2018 CX-5 or 2019

Blake123

Member
:
Mazda 6
Hi, Im trying to decide between leasing a 2018 CX-5 or a 2019 CX-5 when it comes out. I do like the turbo engine but if the lease is too expensive would you choose a 2018 or a 2019 CX-5 and why? Im interested in heated seats, the Bose sound system and AWD version. The LCD screen in the 2019 would be nice but is it worth it? Also, I do hopefully plan on buying the CX-5 that I lease when the lease ends which is why Im leaning towards the 2019s. Thank you
 
I am in same case. I am leaning on 2019 and likely go for turbo. Will lease and buy it out unless the vehicle is not to par. Will be first time leasing.

Hi, Im trying to decide between leasing a 2018 CX-5 or a 2019 CX-5 when it comes out. I do like the turbo engine but if the lease is too expensive would you choose a 2018 or a 2019 CX-5 and why? Im interested in heated seats, the Bose sound system and AWD version. The LCD screen in the 2019 would be nice but is it worth it? Also, I do hopefully plan on buying the CX-5 that I lease when the lease ends which is why Im leaning towards the 2019s. Thank you
 
If you guys want the turbo engine then really no option but go 2019.
 
Hi, I*m trying to decide between leasing a 2018 CX-5 or a 2019 CX-5 when it comes out. I do like the turbo engine but if the lease is too expensive would you choose a 2018 or a 2019 CX-5 and why? I*m interested in heated seats, the Bose sound system and AWD version. The LCD screen in the 2019 would be nice but is it worth it? Also, I do hopefully plan on buying the CX-5 that I lease when the lease ends which is why I*m leaning towards the 2019*s. Thank you

Depends on what trim level you are looking at.

Sport or Touring? 2018 is probably cheaper. With the exception of tire cost over time as the 2019 Touring switched back to 17 inch tires instead of 19 inch on the 2018.

GT? Unless there are any major changes, thinking a 2018 is probably cheaper.

Now want a turbo? That is only available on the GT-R and Signature trims on the 2019, so you are paying for it.
 
Lease to buy is not a good plan financially but doing that on an 18 leftover will at least bang you considerably less hard than on a brand new 36+k turbo model. I'd probably consider looking for a lightly used CPO 17 even though I'm partial to gen 1 and the late gen 1's 19s
 
Last edited:
If you guys want the turbo engine then really no option but go 2019.
And if youre not interested in turbo, go for 2018 (or even 2017) as theres no difference between 2018 and 2019 non-turbo CX-5. 2019 CX-5 turbo not only is pretty expensive, but also itd have much worse MPG.
 
And if you*re not interested in turbo, go for 2018 (or even 2017) as there*s no difference between 2018 and 2019 non-turbo CX-5. 2019 CX-5 turbo not only is pretty expensive, but also it*d have much worse MPG.

Lower MPG is a given, don't think that is too much of a factor for people considering the turbo over the NA.
 
Thank you everyone, Yeah Im going to see what kind offers I can get for the 2019s if they are all very expensive then Ill probably go with a 2018. Im hopeing I can get a turbo for about 415 a month with zero down or lower but not sure yet how likely that will be. Worst case Ill probably just go with the 2018 touring with the equipment package because I did get decent offers for it a few months ago before the information/features about the 2019s came out.
 
Wait. Drive it. See whay you think. Also try the new rav4. Then pick the vehicle that best meets your needs and desires. Any other path is just insisting on ignorant decision making, unless your lease is up now or something, in which case thats an unfortunate forcing of your hand.
 
And if you*re not interested in turbo, go for 2018 (or even 2017) as there*s no difference between 2018 and 2019 non-turbo CX-5. 2019 CX-5 turbo not only is pretty expensive, but also it*d have much worse MPG.

2018 got DoD. A new 2017 should be priced to MOVE. Id fly and get the 2017 for cheap.
 
Lower MPG is a given, don't think that is too much of a factor for people considering the turbo over the NA.
Not necessary. Many vehicles switched to turbo are having better MPG than before, like the most recent example on Honda CR-V. As I said before, Mazdas 2.5T is designed specifically for larger and heavier CX-9 emphasizing low-end torque. With lower compression ratio on 2.5T than 2.5L NA, it would be less fuel efficient even if the turbo isnt spinning. Mazda should add a turbo to its SA 2.0L for its smaller and lighter vehicles such as the CX-5, which would be more fuel efficient than a 2.5L NA with plenty of horsepower to satisfy customers on both sides.
 
Not necessary. Many vehicles switched to turbo are having better MPG than before, like the most recent example on Honda CR-V. As I said before, Mazda*s 2.5T is designed specifically for larger and heavier CX-9 emphasizing low-end torque. With lower compression ratio on 2.5T than 2.5L NA, it would be less fuel efficient even if the turbo isn*t spinning. Mazda should add a turbo to its SA 2.0L for its smaller and lighter vehicles such as the CX-5, which would be more fuel efficient than a 2.5L NA with plenty of horsepower to satisfy customers on both sides.
Sure, but in this specific situation, going from a 2.5L to a 2.5L turbo, lower MPG is absolutely a given.
 
Last edited:
Not necessary. Many vehicles switched to turbo are having better MPG than before, like the most recent example on Honda CR-V. As I said before, Mazdas 2.5T is designed specifically for larger and heavier CX-9 emphasizing low-end torque. With lower compression ratio on 2.5T than 2.5L NA, it would be less fuel efficient even if the turbo isnt spinning. Mazda should add a turbo to its SA 2.0L for its smaller and lighter vehicles such as the CX-5, which would be more fuel efficient than a 2.5L NA with plenty of horsepower to satisfy customers on both sides.
Agreed. A 2.0t should have enough torque to move the CX 9 anyway and provide a sportier drive to their smaller cars. Honestly I'm pretty disappointed with Mazda engines these days, well except for the 19s miata.
 
Just got lease numbers for the Grand Touring Reserve looks like Ill be trying for the 2018s because its going to be over 500 dollars with 2500 down unfortunately, too expensive for me.
 
That is way too high. What state are you in? I was hoping the lease would be in the low 400 without down payment.

Just got lease numbers for the Grand Touring Reserve looks like Ill be trying for the 2018s because its going to be over 500 dollars with 2500 down unfortunately, too expensive for me.
 
Just got lease numbers for the Grand Touring Reserve looks like Ill be trying for the 2018s because its going to be over 500 dollars with 2500 down unfortunately, too expensive for me.

Whoa!
 
Way too high. Thats signature pricing. Whats the residual? your payments shouldnt come to half the cost of the car no way.
 
Back