...

My point was compared to other SUV's it handels much better, less body roll. My daily drive is a BMW 3 series so I know the difference!
 
erhayes said:
The 2.5 engine pulls very well as low as 1,500 rpm and the 2.0 does not.
Click to expand...

As I was driving up to the local ski area yesterday I noticed how well the 2.0L was pulling in 4th gear at 1500 rpm's. Very civilized and smooth acceleration, uphill at 3000 feet above sea level. Of course the 2.5L would nose ahead in a race but I can't remember the last time I raced someone in my car.


When I returned from the mountain (36 miles) I noticed the trip computer MPG average has climbed from 31.0 MPG up to 31.2 MPG. That means I averaged more than 31.2 MPG in the winter including climbing all the switchbacks to the ski area, two cold starts and a three minute defrost. Oh, it also included a 3/4 mile side trip on a snow covered dirt road in 1st and 2nd gear.

I love the way this engine sips fuel!
 
I am happy with the 2.5 vs my old 2.0. It's not the diesel I wanted, but it was enough of a difference. So far the tuning has netted a -1 from 0-60 and better power delivery when going from cruising to high load/wot. It would probably be better if I didn't have +1 wheels, and if I ran lower profile tires (running 255) but I prefer the grip of the wider wheel, and I don't want the problems that come with low profiles. I'm interested to see how the 2.5 sky turbo plays out; it may speed up development of a tc/sc for the sky 2.5 NA
 
With a curb weight of 3560 lbs and 184 hp out of the 2.5l engine, it definitely is lacking a bit in power. I feel at least a 200hp output would be a great sweat spot for th cx-5. Or ditch the NA sky active engine and go with a de-tuned mazdaspeed 3 motor would be great. We would have gladly paid a premium for a bit more output.

That being said, my wife and I have had much more sportier cars in our past which may sway our opinions. (WRX, STI, And GTI to name the most recent.)
 
Last edited:
IMHO, the power of the 2.5L is just right.
In particular, many buyers including me would have stayed away if the fuel economy was any worse because of a needlessly more powerful engine. I definitely would not settle for an older, more powerful and more thirsty engine.

Instead Mazda should make a Mazdaspeed 3 available again, but with a new Skyactiv engine.
 
thedaddyb said:
With a curb weight of 3560 lbs and 184 hp out of the 2.5l engine, it definitely is lacking a bit in power.
Click to expand...

I had a 1995 Eurovan for 13 years. Curb weight 4,414 lbs. and all of 109 hp. wrapped out to 4500 rpm's. It was definitely pokey but the traffic around me was even slower. So it rarely got wrapped out. I only got one speeding ticket in that rig. The CX-5 by comparison is spirited. My 2010 V-8 powered F-150 with 292 hp. feels real slow (and drinks gasoline like a drunk sailor with unlimited grog). But almost all cars feel downright pitiful compared to my two 996 powered Ducati with over 121 hp. and less than 500 lbs. If the 2.5L CX-5 made as much power per cc it would be rated over 300 hp. But it would still weigh over a ton and a half more and feel slow in comparison. After riding these beauties I came to realize Porsche and Audi are just a grocery getters. Things come at you real quick at over 160 mph. Dangerous you say? Let's see what you look like after rolling that WRX at 160 mph!


Power is over rated, especially in a utilitarian vehicle. I've found even cars like the CX-5 reach illegal speeds quickly enough. And even a powerful "performance" car is boring, boring, boring compared to a sporting motorcycle.
 
MikeM. said:
I had a 1995 Eurovan for 13 years. Curb weight 4,414 lbs. and all of 109 hp. wrapped out to 4500 rpm's. It was definitely pokey but the traffic around me was even slower. So it rarely got wrapped out. I only got one speeding ticket in that rig. The CX-5 by comparison is spirited. My 2010 V-8 powered F-150 with 292 hp. feels real slow (and drinks gasoline like a drunk sailor with unlimited grog). But almost all cars feel downright pitiful compared to my two 996 powered Ducati with over 121 hp. and less than 500 lbs. If the 2.5L CX-5 made as much power per cc it would be rated over 300 hp. But it would still weigh over a ton and a half more and feel slow in comparison. After riding these beauties I came to realize Porsche and Audi are just a grocery getters. Things come at you real quick at over 160 mph. Dangerous you say? Let's see what you look like after rolling that WRX at 160 mph!


Power is over rated, especially in a utilitarian vehicle. I've found even cars like the CX-5 reach illegal speeds quickly enough. And even a powerful "performance" car is boring, boring, boring compared to a sporting motorcycle.
Click to expand...

I have gone 160 on the autobahn once, we slowed down for traffic (new bmw540 before we came stateside).
 
ALafya said:
IMHO, the power of the 2.5L is just right.
In particular, many buyers including me would have stayed away if the fuel economy was any worse because of a needlessly more powerful engine. I definitely would not settle for an older, more powerful and more thirsty engine.

Instead Mazda should make a Mazdaspeed 3 available again, but with a new Skyactiv engine.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but in the case of this car even offering a more powerful say turbo motor would be helpful. Fuel economy when you baby the throttle and more power on command when needed. Our GTAWD is only averaging 23-24 mpg in mixed driving, which isn't great by any means. I wonder if it is partially because the necessity to over work the engine in different situations.

MikeM. said:
I had a 1995 Eurovan for 13 years. Curb weight 4,414 lbs. and all of 109 hp. wrapped out to 4500 rpm's. It was definitely pokey but the traffic around me was even slower. So it rarely got wrapped out. I only got one speeding ticket in that rig. The CX-5 by comparison is spirited. My 2010 V-8 powered F-150 with 292 hp. feels real slow (and drinks gasoline like a drunk sailor with unlimited grog). But almost all cars feel downright pitiful compared to my two 996 powered Ducati with over 121 hp. and less than 500 lbs. If the 2.5L CX-5 made as much power per cc it would be rated over 300 hp. But it would still weigh over a ton and a half more and feel slow in comparison. After riding these beauties I came to realize Porsche and Audi are just a grocery getters. Things come at you real quick at over 160 mph. Dangerous you say? Let's see what you look like after rolling that WRX at 160 mph!


Power is over rated, especially in a utilitarian vehicle. I've found even cars like the CX-5 reach illegal speeds quickly enough. And even a powerful "performance" car is boring, boring, boring compared to a sporting motorcycle.
Click to expand...

Nothing can compare to the thrill and rush of riding a bike. Unless you are one of the rare few that can afford vehicles like the Koenigsegg One:One.

I think the main thing I look for in a vehicle is the enjoyment in driving, which for me is a mix of handling, power, aesthetics, and overall feel. Honestly I can "enjoy" a slower vehicle more for many reasons. Think something like a Miata or S2000. Not blazingly fast, but an amazingly balanced vehicle, that is toss-able and takes some skill in rowing the gears to milk all of the power out of the car. (too bad I can't fit comfortably in either)
 
thedaddyb said:
I don't disagree with you, but in the case of this car even offering a more powerful say turbo motor would be helpful. Fuel economy when you baby the throttle and more power on command when needed. Our GTAWD is only averaging 23-24 mpg in mixed driving, which isn't great by any means. I wonder if it is partially because the necessity to over work the engine in different situations.
Click to expand...

I am sorry to hear you can only get 23-24 MPG. My overall average is 27.5 so far.
You typically can't get a more powerful engine and keep the same fuel-economy, even if you drive exactly the same. Such an engine will increase the curb weight of the vehicle and can introduce more parasitic friction losses.
Mazda being a small company already has 3 engines for this vehicle (2L, 2.5L and Diesel). Obviously, their bulk sales are 2.5L in north America. I think they will only lose money if they introduce another engine. If anything, I'd like to see the Diesel offered in the US more than another gas engine.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Potential CX-5 Owner with questions
Replies
3
Views
782
arks
A
O
Power lift gate problem (2024 Mazda CX-5)
Replies
18
Views
1K
cz5gt
cz5gt
B
About to buy my first Mazda, having Subaru guilt...
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
rockethead26
rockethead26

Latest posts

Back