- :
- Denver, CO
Yep, CX-5 does fantastic here in Denver and Colorado. I love it.
Super dissatisfied with the CX-5 2.5 Turbo Part 2
- Thread starter ourlee
- Start date
Yep, CX-5 does fantastic here in Denver and Colorado. I love it.
Every bit of ground clearance helps when you have challenged approach/departure angles. Within limits that inch probably doesn't mean as much for snow covered surfaces but for solid objects it surely does. I already had to replace a minorly damaged floorboard under cover.
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123865595-Floor-Under-Covers
An inch lower it probably would have torn off and potentially damaged the metal surface on the underside of floorboard.
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123865595-Floor-Under-Covers
An inch lower it probably would have torn off and potentially damaged the metal surface on the underside of floorboard.
There's no way I believe those numbers. The Gen 2 w/2.5T is significantly faster then my Gen 1. And why would a CX-5 2.5T be slower then the "porkier" CX-9.
I'm still awaiting credible numbers. My guess is 6.7 on regular. (ie halfway between Mazda 6 and CX-9)
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
Yeah, so the broken in car is a hair faster than the non broken in car.
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
Mazda claims 0-60 times with TCS on. Car and driver and other places turn TCS and other things off to give the best numbers (and calculate things to account for temp and conditions).
For example, Mazda's official time for the CX-9 is 7.8 seconds. But Car and Driver has been as low as 6.8. That is because they turn TCS off. Mazda's numbers for the 2014 CX-5 was ~8.3 seconds. With TCS of that dropped to ~7.6. For the 2019 CX-5 2.5T, Mazda's 7.2 seconds is with TCS on and most likely will drop to 6.5-6.8 with TCS off. It is all meaningless because very few people drive with TCS off.
Low end torque tricks you into thinking its faster than it really is. In the grand scheme of things Mazdas (excluding MSP models) aren't built for 0-60 numbers anyways. They are made to feel good driving daily in traffic or driving back winding roads.
Instead of asking well whats the 0-60. We should measure the smile on face factor.
2016 Gen 1 AWD did it in 7.7 seconds
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-cx-5-25l-awd-test-review
2017 Gen2 FWD did it in 7.8 seconds (skidpad number was better than Gen1)
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review
Not sure why the 2017 Gen 2 AWD test slower (8.1), but maybe they forgot to turn off traction control.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-awd-instrumented-test-review
I think the 2014 AWD clocked the only 7.6, as you mentioned, but it was 57 pounds lighter than the 2016 AWD and 170 pounds lighter than the 2017 AWD. It was also noisy and unrefined. Wish I had kept mine for track days, lol.
Agree 1000%
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
I get a lot of smiles from mine and it's slow
7eregrine
The man, the myth, the legend
- :
- Land of Cleve
- :
- 2016.5 CX5
Same. I cannot believe we are still talking 0-60 times.
SignatureCX5
Member
- :
- 2019 Signature CX-5 Black Mica
Exactly. My Spec Miata is all over the backs of 600-700 HP Vettes at the track racing through 'corners' yet my 0-60 is pathetic... I don't even know what it is...LOL
But I will say there's some fun in fast 0-60 times. My Z06 will do it in 3.5 and someone got a stock '17 L5P Duramax like mine to do it in 6 seconds...not bad for an 8000 lb truck...also not good for the truck to spool up the turbo and launch in 4WD but still amazing.
Back to the 2.5T in the CX5 I bet in the right conditions, with 93 octane, proper launch and spooling upthee turbo with TC off 6.5 seconds can be obtained.
I willing to prove it with anyone who wants to lend me their 2 5T CX-5
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
Exactly. My Spec Miata is all over the backs of 600-700 HP Vettes at the track racing through 'corners' yet my 0-60 is pathetic... I don't even know what it is...LOL
But I will say there's some fun in fast 0-60 times. My Z06 will do it in 3.5 and someone got a stock '17 L5P Duramax like mine to do it in 6 seconds...not bad for an 8000 lb truck...also not good for the truck to spool up the turbo and launch in 4WD but still amazing.
Back to the 2.5T in the CX5 I bet in the right conditions, with 93 octane, proper launch and spooling upthee turbo with TC off 6.5 seconds can be obtained.
I willing to prove it with anyone who wants to lend me their 2 5T CX-5
Stall speed is between 2600-2900 rpm, you better have some good tire lol. Although at least with the 2.5/2.0 if you try and launch from stall DSC cut power when you release the brake.. unless you remove the dsc fuse.
Nigel Tufnel
Member
- :
- 2007 Mazda 3 5-door
I test drove both a 2.5 GT and a 2.5 GTR turbo today back to back. My impression is the base engine is pretty nice in both with smooth, predictable shifts and a not exactly quiet but not unpleasant engine note when it revs. I did think the turbo was a bit quieter, I assume because the engine doesn't need to work as hard to provide power. But there is no turbo sound to speak of, I never noticed it. There is not even any indicators for turbo activity on the screens (even my wife's Civic has this). I wasn't blown away by the turbo's power either, as others have said here it is not at all a street racer type setup that is going to launch you. However, the turbo lag is low, the torque comes on at low rpms and it does provide that little extra bit of pull at speed that the non-turbo engine can struggle to provide even at high rpms. So I decided to order with the turbo, even though I didn't mind the non-turbo engine, if the non-turbo had another 30 or so horses I think it would be perfectly adequate.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the folks in the western (mountain) states think the non turbo CX 5 is just fine, whereas the folks in the south and California think it's a dawg?!
Happy Holidays everyone.
- :
- Denver, CO
I agree. I don't get it. I'm driving mine in high elevation often and have found the NA engine just fine.
SignatureCX5
Member
- :
- 2019 Signature CX-5 Black Mica
Turbo is much better in the mountains because it compensates for the thinner air at altitude. I live at 3400' and mountain passes are 5000'. At 5000' and NA engine will lose up to 20% of its power. With the forced induction (turbo) you dont lose as much percentage wise and you start out with a lot more power to begin with. If you live at high altitudes or drive through the mountains often without question the turbo is the way to go.
- :
- Denver, CO
Meh we all know this and nobody is disputing that.
We are making fun of the lowlanders who complain on power when us highlanders are largely satisfied with the NA engine. It seem like a disconnect no?
For reference I lived at 9000 ft when I bought, currently live at 5400-5600 ft (estimation). I've driven this up past 14000 ft, and mountain passes between 9000 - 12000 ft
To me you're a lowlander [emoji14]
As a spirited driver, 2.5L NA engine performs fine here. Would a turbo make it even better? Absolutely
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Meh we all know this and nobody is disputing that.
We are making fun of the lowlanders who complain on power when us highlanders are largely satisfied with the NA engine. It seem like a disconnect no?
For reference I lived at 9000 ft when I bought, currently live at 5400-5600 ft (estimation). I've driven this up past 14000 ft, and mountain passes between 9000 - 12000 ft
To me you're a lowlander [emoji14]
As a spirited driver, 2.5L NA engine performs fine here. Would a turbo make it even better? Absolutely
Maybe has to do with t he fact that the roads are twistier where you are. I know when I'm driving around home I don't mind it, it's only on road-trips to TX and OK, etc. where there are totally flat expanses that it bugs me. Otherwise, you're limited more by chassis and tires than you are engine.
