CX5 Turbo confirmed!
- Thread starter SndChsr
- Start date
Here, current official urban figure is 9.2L/100km for 2.5 NA with may drivers averaging 10-12L/100km.
I would expect the 2.5T to have an official urban figure of 10-11L/100km with most drivers averaging 11-13L/100km
With fuel prices being high here, I would not by one due to it being less fuel efficient even though it has more power and torque which would be nice.
But as always each to their own
I would expect the 2.5T to have an official urban figure of 10-11L/100km with most drivers averaging 11-13L/100km
With fuel prices being high here, I would not by one due to it being less fuel efficient even though it has more power and torque which would be nice.
But as always each to their own
I think a CX-5 2.5 Turbo would be top on our list for a new replacement vehicle to our 2013 CX-5.
I have the new CX-9 as a loaner from dealership while I'm getting warranty work done on my Mazda6. The CX-9's smooth torquey engine and skyactiv transmission is a really good combo. Would be nice in a lighter CX-5!! 300lbs TQ on 87 octane. Switching to better tires after the OEMs craps out would make a Turbo CX-5 a really great daily driver.
I have the new CX-9 as a loaner from dealership while I'm getting warranty work done on my Mazda6. The CX-9's smooth torquey engine and skyactiv transmission is a really good combo. Would be nice in a lighter CX-5!! 300lbs TQ on 87 octane. Switching to better tires after the OEMs craps out would make a Turbo CX-5 a really great daily driver.
^Yeah but not as nice as a 332ft-lb diesel while being more efficient than the non-turbo gas(guessing considerably more in practice on the hwy) but each to their own
2.5T EPA numbers will be 2 to 3 less (not 1) on each cycle- best guess 21/28 for the awd CX-5- ie slightly better than the 9er.
If no diesel, yes very interested- Santa Fe other top contender but probably not the turbo on that due to poor fe and cost.
2.5T EPA numbers will be 2 to 3 less (not 1) on each cycle- best guess 21/28 for the awd CX-5- ie slightly better than the 9er.
If no diesel, yes very interested- Santa Fe other top contender but probably not the turbo on that due to poor fe and cost.
Last edited:
^Yeah but not as nice as a 332ft-lb diesel while being more efficient than the non-turbo gas(guessing considerably more in practice on the hwy) but each to their own
2.5T EPA numbers will be 2 to 3 less (not 1) on each cycle- best guess 21/28 for the awd CX-5- ie slightly better than the 9er.
If no diesel, yes I'm interested.
Good points. Also too are that diesels tend to last a long time. I mean look at VW's diesels pre-scandal. Lots lasted 200k+ miles easily and oh retained good resale values. 2 things VW are not known for. Enter Mazda and yeah...good stuff.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
^Yeah but not as nice as a 332ft-lb diesel while being more efficient than the non-turbo gas(guessing considerably more in practice on the hwy) but each to their own
2.5T EPA numbers will be 2 to 3 less (not 1) on each cycle- best guess 21/28 for the awd CX-5- ie slightly better than the 9er.
If no diesel, yes very interested- Santa Fe other top contender but probably not the turbo on that due to poor fe and cost.
The diesel would suck for performance compared to a 2.5t. Way less horsepower.
The 2.5t might do better on the freeway. Dunno. The current 2.5 runs out of power and taxes the engine heavily above 60mph. The diesel would do awesome on the highway I'd think.
The 2.5t would be better speed wise indeed. The Diesel better for hauling. Both cool formats.
The fact that a Mazda salesman told you makes it less likely that it's true. You'd be better off asking a Magic 8-ball.
If your diesel was like ours then performance is actually quite good.
Why would a salesman tease a nonexistent product? Id think theyd have more incentive to downplay the turbo and convince the buyer that the current model is sufficient.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
You got AA yet? Okay then.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
The cx5 2.5t will likely be high 5s 0-60...
Doubtful
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Why? The thing weighs the same as the mazda 6 turbo, and under 60mph aero isnt a huge deal.
Not quite.
Top spec Akera 2.5 NA weighs 1677kg whilst top spec 6 2.5T Atenza weighs 1620kg
The 2.5T engine if I am not mistaken weighs more than the 2.5 NA so the Akera 2.5T would weigh more.
Extra power and better traction (when AWD is actually used - most of the time it's actually FWD) won't be enough compensation for the extra weight.
Is that really a fair comparison? Promising that an AA retrofit is coming sells cars that are currently on the lot.
Last edited:
No it doesn't and no it won't be in high 5s to 60 (maybe you're a touch high
)-- mid-high 6s is where it'll live which honestly ain't bad either.non-turbo 6: 3427
turbo 6: 3560
CX-5 AWD: 3693
CX-5 AWD turbo: ~3800+
Last edited:
