After driving the MY14 Touring home, all I have to say is that if you think the 2.0L lacked power, and wished it had a little more get the 2.5L. It's not a little and the torque kicks in way down low. The MPG for local driving may suffer, but you don't need to slam the peddle down to get it to go compared to the 2.0L.
Those Taking Delivery of 2014 CX-5 w/ 2.5L Power Plant
- Thread starter STE92VE
- Start date
tarapajero1
Member
- :
- Mazda CX-5
Seriously the 2.5L engine is best as compare to 2.0L engine.
Best? It has more power but also uses more fuel. Since the 2.0L does everything I ask of it, the slightly higher fuel consumption of the 2.5L would be unwelcome. I would consider the 2.5L if I were using it for towing a trailer or lots of freeway miles with luggage on the roof or if my daily driving took me to high altitudes on fast freeways. But I don't do any of those things. The 2.0L with AWD and automatic transmission performs really well going to the local ski area with four men and gear inside the vehicle but the altitude is only 4300 feet above sea level. If nobody was in my way I would drive a lot faster and I still wouldn't feel limited by power. That's based on a couple of trips I made when there was not the usual string of cars going too slow for conditions.
Powerful engines made more sense back in the 1970's before gas was expensive, speed limits were rigidly enforced and most roads became somewhat congested. If I wanted speed I wouldn't have purchased a SUV.
Finally got to drive one today and couldn't agree more. I almost bought the 2.0 last year but just couldn't get past the power issue. Kudos to Mazda for realizing this and making the 2.5 standard on the higher trims. I guess they read some of the many reviews that highlight this. Now I just have to decide if it's going to be the cx-5 or the Forester.
Last edited:
Yes, if best is measured performance difference, I'm confident that the 2.5L will be quicker once the major publications do instrumented testing.
No free lunch given the higher purchase price premium of $1000 (compared to early 2012 MSRP) or $600 (compared to late 2012 MSRP), and fuel consumption difference.
And it's still a in-line 4 with same NVH characteristics of such an engine.
Regardless, it's a reasonable value IMHO, a nice upgrade without being excessive from any standpoint.
CurlyBrian
Member
- :
- 2013 Mazda CX-5 FWD Auto Touring
The numbers: 2013 29 mpg vs 2014 27 mpg (combined FWD via EPA site) = about 7% difference. Driving 15,000 miles is 517 gallons @ 29mpg vs 555 gallons @ 27mpg. At $4/gallon that is a difference of $152. Or $1,520 over the 10 year span I own our typical car. Not taking into account the initial price difference between the model years.
Old thread I know, but I am in a good position to answer. I have the 2014gt with 2.5. I have now had a loaner 2013 2.0 for over a week or 1/5 the time I have "owned" mine. Anyway, since my car was very fresh and new to me and this loaner is now fresh and new right after I basically test drove both for a little over a week. Here are my thoughts.
2.0 is not as doggish as I expected, and is peppy if you keep it above 3,000 rpms. That said the 2.5 feels more torqey and definitely has more of a punch than pep when needed.
I am getting about 2.5 more mpg with the 2.0, and I put some miles on the loaner in a real world work week. I believe it is truly 2 miles plus real world better mpg.
Passing power and dead stop power to start is where I think the 2.5 makes the car feel capable, as where the 2.0 feels ehh in those areas but other than that for normal driving they are fairly similar. It isn't like I was blown away by the power in the 2.5, it frankly feels like not enough, but at the same time it is welcome in situations over the 2.0, however I feel real world gas is more than they imply.
Not sure who or what was implied?
Latitude Adj.
Member
- :
- Silver CX-5 GT AWD
I didn't think mine was working but dealer said yes, felt it once on a tight exit ramp when it saw a pole just to my left as I turned right. Yesterday it scared the crap out of my wife when we pulled into a parking spot that had a tree limb that would have hung over the hood! We thought we'd hit something on the ground under the limb.
As for the 2.5, I'd come from a CX-7 which also had a 2.5 and weighed more, I sure miss that turbo kicking in, the CX-5 feels wimpy but gets 10 mpg more than the CX-7
Really cxsv? That wasn't a clear comparison of the 2 engines? Who? How did you get a who from that?
Ok. Let me try again and make it easier to understand.
2.0 is better mpg by more than they claim. I say by 2.5mpg.
2.5 has definitely welcomed punchiness, especially at lower rpms, but still not a lot more so it just feels like a more capable car rather than getting an engine upgrade that makes it quick or fast.
Of course my 2.5 is in shop for o2 sensor related things so it is possible that my concept of gas milage on my 2.5 Is skewed by a problem that would directly effect my MPG and power/punch, but I don't think so.
Ok. Let me try again and make it easier to understand.
2.0 is better mpg by more than they claim. I say by 2.5mpg.
2.5 has definitely welcomed punchiness, especially at lower rpms, but still not a lot more so it just feels like a more capable car rather than getting an engine upgrade that makes it quick or fast.
Of course my 2.5 is in shop for o2 sensor related things so it is possible that my concept of gas milage on my 2.5 Is skewed by a problem that would directly effect my MPG and power/punch, but I don't think so.
This is spot on! I had a 13 sport for 16 moths and now have had a 14 touring for 5 weeks. The real world mileage difference seems to be somewhere between 1 & 2 mpg less with the 2.5 depending on the driving. I just did some 0-60 testing with my broken in 2.5 on my G-Tech in the same location and weather conditions I got 0-60 in 8.44 seconds with the 2.0. The results surprised me. As soon as I can get my laptop fixed I'll post a full review. I have 5 weeks of mileage tracked in my fuelly for the 2.5. You can compare those #'s to the 2.0.
Last edited:
I'm definitely glad I test drove a 2.0L before I passed on it. And this is what I would recommend to those who are concerned about a lack of power (a test drive). Even with AWD/Auto I find it plenty perky, especially under 70 mph. It's not going to win any drag races but it definitely performed far better than I expected after reading some of the reviews that said it felt under-powered.
I think people who call it under-powered have a slow foot or timid driving style. A quick depression of the accelerator is all it takes to effect a downshift or two - if you depress the accelerator too slowly you are communicating that you want to drive mellow and it will hold a tall gear and feel very sluggish. It's generally not necessary to floor it unless doing a high speed passing maneuver but a quick depression half-way to the floor will shift it into "sport" mode almost instantly. Very little delay and impressive how relaxed the motor sounds spinning 3,000-4,000 rpms, in the meat of the torque curve. Zoom-zoom.
A sweet little engine that satisfies the driver in me (in a way that more powerful engines often don't).
Exspeedaway
Member
- :
- Mazda CX5 dark grey
I didn't think mine was working but dealer said yes, felt it once on a tight exit ramp when it saw a pole just to my left as I turned right. Yesterday it scared the crap out of my wife when we pulled into a parking spot that had a tree limb that would have hung over the hood! We thought we'd hit something on the ground under the limb.
As for the 2.5, I'd come from a CX-7 which also had a 2.5 and weighed more, I sure miss that turbo kicking in, the CX-5 feels wimpy but gets 10 mpg more than the CX-7
There is no such thing as a turbo on a 2.5 CX7, you are probably referring to the 2.3turbo, the same i had on my previous Speed3.
Or the plain 2.5 they put on late model CX7.
Thought that I'd add to this topic after lurking on the forum for a very long time (thanks everyone for all the great info). We picked up our first Mazda (2013 CX-5 GT with 2.0L) in May of last year and I drive it every day. We love the car and decided to buy a 2014 CX-5 GT (2.5L) in February of this year. My wife drives the 2014 daily. But I drive it as well and am the sole driver on long trips. I would echo what was said by V8toilet and Nick3434. The 2.0 is a great engine with sufficient power for the average driver. I do notice the 2.0 lacking a little when the air conditioning is on and I really have to jump on the accelerator.
There is a real world difference in mileage between the two. We just hit 7,500 miles on the 2014 and we average 29.5 MPG on the highway. The 2013 (17K miles on it) gets around 32 MPG on the same 800 mile trip that we've done a few times. We have roof rails and cross bars on the 2014 but not the 2013 though. Both are AWD/Auto.
For our use, the 2.0L gives us what we need and factoring in the mileage, I actually prefer it over the 2.5L.
Last edited:
Well, 60mph = 88 feet per second, so 19mph = just under 27 feet per second. This has to do with the maximum distance the radar is designed to be effective, and (a small part) delays in the electronics before applying brakes. I don't know if there's an electronic override for the hydraulic pressure braking system, but that could also account for part of the limits of the SCBS.
The place where it should save everybody's *** is when you're creeping in bumper-to-bumper traffic. How many times have you been stuck in traffic like that, and when it starts moving, you find 3-4 other accidents on the way up to the big one? (It won't save you from the guy behind you, though.)
Welcome to the forum (at least as a new contributor!).
As a two CX-5 owner (2013 and 2014) I hope you continue to contribute your thoughts and experiences as time goes on.
