2019 CX-5 Diesel

The criticisms about the price seem a little harsh to me. Given the the diesel only comes in top-level signature trim, the premium for the diesel is about $4K above the gasoline signature trim 2.5t. This isn't totally out of line - in all vehicles where you can get the save basic vehicle with either engine, the diesel always commands a premium, generally in the range of $2K-$5K.

And seldom does the diesel version offer more power than the competing gas version. The one thing the diesel version generally does much better on is fuel mileage - this has always been the tradeoff. Do you want to pay the extra cost up front for the long-term payback in reduction in fuel cost? Generally, it pans out only folks who drive BIG miles. But this is the area where Mazda truly screwed the pooch (in addition, to the interminable delays, of course). They produced a diesel version of the CX-5 at about what you'd expect with respect to price and performance, but for some reason, totally lost the plot on fuel mileage. Something happened in the development that caused them some major issue with respect to meeting USA emissions and they had to sacrifice fuel mileage to finally get the vehicle certified. Maybe the VW fiasco has made them so gun-shy of gaming the emissions tests, that they felt they couldn't risk even doing the normal optimizations typically done by all mfgs (gas and diesel) to have the car squeeze past the emissions tests?

In any event, I'm going to withhold final judgment until we see some testing of the new car. Tests of CX-5 diesel vs. gas in non-USA markets have consistently preferred the diesel and I wouldn't be surprised if the diesel gets some love in US testing. If the car is significantly nicer to drive, I could see throwing an addition $4K into the deal even if it does mean the total fuel/DEF expense is about a wash.

- Mark
 
The criticisms about the price seem a little harsh to me. Given the the diesel only comes in top-level signature trim, the premium for the diesel is about $4K above the gasoline signature trim 2.5t. This isn't totally out of line - in all vehicles where you can get the save basic vehicle with either engine, the diesel always commands a premium, generally in the range of $2K-$5K.

And seldom does the diesel version offer more power than the competing gas version. The one thing the diesel version generally does much better on is fuel mileage - this has always been the tradeoff. Do you want to pay the extra cost up front for the long-term payback in reduction in fuel cost? Generally, it pans out only folks who drive BIG miles. But this is the area where Mazda truly screwed the pooch (in addition, to the interminable delays, of course). They produced a diesel version of the CX-5 at about what you'd expect with respect to price and performance, but for some reason, totally lost the plot on fuel mileage. Something happened in the development that caused them some major issue with respect to meeting USA emissions and they had to sacrifice fuel mileage to finally get the vehicle certified. Maybe the VW fiasco has made them so gun-shy of gaming the emissions tests, that they felt they couldn't risk even doing the normal optimizations typically done by all mfgs (gas and diesel) to have the car squeeze past the emissions tests?

In any event, I'm going to withhold final judgment until we see some testing of the new car. Tests of CX-5 diesel vs. gas in non-USA markets have consistently preferred the diesel and I wouldn't be surprised if the diesel gets some love in US testing. If the car is significantly nicer to drive, I could see throwing an addition $4K into the deal even if it does mean the total fuel/DEF expense is about a wash.

- Mark

You are mixing your comparisons. People have chosen the diesel over the naturally aspirated gas engine in other countries, not the turbo. But you are comparing the premium to the turbo engine.

The regular, naturally aspirated gas engine has more horsepower than the diesel. The 2.5T has loads more. It even puts out more low end torque than the diesel. I figured the diesel would have around a $4K premium over the NA, before there was a 2.5T option. But not such a premium over the turbo.

I too look forward to see some testing and to drive them myself.
 
Yeah and that's the thing. I would have expected it to debut at a premium over the GT...not the Signatute. Having a diesel as their highest trim level doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps if they had both.
 
Even worse comparison now. The diesel model is also the top trim while the other models you list are entry levels with another 20k to match the diesel CX5.



You*re being silly now.

No I'm not. My Jeep Grand Cherokee MSRP'ed at around 38K or so and came with one. Tow package with electric. If anyone wants to argue that towing is the sole reason or main reason to buy this $5K upcharge, then Mazda, if they agree, would be smart to include a hitch and hookup.
 
May be I missed something, but how do we know the mpg if the car is not released yet?
on the epa there is only 2018 and there isnt 2018 diesel in usa
 
Absolutely not.. some of those start in the mid 30's the GLC is the only 40k starter in there. Add the options you *want* you might not pay anymore than the CX-5 starting at 41k. Just because I'm forced to have lane assist or some other gimmick as part of the starter price doesn't mean I want it, and I would not pay extra for it.

No, add the options that make it equivalent if you want your comparison to be representative or it makes no sense. Your argument is poor. What happens if you only want solid white paint and a $30 option? You might be sitting in an Audi but with the same kit as the entry level CX5.
 
You are mixing your comparisons. People have chosen the diesel over the naturally aspirated gas engine in other countries, not the turbo. But you are comparing the premium to the turbo engine.

The regular, naturally aspirated gas engine has more horsepower than the diesel. The 2.5T has loads more. It even puts out more low end torque than the diesel. I figured the diesel would have around a $4K premium over the NA, before there was a 2.5T option. But not such a premium over the turbo.

I too look forward to see some testing and to drive them myself.

This is the mistake that a lot of people make and won*t understand until they've driven a diesel. It doesn*t matter a jot what the horsepower is, it*s all about how the torque is delivered at low revs. On a track side by side the diesel won*t win a sprint because the power is all low down but driven over a mixed route with a full load of passengers and luggage it will and in a much more relaxed way.
 
This is the mistake that a lot of people make and won*t understand until they've driven a diesel. It doesn*t matter a jot what the horsepower is, it*s all about how the torque is delivered at low revs. On a track side by side the diesel won*t win a sprint because the power is all low down but driven over a mixed route with a full load of passengers and luggage it will and in a much more relaxed way.

I know what you're saying, but the 2.5 Turbo has more peak torque, sooner in the rpm range, than the 2.2D, and it's also packing significantly more horsepower on top of that, so I'm not sure what advantage it will offer in any aspect of performance.
 
This is the mistake that a lot of people make and won*t understand until they've driven a diesel. It doesn*t matter a jot what the horsepower is, it*s all about how the torque is delivered at low revs. On a track side by side the diesel won*t win a sprint because the power is all low down but driven over a mixed route with a full load of passengers and luggage it will and in a much more relaxed way.

I'm looking forward to driving it and feeling that Anchorman. I have read that but not experienced it personally. That's what I was really looking forward to about the diesel. But the gas turbo also has a ton of torque and at a surprisingly low RPM. I haven't driven it either, or any turbo for that matter.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that I prefer the drive of the diesel to the turbo. Hopefully I'll find out in a few months.

Mazda hasn't done a good job of articulating what makes the diesel premium. The announcement quoted numbers. They made no statement whatsoever about how it performs or feels relative to a turbo gas engine.
 
Fair enough but one day when your car is in dock, just drive one to see how it feels. Make no mistake, if I could have a 2.5T I would but for other reasons.
 
I won't be ponying up the money for either the diesel or the 2.5T, but I would certainly like to try both just to feel how they are different from my 2.5L NA.

Though I am sure I am not the target demographic for diesel as I mostly city drive these days. Still...one wonders how the drive might change with different engine options. ;) Still need to give that 2.5T a whirl.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know and the lack of info has pissed people off. I wouldnt insist that someone paid the price hike but the tractability from the diesel might convince some buyers. You can get a big high powered gasoline engine but you never see one in a truck.
 
I think the whole "going upscale" thing will backfire for Mazda. Their market following has been with folks wanting fun-to-drive vehicles. They lost me by losing the manual and the driving engagement it offers.
A better option than the diesel would have been a premium 2.5 or 2.5T Manual that wasn't stripped. They might have lured some enthusiasts that otherwise bought sport sedans.
 
I think the whole "going upscale" thing will backfire for Mazda. Their market following has been with folks wanting fun-to-drive vehicles. They lost me by losing the manual and the driving engagement it offers.
A better option than the diesel would have been a premium 2.5 or 2.5T Manual that wasn't stripped. They might have lured some enthusiasts that otherwise bought sport sedans.

although not a fan of the diesel, i beg to differ that going "upscale" is going to backfire.
They have plenty of lower tier model offerings so it will be ok.
 
I think the whole "going upscale" thing will backfire for Mazda. Their market following has been with folks wanting fun-to-drive vehicles. They lost me by losing the manual and the driving engagement it offers.
A better option than the diesel would have been a premium 2.5 or 2.5T Manual that wasn't stripped. They might have lured some enthusiasts that otherwise bought sport sedans.

I am beginning to think the same especially after learning of the 41K price for the diesel CX-5. I don't know who will buy it. This move upscale to "premium", is not going well especially if their customer base does not want to keep up with the price increase. I cannot justify spending 41K on a 168 hp CX-5, especially considering the 2.5T model exists. Maybe a test drive will change that, but damn, 41K is a lot of money. If the price for other new models they release goes up to 38K-40K prices, Mazda will lose me as a customer. Mazda used to make the most fun-to-drive bang-for-the-buck vehicles. That seems to be changing nowadays.
 
I think the whole "going upscale" thing will backfire for Mazda. Their market following has been with folks wanting fun-to-drive vehicles. They lost me by losing the manual and the driving engagement it offers.
A better option than the diesel would have been a premium 2.5 or 2.5T Manual that wasn't stripped. They might have lured some enthusiasts that otherwise bought sport sedans.

I disagree. Aiming for the 0.1% who like manuals and cheap speed wasnt keeping the company afloat. Far more buyers want entry luxury crossovers these days, and theyre well-positioned to make a splash because of their knack for good looks.
 
I disagree. Aiming for the 0.1% who like manuals and cheap speed wasn*t keeping the company afloat. Far more buyers want *entry luxury* crossovers these days, and they*re well-positioned to make a splash because of their knack for good looks.

i concur with your statement,
and as noted, it's not like buyers HAVE to buy the signature model, there are plenty of other model offerings.
 
I won't be ponying up the money for either the diesel or the 2.5T, but I would certainly like to try both just to feel how they are different from my 2.5L NA.

Though I am sure I am not the target demographic for diesel as I mostly city drive these days. Still...one wonders how the drive might change with different engine options. ;) Still need to give that 2.5T a whirl.

The 2.5T is honestly worth it. I hated owning a base model CX5 because I missed all of the things all my other cars have had since 2010. That made the Grand Touring a no-brainer this go, and when I could get 80hp more for $2K or so, that was the cheapest 80hp/110#tq mod I've ever seen short of a used cam and a buddy tuning your LS1 car, lol!
 
although not a fan of the diesel, i beg to differ that going "upscale" is going to backfire.
They have plenty of lower tier model offerings so it will be ok.

100% agreed. Anyone can look at their sales data and understand that this has been a killer move for Mazda, just like I predicted it would be back in 2015 on this forum when everyone whined about "BUT RACECAR!"
 
Back