Questions for turbo owners

D

DCdvr

:
2016 CX-5 Grand Touring
Hello,

Current owner of a 2016 CX-5, but my lease is up soon. Have my eye on the turbo, and wanted to see if owners think its worth the upgrade over the standard NA engine.

- How does the turbo cruise and pass on the highway around 75-80 mph compared to the NA engine? Ive always thought my CX-5 feels short of power there, where as my old Volvo turbo could pass with ease. Ive test driven the turbo but didnt have the chance to cruise at high speed (thanks DC Beltway)

- What kind of mileage are you getting, both on the highway and around town? On the highway, my 2016 will hit the EPA rating (32 mpg, its FWD) only if I stay under 65 mph, feather the throttle, and keep the AC off. Drive above 75 mph at all, or pass a few times, and the car will quickly drop to around 28 mpg, but Im convinced its because I have to draw so deep into the power reserve

Any other thoughts/questions appreciated. Im going to trade in next week. Thanks!
 
DCdvr said:
Hello,

Current owner of a 2016 CX-5, but my lease is up soon. Have my eye on the turbo, and wanted to see if owners think it*s worth the upgrade over the standard NA engine.
I wouldn't have b ought another CX5 if it didn't have the Turbo. I had a 2015.

- How does the turbo cruise and pass on the highway around 75-80 mph compared to the NA engine? I*ve always thought my CX-5 feels short of power there, where as my old Volvo turbo could pass with ease. I*ve test driven the turbo but didn*t have the chance to cruise at high speed (thanks DC Beltway)
It does great. It doesn't "fall off". Pulls great. Also isn't getting crap mileage because it's struggling at 80 like the NA motor.

- What kind of mileage are you getting, both on the highway and around town? On the highway, my 2016 will hit the EPA rating (32 mpg, it*s FWD) only if I stay under 65 mph, feather the throttle, and keep the AC off. Drive above 75 mph at all, or pass a few times, and the car will quickly drop to around 28 mpg, but I*m convinced it*s because I have to draw so deep into the power reserve
On my daily commute I average 26-28mpg. In my 2015, AWD, I averaged 24.5-25.5mpg.

Any other thoughts/questions appreciated. I*m going to trade in next week. Thanks!
Click to expand...

The NA CX5 would lose out to the RAV4 Hybrid to my dollars, but the turbo is enough fun and an excellent powerplant, to the point that I'm okay losing out on the mpg vs. t he RAV hybrid.
 
While we are on the subject of the new turbo engine, Id like to know what octane fuel are you all using? The Mazda is the only vehicle Ive seen that publishes 2 different HP ratings depending on the fuel used. If I went with the turbo I would probably go with 89 octane to bump up a bit from regular 87, but I dont really want to pay the high prices for 92/93 octane.

So, in addition to answering the ops questions, can you also mention what octane fuel you tend to use?

Thanks.
 
Cuz said:
While we are on the subject of the new turbo engine, I*d like to know what octane fuel are you all using? The Mazda is the only vehicle I*ve seen that publishes 2 different HP ratings depending on the fuel used. If I went with the turbo I would probably go with 89 octane to bump up a bit from regular 87, but I don*t really want to pay the high prices for 92/93 octane.

So, in addition to answering the ops questions, can you also mention what octane fuel you tend to use?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Higher octane fuel is only beneficial >4000 RPM per Mazda. I rarely exceed 4000 RPM so I see it as a waste of $'s.

The turbo is great. I can quickly pass anyone even going uphill. MPG is 24.9 averaged over about 5K miles of average driving.
 
Last edited:
The turbo is worth the trade by itself to me. Toss it in my 16.5, and I*d drive this thing till the wheels fall off...
 
I moved from my own 2016 GT to the turbo in a 2019, so potentially your same scenario. While I had only minor quibbles with the Skyactive-G engine during my 4 years of ownership, after purchasing and driving essentially the same vehicle with the 2.5T I think I'd seriously miss it if I had to go back. This is more abstract feedback than concrete: the difference was apparent at even my original test drive, but just gets more clear every time I drive it, whether locally or on longer trips. The power difference is obvious, from the way the newer vehicle accelerates, and even in the general "feel" of the car. There's no real turbo pull to speak of, and it just overall feels more refined (not talking about the rest of the 2019 Sig upgrades here). Haven't really paid attention to mpg, so can't advise there. I do think I can sense a difference between regular and premium fills, however, but it may just be psychological. I also may eventually want to tow a small camper, so the extra power is also going to help there.

If you haven't yet, take a test drive and include if possible highway driving on that run. I think like me it will help you identify the rather obvious (to me, anyway) differences and decide if the upgrade is worth it for you or not.
 
Cuz said:
While we are on the subject of the new turbo engine, I*d like to know what octane fuel are you all using? The Mazda is the only vehicle I*ve seen that publishes 2 different HP ratings depending on the fuel used. If I went with the turbo I would probably go with 89 octane to bump up a bit from regular 87, but I don*t really want to pay the high prices for 92/93 octane.

So, in addition to answering the ops questions, can you also mention what octane fuel you tend to use?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I use 91 octane, ethanol free. It costs me $3/gallon almost on the dot (sometimes 2.95, sometimes 3.05, etc.).

I have tried 93 octane, ethanol free, and my 0-80 times showed zero perceptible difference filming and then timing them.

I have never used 87 octane.

Forgot to add, my lifetime average of about 6500mi is 25.5mpg, and that includes my 0-80 hooning around and all nonsense since I first set foot in the car.
 
RLCarrington said:
I moved from my own 2016 GT to the turbo in a 2019, so potentially your same scenario. While I had only minor quibbles with the Skyactive-G engine during my 4 years of ownership, after purchasing and driving essentially the same vehicle with the 2.5T I think I'd seriously miss it if I had to go back. This is more abstract feedback than concrete: the difference was apparent at even my original test drive, but just gets more clear every time I drive it, whether locally or on longer trips. The power difference is obvious, from the way the newer vehicle accelerates, and even in the general "feel" of the car. There's no real turbo pull to speak of, and it just overall feels more refined (not talking about the rest of the 2019 Sig upgrades here). Haven't really paid attention to mpg, so can't advise there. I do think I can sense a difference between regular and premium fills, however, but it may just be psychological. I also may eventually want to tow a small camper, so the extra power is also going to help there.

If you haven't yet, take a test drive and include if possible highway driving on that run. I think like me it will help you identify the rather obvious (to me, anyway) differences and decide if the upgrade is worth it for you or not.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Truly lag-free. Moreso than even the N/A motor, really, as odd as that sounds.
 
I have less than 2,000 miles on my Reserve.

Here is my mileage experience, in order of consumption:

Octane/Mileage
Unk (dealer fillup)/ 23
93/ 25
87/ 23
87/ 23
93/ 25
93/ 24

The computer's cumulative MPG figure and my manual calculations are within 0.22 MPG of each other.

I'm retired so don't have a daily commute. I drive on mostly very rural hilly winding roads, with some stretches of 55MPH, and almost never on the interstate. There is no Stop & Go here but lots of accelerating/decelerating up & down hills.

Depending on that day's price spread, using 93 versus 87 usually costs an extra $3.50-$4.00 per tank (actually, per 300 miles worth of fuel at their respective MPGs.) Last week the price spread jumped to 60, so that drove the difference up to $5.50 per "tank."

There are those who say that higher octane reduces the risk of oil dilution. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can chime in on this.

I really like the turbo. It makes a big difference passing at highway speeds. There are lots of single lane 55MPH roads where I live. I have no concerns going into the oncoming lane to pass. As others have said, the turbo is extremely smooth.
 
Last edited:
I've never driven a NA CX-5, so cannot directly compare the two. I can say the 2.5T is a superb powerplant, extremely smooth with no hint of turbo lag.

I'm at just over 7,000 miles. I've run several sequential tanks of 91 octane and experienced no precept-able difference between that and 87 octane.

My daily commute is 95% highway, 40mi each way. About half of that is 75-80mph with the other half in traffic, ~~40-70 mph. I average 27.5 mpg on most every tankful. Octane trials made no difference inn MPG achieved.

I do use the Adaptive Cruise Control for my commute and that seems to to a very good job of managing efficiency, compared to my heavier foot.

Love, love, love my GTR. I think you'll be totally thrilled with one.
 
Avoidin Deer said:
I have less than 2,000 miles on my Reserve.

Here is my mileage experience, in order of consumption:

Octane/Mileage
Unk (dealer fillup)/ 23
93/ 25
87/ 23
87/ 23
93/ 25
93/ 24

I'm retired so don't have a daily commute. I drive on mostly very rural hilly winding roads, with some stretches of 55MPH, and almost never on the interstate. There is no Stop & Go here but lots of accelerating/decelerating up & down hills.

Depending on that day's price spread, using 93 costs an extra $3.50-$4.00 per tank versus 87.
For some reason, last week the price spread jumped to 60, so that drove the difference up to $5.50 per tank.

There are those who say that higher octane reduces the risk of oil dilution. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can chime in on this.

So far, the computer's cumulative MPG figure and my manual calculations are within 0.22 MPG of each other.

I really like the turbo. It makes a big difference passing at highway speeds. There are lots of single lane 55MPH roads where I live. I have no concerns going into the oncoming lane to pass.
Click to expand...

The higher octane prevents ignition retardation as much which leads to more efficient combustion and hence less "stray fuel".
 
Unobtanium said:
I use 91 octane, ethanol free. It costs me $3/gallon almost on the dot (sometimes 2.95, sometimes 3.05, etc.).
Click to expand...

Man, I wish we had that available around here. That's cheaper than I've been paying for 93 with ethanol. Last week, the price jumped to $3.26/gallon but has always been over $3.00.
 
Unobtanium said:
The higher octane prevents ignition retardation as much which leads to more efficient combustion and hence less "stray fuel".
Click to expand...

which leads to less chance of detonation as well. All in all, a safety blanket with some performance aspects built in as well...
 
Unobtanium said:
The higher octane prevents ignition retardation as much which leads to more efficient combustion and hence less "stray fuel".
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Seems to me that running the higher octane is worth it if for no other reason than to reduce the risk of oil dilution.
 
Avoidin Deer said:
Man, I wish we had that available around here. That's cheaper than I've been paying for 93 with ethanol. Last week, the price jumped to $3.26/gallon but has always been over $3.00.
Click to expand...

And I think the price is high, lol. $2.67 for 93 here this morn. I filled up with 87 for $2.27.
 
Man.

There is one station at the other side of the county who sells low octane non-ethanol mostly for small engines, and he charges an extra 50 per gallon for it.

87 octane ethanol here is $2.60/gallon right now. It's usually been closer to $2.40.

I bet my state (Virginia) is ripping me off with fuel taxes.
 
The Turbo is 1 mpg better than FWD CX-9 which is 700 lbs heavier and 0.6 seconds faster. It wasn't designed for CX-5 it was designed as a generic truck engine and suits the CX9 the best. The other issue is a 300 mile tank (your FWD would do 330 miles which is low to begin with). If you have issues in 75 - 80 which is a common complaint about FWD gen1 as its profile is rather large - try the AWD. It seems AWD does not have this issue. My FWD has been in situations where the needle stayed at 75 for 10 seconds after the pedal was floored all the way down. So I understand what you mean.
Your cheapest to costliest options is Gen1 AWD, Gen2 AWD, Turbo. If you are buying used - late model year 2017 is perfect. Certified. See when production stopped for 17 models and get the one made in last 2 months. If you are leasing a 19 suits best as it has CD but it wont be your problem.
 
$2.99...for 87 up here in good ol' Pa...you guys are lucky.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GTXT23
The Never-ending Question...What happens to the CX-5 Next Year (2025)?
2
Replies
31
Views
10K
yrwei52
yrwei52
GTXT23
    • Haha
    • Wow
Should you buy a Turbo CX-5?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
12K
Odrapnew
O
1
    • Like
2023 CX-5 engine break-in trip
Replies
2
Views
2K
yrwei52
yrwei52

Latest posts

Back