2019 CX-5 2.5L vs. 2.5T

teslacles

Member
:
2013 Camry
First-time poster here.

I know the only real way to resolve this question is via test drive, but since I won't be buying until 4Q/2019 I wanted to hold off on that so my memory remains fresh when it's time to pull the trigger.

Is the 2.5L "enough" in terms of power? My two main concerns are fast acceleration in aggressive SF Bay Area freeway traffic and decent performance at altitudes of 6-9000 feet in the Sierra. For comparison, my current car is a 2013 Camry hybrid. Sounds tame, but it actually zips from 0-60 in 7.4 seconds, which puts it squarely between data I've seen for the 2.5L (~8.6 sec) and the 2.5T (~6.4 sec).

I have hard budget restrictions (bang) which likely preclude the 2.5T for now leaving me the option of waiting for a gently used GTR or Sig to appear, hoping the 2020's include the 2.5T across cheaper trim levels, or settling for the 2.5L.

Thought? Thanks.
 
I think the regular 2.5 would be "enough", but you have to be willing to rev the engine high in those situations.

With the 2.5T, the power will just seem much more effortless.

I have a 2014 CX5 with the 2.5 and a 2018 CX9, so I've felt the difference. Sadly, after getting used to the CX9, the CX5 has to work much harder to get up to speed compared the CX9. But I wouldn't say the CX5 is incapable of 'fast' acceleration to keep up with traffic.

Kinda just depends on what you're willing to sacrifice or are looking for.
 
Last edited:
I dont think theyre dropping the 2.5 NA until they completely phase that out for Skyactiv X 2.0 which is similarly powered anyway. Based on your situation if it were me Id go for the 2.5T.
 
Like you said, the only way to truly know, is to test drive them both. I did that and still went for for the non turbo but I am only above sea level by 300 ft
For my purposes and driving style, the 2.5 was enough. Also MPG is somewhat important to me but not that much or I would have waited for an RAV4 Hybrid or the upcoming CRV Hybrid
 
Thanks, all. To clarify, I don't actually live at altitude, but would travel to the high country on occasion. Nothing stopping me from test-driving both now and closer to purchase time, so will get on it.
 
The 2.5t is effortless in the CX-5. Merging onto the highway can happen easily at 2000 to 2500rpm...this is the power that it deserves. I am averaging 24.6 mpg for the current fuel up and 23.8 for the last 1500 miles.
 
For me (new cx5 right now) I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pop for the gtr due to cost both upfront and longer term and the turbo though effortless and more satisfying doesn't turn it into a performance variant. That and i do a lot of driving so still seeking efficiency for the dd. Thrust into market right now I'm going cherry cpo 16 gt, putting savings into a side piece or investment for one.
 
2.5na is still adequate given its mission but just a bit more so in the earlier years before the added flab where its more questionable/lacking in certain situations now. Little MikeM for ya..sharply opinionated and estranged old timer here but right on imo wrt weight and how more of it for fluff is the debil! Bottom line..see what you think i still like my oldie;) Averaging 27 and change in winter on winter tires and either side of 29 on oe Toyos in warmer months..
 
Last edited:
2.5NA is adequate but sometimes lags.
2.5T is quick enough.
based on my test drive of both and my daily 2.5NA. If you are looking at GT level price level better choice may be 2.5T. Thats my personal view.
 
December-January are best times to score Certified Pre-Owned cars in general imho.
 
The 2.5NA is perfectly fine and if most of my drives were just around town and no more than 30-40 minutes each way, I would buy the 2.5NA over the 2.5T without hesitation.
 
I recently had the dilemma of choosing between a 2018 CX-5 GT or the 2019 CX-5 GT 2.5 turbo. The slightly better fuel economy and price difference tipped my wife and I over the edge to choose the naturally aspirated 2018. We got a great deal on the 2018 with the end of year sale and couldn't justify the almost 7.5k cdn price difference to go turbo.

I also drive my 302hp C350 and i think the 2.5NA has enough power for the city and our uses. But hey, if you have the extra money to burn, no one complains about too much power, GO FOR IT!
 
If you want the turbo, just wait a few more months and pick up one up CPO. Better warranty (here in America at least), and you spend the same as the non-turbo. Win/Win. Especially because (again here in America) most CU's will finance a same-year CPO car at the same rates as a new one.
 
Having more torque will be nice, I remember driving my dad's 98' ford explorer 4.0 v6 which only had 160 hp but 225 tq it was very effortless driving up mountains and stuff and never felt slow. With the 2.5na in the CX-5, I have to step on the gas a bit more to get up the same mountain. I can only imagine the 2.5t feeling like the explorer but more. As much as I want to get the turbo, it's not smart of me to trade in my 2017, I'll wait and see the next gen and see if there's improvement in the mpg department. As for right now, the 2.5na is perfectly adequate and even more so with sport mode on. My next car will definitely be turbo'd, whether it be a sedan or another CX-5 :)
 
Thanks for all the thought-provoking comments. May well be that the NA--with occasional sport mode--will be more than enough for me. OTOH, I may just lay low until 4th quarter and pick up a CPO GT-R, as Unobtanium suggested.
 
I have to admit that at the initial release of numbers and specs for the turbo I was kind of hoping for a bit better, but I am settling in on the new CX-5 T. It certainly sounds much better than 187 hp version that I have been driving since 2013 and I doubt seriously my wife is going to agree to let me get what I really want, a Porsche Macan S. Just once in my life I would like to make a crazy car purchase. I've always had to play frugal though I don't have to and I hate it.

For the class that the CX-5 is in I have come around to thinking it is still a solid bang for the buck. I get another couple of years with my current model to see if they make any other refinements.
 
I have to admit that at the initial release of numbers and specs for the turbo I was kind of hoping for a bit better, but I am settling in on the new CX-5 T. It certainly sounds much better than 187 hp version that I have been driving since 2013 and I doubt seriously my wife is going to agree to let me get what I really want, a Porsche Macan S. Just once in my life I would like to make a crazy car purchase. I've always had to play frugal though I don't have to and I hate it.

For the class that the CX-5 is in I have come around to thinking it is still a solid bang for the buck. I get another couple of years with my current model to see if they make any other refinements.

Lots of good used Macan's available for less than 40K. If the insurance and maintenance costs are acceptable, it could be worth it.
 
Lots of good used Macan's available for less than 40K. If the insurance and maintenance costs are acceptable, it could be worth it.

Yep, I look at Cargurus weekly with about a 500 mile search radius. I have seen some amazing deals on the Macan S just over $40K and less than 30K mileage. One thing I did not realize was how well rated the Macan is in terms of reliability. Of course those extra wide tires and other things are not going to be cheap, but I expect that.

However, when I point one out to my wife and say, "that's what I want."
She normally responds, "You're not getting a $300K car."
I say, "it's only $40K slightly used."
She says, "You're not getting a race car. You'll kill yourself. You already drive way too fast."

I have not worn her down yet and will keep working on it.

:)

By the way she has seen some very significant bike race injuries and a whole lot of missing skin and blood from racing bikes. She knows I have a desire to go fast and take a lot of risk.
 
Last edited:
Yep, I look at Cargurus weekly with about a 500 mile search radius. I have seen some amazing deals on the Macan S just over $40K and less than 30K mileage. One thing I did not realize was how well rated the Macan is in terms of reliability. Of course those extra wide tires and other things are not going to be cheap, but I expect that.

However, when I point one out to my wife and say, "that's what I want."
She normally responds, "You're not getting a $300K car."
I say, "it's only $40K slightly used."
She says, "You're not getting a race car. You'll kill yourself. You already drive way too fast."

I have not worn her down yet and will keep working on it.

:)

The big thing for me is the insurance. I have 17 year old boy in the house. The insurance costs associated with that are insane. I was going to get a Mustang convertible (I know, I know) but the insurance was just ridiculous.

The other thing I have done, and very well, is to use the more expensive car as leverage with the wife for a better bike. Works every time! (2thumbs)
 
Yep, I look at Cargurus weekly with about a 500 mile search radius. I have seen some amazing deals on the Macan S just over $40K and less than 30K mileage. One thing I did not realize was how well rated the Macan is in terms of reliability. Of course those extra wide tires and other things are not going to be cheap, but I expect that.

However, when I point one out to my wife and say, "that's what I want."
She normally responds, "You're not getting a $300K car."
I say, "it's only $40K slightly used."
She says, "You're not getting a race car. You'll kill yourself. You already drive way too fast."

I have not worn her down yet and will keep working on it.

:)

By the way she has seen some very significant bike race injuries and a whole lot of missing skin and blood from racing bikes. She knows I have a desire to go fast and take a lot of risk.

Porsche's are super well made and reliable, by and large.
My issue with the macan s is the mileage per gallon, and the performance. The performance does not warrant the mpg hit. 0-60 is sex just because of the DCT and launch mode. The 5-60 is well under a second ahead of the cx5T, which can take 87 and gets 30mpg on the highway in real world testing doing 70+. Thr handling of the macan s and cx5t both suck due to tires and both can easily be corrected with same.

You do gain Porsche ststus with the macan s though. Thats worth something.
 
Back