Agreed. It doesn't have to be a/the 2.5T. That's the awesome thing with a turbo. If you want more power, just turn up the boost. Look at Honda and their 1.5T and 2.0T. They are each used in several cars and make several different HP numbers depending on the vehicle.
The 1.5T is in the Civic/SI/SportHatch, Accord, and CRV. In these cars, it makes 174hp [16.5 psi], 192hp [20.2 psi], and 205hp [20.3 psi/93 oct]. The Accord's 2.0T makes 252hp on 20.8psi, but the Type R's 2.0T makes 305hp [23.2 psi]. It is all about the tuning. I'd tell you about VW use of their 1.8t and 2.0t engines, but I don't have all day.
A 2.0T in the CX-5 with mild boost (14.7 psi/1 bar) would probably be spot on perfect. Sure, people are going to talk about lag and what not, but you can engineer that out with tuning and turbo/turbine size. There are tradeoffs and there will always be tradeoffs. Leave the 2.5T in the CX-9. Develop a 2.0T for the CX-5 and '3 and '6. Mazda can leave the 2.5NA motor as a nice solid base powerplant, but then turn it up a notch with a 2.0T and give consumers a choice.
The Feds dont know what to make of Audis new LED headlampsToo expensive? That's not the reason. Someone around here educated me on why we can't have these. Cost wasn't the issue. And why would NHTSA or DOT care about what the cost is? Hmmm.... who was it that educated me about this... uh yea: YOU!
Little known fact: Canada doesn't allow them either.
https://www.thestar.com/autos/2017/01/14/making-the-case-for-adaptive-headlights-in-canada.html
We don't have a Canadian here, do we?
Most people would say replace 2.5 NA with 2.5T
I agree with gutless on highway comment. I also agree that 85 is probably what a sedan should be driven not this lifted hatch. I remember with me and family flooring it at 75 mph and the needle barely moved. It did move after about 25 seconds to 80. very poor.
We don't have a Canadian here, do we?
@Iskie: what do you mean by the visor blocking the rearview?
Single occupancy is different from family and cargo. Try with 4 adults and come back to let us know. It is gutless since its tuned for city driving.That's weird because Car and Driver claims a top speed of 130. It must have taken them a month to get there at the acceleration rate you're indicating!
That's weird because Car and Driver claims a top speed of 130. It must have taken them a month to get there at the acceleration rate you're indicating!
Not on Mazda's radar to add a turbo to the 2.0. Their prime reason for the 2.5T was the CX-9.Look at how much penalty 2018 Mazda6 has to pay on fuel economy for a 2.5L turbo: from 29/26/35 on a 2.5L to 26/23/31 combined/city/hwy on a 2.5T based on EPA estimates!
A 2.0T can easily achieves 227hp a 2.5T gets and matches the EPA FE estimates of a 2.5L with proper tuning and programming. And how difficult adding a turbo to an existing SA-G 2.0L with Mazda's experience of 2.5T? The most expensive expense may be to get it certified by EPA!
Kaps our resident comedian is exaggerating, but what he says is true. The CX-5 runs out of steam above 70 mph. A more powerful engine would be a welcome option.