Should you buy a Turbo CX-5?

[GTXT23]

Regarding the CX-5 T - data shows the Turbo 4 to be fundamentally the same engine as Mazdas naturally aspirated 4, yet turbos often dont last as long as non-Turbos- Biggrst #1 One is owner misuse and misunderstanding of the more frequent maintainence required - the first , just driving it like a sports car ..and guess what ...its NOT a sports car- most owners have no clue how vital warm up and cool down is when you have a turbo , Turbo burn oil , turbos run very hot , and at ridiculous rpms - , they require more frequent oil changes ( oil lubricates the turbo also ) particularly if you drive it hard , more spark plug changes, can foul plugs more easily , cost more for premium gas to operate as designed , insurance premiums are higher , tire wear, break wear higher , transmission issues can arise from the higher power delivery and many many other problems which are to lengthy to list -as well many Turbos had cracked cylinder heads requiring Mazda to make a new head ( which I believe was sorted out ) , but it was caused by the impact of the turbo power demand , . These are truths based on the turbos and often the profiles of the way turbo buyers drive - A turbo can last , but if you look at the used market , when approaching 100k many begin to manifest wear & tear
issues -
Whereas the NA is an historically proven , basic & reliable engine which ( Mazda)
had one preventative "cylinder desctivation"-( Like Hondas V-tec cam in reverse ! ) recall on the 18-19 years and not one other issue of major consequence since.
The engine has shown to be rock solid and efficient . Is the #1 highest production engine Mazda has ever made in its history , having vehicles around the world using it with ultra high reliability .
I am NOT saying turbos are " bad " but I caution anyone who just takes the advice of even major car publications - who do love the Turbo cx-5 , that there are downsides which are often not mentioned. Its fun and has its place - but not unlike the Mazdaspeed 3 vs the Mazda 3 hatchbacks back in 2010-2 period - even the enhanced 2.3 with strengthened internal engine components was unlikey to go much past 100k and the na 2.3/2.5 is still seen with regularity on the road today - I post this because its good to be aware of the potential short and long term benifits /and drawbacks of both types of engines regarless of manufacturer- before you buy or lease
- If I was leasing for example - I might still choose to drive the turbo( but i might not because of speeding tix ..thats me )
- but if I was a long term owner - I would choose a non-turbo for the reasons listed . If I was tight on $ - well non-turbo as well - so its about knowing what you are getting into - If you look at the CX5 engine specs - the high compression ( 13/14-1) depending on where u live is reduced significantly on the Turbo ...to a 10-1 - ( from memory - could be off a hair )
since the turbo will bring up the compression when in use /.
Heres some of the soundest advice ive seen on Turbos in the average passenger car or SUV

How To Make Your Modern Turbo Engine Last Longer | Are They Less Reliable?

A Master Automobile Technician Shares 5 Tips on Making Your Modern Turbo Engine More Reliable Long Term.In this video I share with you 5 tips to prolong the ...

m.youtube.com

Heres what Scotty says- ( hes not God but a pretty pratical guy with sound advice )

Why Not to Buy a Turbocharged Car

Turbocharger explained and why not to buy turbo cars, car review with Scotty Kilmer. Many modern cars use turbochargers and why it might not be such a good i...

m.youtube.com

 

[potownrob]

As some on here may somehow remember, I'm a proponent of the N/A 2.5 litre engine, but I have to admit, based on what I've read on here at least, you may be blowing the downsides of the turbo engine and drivetrain out of proportion. A lot of people on here will tell you to get whichever one you want and can afford. I personally am happy with my N/A (pre-CD 2017) CX-5, other than wishing it got better gas mileage.

 

[HeloJoe]

This is a pretty tired argument, especially from Scottie. The 2.5T is subject to cracked cylinder heads. The 2.5 NA was also cracking cylinder heads. Both are down to differing DESIGN defects.

We're light-years ahead of early turbocharged engines in both manufacturing processes and materials science. When designed using fatigue failure methodology, as all modern automotive manufacturers utilize, a properly designed turbocharged engine will last just as long as any properly designed NA engine.

 

[CarpeDiem]

Kilmer. He‘s the guy who said for years Mazdas were trash and you should never buy one. Then about a year ago he did a complete 180. The OP’s video is over five years old, has he changed his mind again since? Who knows, and who cares. He’s a colorful character with some decent content - but also an awful lot of rubbish. My advice - this is 2024 (MY) not 1999.

 

[chickdr]

Regarding the CX-5 T - All comon sense and historical data shows Turbo 4s vs NA 4s of the same engine , Dont last as long as the NAs - TURBOS : , burn oil , run hot , require more frequent oil changes ( oil lubricates the turbo also ) , more spark plug changes, fouled plugs , cost more for premium gas , insurance , tire wear, break wear, transmission issues from the power delivery and many many other problems which are to lengthy to list as we would need more data , as well many Turbos had craked cylinder heads requiring Mazda to make a new head , but it was caused by the turbo which also rarely will last 100k mi.
Whereas the NA is a reliable engine which had one preventative CD recall on the 18-19 years and not one other issue of consequence since ,the engine being rock solid and efficient . Is the most produced engine Mazda has ever made in its history , having vehicles around the world using it with ultra high reliability ,
Heres what Scotty says :

Why Not to Buy a Turbocharged Car

Turbocharger explained and why not to buy turbo cars, car review with Scotty Kilmer. Many modern cars use turbochargers and why it might not be such a good i...

m.youtube.com

Ummm. You must be forgetting about the cracked cylinder issue on the NA motor.... This is STILL an issue even with late model 2.5s.

Just in case you want proof, here is a thread from another forum which details a cracked head issue on a 2022 NA with only 13k miles. 2021 CX 5 heads - Mazda Forum - Mazda Enthusiast Forums

 

[HeloJoe]

Also, I realized I never fully read the OP, having focused primarily on the engineering aspect.

The second crux of the argument amounts to "Turbo bad because more expensive." Sure, most turbocharged engines require more frequent maintenance, but that doesn't have any impact on its reliability.

You should see the maintenance schedules we write for rotorcraft. Just because it's frequent doesn't mean they're unreliable. On the contrary, they're reliable because it's frequent.

 

[dougal]

So, we have had multiple Mazda's over the last 9 years. 2014 CX-5, 2017 Mazda 3, a 2018 CX-9, 2021 CX-5, 2021 Mazda 3 and a 2021 CX-9. All but the 2014 CX-5 and the 2017 Mazda 3 have the 2.5 T.

All have been reliable and things like the "oil" burning on the 2021 model have rectified themselves. What has surprised me the most is that the gas mileage for the 2.5T and and 2.5 NA in the CX5 is pretty much the same. I got about 26.4 MPG in the 2014 CX5 and we get about 26 MPG in the 2021 CX5 with the 2.5T. Performance wise there is no comparison.

Even with the CX-9, in both the 2018 and 2021, I have averaged 24.4 MPG ( this is close to 150K miles)

Except for the initial cost, I see no downside to the 2.5T. We use regular fuel for most of the cars - most of the time.

Gas mileage is significantly lower in the 2021 Mazda 3 - and that is all down to the driving.

I personally wish they would make a turbo 2.0. The NA 2.0 is Mazda's best engine. Such a sweet little engine that can rev and be happy. The 2.5 NA is yucky in comparison.

 

[cadcamjim]

Please elaborate on the oil burning on your 2021 2.5T that "have rectified themselves". Do you mean that you had an oil consumption issue that fixed itself?

I have a 2021 CX-5 with the 2.5T that I purchased new that now has about 38k miles. I noticed within the first 2000 miles or so that she was using a bit of oil. This was before any public admission by Mazda of the exhaust valve seal issue. I always check my underhood fluids every couple of weeks so my oil level has never gotten so low as to trip the low oil level sensor. I typically add about 10-12 ounces of oil to bring the level back to the upper dot on the dipstick after 2,500 miles and change the oil at 5,000 miles so I only end up adding a small amount of oil one time between oil changes. I know I could attempt to get the valve seals replaced under warranty but after reading the repair procedure I really don't want some lackey tearing things apart for such a small amount of oil consumption.

Overall, I'm very satisfied with this engine and the primary reason I chose a Mazda was because they were the only manufacturer to offer a turbo within the vehicles that I was considering. I previously owned SAAB turbos and it's hard to give up a turbo once you've owned one.

 

[dougal]

Please elaborate on the oil burning on your 2021 2.5T that "have rectified themselves". Do you mean that you had an oil consumption issue that fixed itself?

I have a 2021 CX-5 with the 2.5T that I purchased new that now has about 38k miles. I noticed within the first 2000 miles or so that she was using a bit of oil. This was before any public admission by Mazda of the exhaust valve seal issue. I always check my underhood fluids every couple of weeks so my oil level has never gotten so low as to trip the low oil level sensor. I typically add about 10-12 ounces of oil to bring the level back to the upper dot on the dipstick after 2,500 miles and change the oil at 5,000 miles so I only end up adding a small amount of oil one time between oil changes. I know I could attempt to get the valve seals replaced under warranty but after reading the repair procedure I really don't want some lackey tearing things apart for such a small amount of oil consumption.

Overall, I'm very satisfied with this engine and the primary reason I chose a Mazda was because they were the only manufacturer to offer a turbo within the vehicles that I was considering. I previously owned SAAB turbos and it's hard to give up a turbo once you've owned one.

For all three of those cars, in the first 20-30K miles, I would be a quart down at 3000 miles. Search the oil burning thread and you will see my posts. I took pictures of everything. I take long trips (1200 miles round trip weekends) and often, I would lose a quart just from that. This was happening on all three of my 2021 2.5T cars. To say I was pissed would be a mild understatement.

However, and I am not sure what the heck happened, but all three cars stopped loosing any oil - up to 7500 miles. Not sure if things "swelled" or what happened, but everything seems fine on all three cars. The CX-9 has close to 80K miles, the CX-5 and Mazda 3 have close to 35K miles.

 

[Chocolate]

This is a pretty tired argument, especially from Scottie. The 2.5T is subject to cracked cylinder heads. The 2.5 NA was also cracking cylinder heads. Both are down to differing DESIGN defects.

We're light-years ahead of early turbocharged engines in both manufacturing processes and materials science. When designed using fatigue failure methodology, as all modern automotive manufacturers utilize, a properly designed turbocharged engine will last just as long as any properly designed NA engine.

A turbocharged engine still has more moving parts, connecting parts, and points of potential failure than the same engine without a turbo, right?

 

[HeloJoe]

A turbocharged engine still has more moving parts, connecting parts, and points of potential failure than the same engine without a turbo, right?

Correct. Complexity does not inherently introduce unreliability. Again, a PROPERLY DESIGNED turbocharged engine will be just as reliable as a "less complex" naturally aspirated engine.

Can I interest you in a less complex Hyundai Theta engine? It's naturally aspirated.

 

[Chocolate]

Complexity does not inherently introduce unreliability.

Re-he-he-heally? - Ace Ventura

www.youtube.com

More moving parts and fittings = Same reliability. Got it.

 

[HeloJoe]

Re-he-he-heally? - Ace Ventura

www.youtube.com

More moving parts and fittings = Same reliability. Got it.

The crux of the argument is that turbo engines are inherently more unreliable. That is a false premise. Manufacturing and materials science/processing are well understood fields. Fatigue failure methodology is well understood and utilized industry wide in automotive and aerospace.

Increased complexity does NOT inherently introduce more unreliability. It does necessitate a more rigid maintenance schedule, ergo leading to increased maintenance costs. Sure turbo engines are typically more expensive to operate and maintain. Barring a design or manufacturing defect, they're fully expected to last just as long as an NA engine.

Being more expensive to own and maintain does not make something more unreliable.

Commercial airliners are incredibly complex machines with tight maintenance schedules and high costs to operate. They aren't exactly falling out of the sky are they? Jet engines see exhaust gas temps between 2000-3000 °F and 8000-15000 RPM in excess of 10000 flight hours before they require a overhaul. That's a pretty rough environment.....but fatigue design methodology allows engineers to set a target and design to it. 99% of all engines will make it to 10000 flight hours just fine when maintained as prescribed and be successfully overhauled to live a second life, then a third.

Turbo engines are no different. Manufacturers set a life target. What that target is? Only Ford, Mazda, Nissan, etc. know. It's NEVER "infinite life" as that would be incredibly heavy, not particularly fuel efficient, and large.

I literally do this for a living on more complex machines than automobiles. Designing a turbocharged engine in today's world (barring fringe cases where new technology is being used re: Mercedes electric turbos) is easy for automotive manufacturers. I have no qualms about buying any turbocharged vehicle and neither should you or anyone else. If you're concern is that Mazda can't design a 2.5T to be reliable, you shouldn't be buying any of their vehicles.

 

[GTXT23]

As some on here may somehow remember, I'm a proponent of the N/A 2.5 litre engine, but I have to admit, based on what I've read on here at least, you may be blowing the downsides of the turbo engine and drivetrain out of proportion. A lot of people on here will tell you to get whichever one you want and can afford. I personally am happy with my N/A (pre-CD 2017) CX-5, other than wishing it got better gas mileage.

I was in fact trying to assemble my facts and make an unbiased point -

 

[cadcamjim]

For all three of those cars, in the first 20-30K miles, I would be a quart down at 3000 miles. Search the oil burning thread and you will see my posts. I took pictures of everything. I take long trips (1200 miles round trip weekends) and often, I would lose a quart just from that. This was happening on all three of my 2021 2.5T cars. To say I was pissed would be a mild understatement.

However, and I am not sure what the heck happened, but all three cars stopped loosing any oil - up to 7500 miles. Not sure if things "swelled" or what happened, but everything seems fine on all three cars. The CX-9 has close to 80K miles, the CX-5 and Mazda 3 have close to 35K miles.

Interesting. My CX-5 has never been on a long trip; maybe that is what it needs. I drive a little less than 50 miles a day, 6 days a week and I've really haven't taken a trip since I bought it. I probably need the long trip more than my CX-5.

Checking/adding a little oil is not a big deal for me as I have a nice garage full of tools and I've been working on my own cars for 50 years. So long as the oil consumption does not significantly increase I have no problem leaving things as they are.

 

[1killera4]

On my 3rd Audi Turbo and 2nd Turbo Mazda, never a Turbo related issue with any of them. All the Audis have been tuned also, Stage one on my current.

 

[Koko_Bandit]

We had 2 Audi turbos before buying our CX-5. The Q3 was a reliable car for the time we had it (~36,000 miles). It had a ~200hp 2.0L engine and 'traditional' automatic transmission. It was traded because we needed a truck after we moved to TN.

The Q5 was a 252hp 2.0L engine with a DCT transmission. I liked the transmission and how it shifted. It was like a very skilled person shifting a manual transmission. It did require more frequent and expensive transmission fluid changes. Engine mounts failed at 66k($1,200 @ indy shop) and the turbo wastegate actuator failed at 68k. The wastegate actuator is not a serviceable part nor sold seperately on this model which requires replacing the entire exhaust manifold assembly. Part was backordered for 7+ weeks and $2,500 to replace. Along with the other $$$$ items that were needing attention, we decided to cut our losses.

My criteria for a replacement was no CVT, and preferably no turbo since we were only 1 for 2 on turbos. That pointed us to the CX-5. Knowing that Mazda has had issues with their turbos in the past I was glad to see a NA engine was available. I have owned 3 other NA Mazdas in the past and my daughter has a 2016 CX-5. I did not dig deep enough into the new CX-5s to see they now have CD. I guess time will tell if I jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.

 

[chickdr]

We had 2 Audi turbos before buying our CX-5. The Q3 was a reliable car for the time we had it (~36,000 miles). It had a ~200hp 2.0L engine and 'traditional' automatic transmission. It was traded because we needed a truck after we moved to TN.

The Q5 was a 252hp 2.0L engine with a DCT transmission. I liked the transmission and how it shifted. It was like a very skilled person shifting a manual transmission. It did require more frequent and expensive transmission fluid changes. Engine mounts failed at 66k($1,200 @ indy shop) and the turbo wastegate actuator failed at 68k. The wastegate actuator is not a serviceable part nor sold seperately on this model which requires replacing the entire exhaust manifold assembly. Part was backordered for 7+ weeks and $2,500 to replace. Along with the other $$$$ items that were needing attention, we decided to cut our losses.

My criteria for a replacement was no CVT, and preferably no turbo since we were only 1 for 2 on turbos. That pointed us to the CX-5. Knowing that Mazda has had issues with their turbos in the past I was glad to see a NA engine was available. I have owned 3 other NA Mazdas in the past and my daughter has a 2016 CX-5. I did not dig deep enough into the new CX-5s to see they now have CD. I guess time will tell if I jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.

What issues? Possibly you mean the old RX-7? As far as I know other Mazda turbos did not have issues. I had an '88 323GT with a 1.6l turbo. No issues in all the time I owned it (7 yrs).

 

[Koko_Bandit]

What issues? Possibly you mean the old RX-7? As far as I know other Mazda turbos did not have issues. I had an '88 323GT with a 1.6l turbo. No issues in all the time I owned it (7 yrs).

The early turbo CX-7s had engine issues. I had a NA CX-7 and really liked it.

 

[chickdr]

That was quite a long time ago and not related to the current 2.5T in any way. Not that there is anything wrong with the NA motor either. I had the NA before my current 2.5T.