- :
- Denver, CO
Makes sense.
Super dissatisfied with the CX-5 2.5 Turbo Part 2
- Thread starter ourlee
- Start date
- :
- Denver, CO
Think again.
Yeah, and I suppose you do the Pikes Peak hill climb race in the spring, as well (with your cx 5, of course!)
- :
- Denver, CO
Hey now that's just crazy talk [emoji14]
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
I would be very sad driving at that altitude lol. Considering you lose about 1" of manifold pressure per 1000 ft (about 30" available at sea level for an unboosted engine), at 7000 feet I would have a max of 23" of MP available. Oomph cruising around here at 80mph gives me about 23" mp at 2400 rpms.. I'll do a test and see what max rpm (lowest hear I can get at 23" mp (about 70-75% of WOT), then I'll know what to expect driving at 7k feet lol.
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
So... about 23"mp, which is hard to hold, gives an rpm in 3rd gear around 6k-6.5 (3rd gear top out 80mph).. that's basically where hp starts to drop off from 184 at 5700 rpm (2.5l) according to Mazda. So passing power would be garbage at that altitude if you are going 70 already. I'm curious to what kind of PSI/MP is being given by the turbo. can't find any data
Last edited:
For the 0-60 obsessed, C&D also recently published a number:
The turbocharged CX-5's appeal isn't really about scorching performance, although the 250-hp engine does send it to 60 mph in 6.2 seconds, nearly two seconds quicker than the base engine.
They also this to say about MPG:
The extra oomph exacts a toll at the pump, as the turbo's EPA estimates are 2 to 3 mpg lower than the naturally aspirated version's. However, we recorded a strong 30 mpg in our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test3 mpg better than the EPA estimateand averaged 22 mpg overall.
Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2019-mazda-cx-5-turbo-by-the-numbers?src=socialflowTW
Sorry if posted elsewhere.
The turbocharged CX-5's appeal isn't really about scorching performance, although the 250-hp engine does send it to 60 mph in 6.2 seconds, nearly two seconds quicker than the base engine.
They also this to say about MPG:
The extra oomph exacts a toll at the pump, as the turbo's EPA estimates are 2 to 3 mpg lower than the naturally aspirated version's. However, we recorded a strong 30 mpg in our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test3 mpg better than the EPA estimateand averaged 22 mpg overall.
Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2019-mazda-cx-5-turbo-by-the-numbers?src=socialflowTW
Sorry if posted elsewhere.
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
I posted the link the the review thread. I like this line:
"This all adds up to a vehicle that can hardly even be considered in the same conversation as Toyotas and Hondas anymore. Frankly, the CX-5 Signature is nicer*to drive, to look at, and to sit in*than some similarly sized crossovers with full-on premium badges (we're looking at you, Cadillac XT4 and Acura RDX). "
- :
- Denver, CO
Perhaps I am just not a good judge, but having also driven this close to sea level in the bay area of California, can't say I could tell much of a difference driving it between there and Denver.
Now if I go up super high elevation, of course you can totally feel the power just go away, like driving up Pike's Peak or Mt. Evans or something, but like I always say, I drive spirited and I have no problem with oomph with my CX-5. And between here and sea level, I just didn't notice a big enough difference personally.
If I had to guess, since we live at elevation, probably more desensitized to it compared to you lowlanders. I don't know, just guessing really.
