CX-5 gets a turbocharged 2.5L gas engine!

[MikeM.]

http://www.futurecars.com/reviews/gas-powered/2015-mazda-cx-5-is-more-grown-up-than-you-might-think

The 2015 CX-5 is powered by a 2.5-liter turbocharged SKYACTIV four-cylinder engine that outputs 184 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque. In a crossover the size of the CX-5, thats more than enough with some left over.

What is wrong with these automotive journalists anyway?

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Lol, when I saw the title and the poster I was like oh snap this must be legit. Crap journalism.

 

[yrwei52]

http://www.futurecars.com/reviews/gas-powered/2015-mazda-cx-5-is-more-grown-up-than-you-might-think

The 2015 CX-5 is powered by a 2.5-liter turbocharged SKYACTIV four-cylinder engine that outputs 184 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque. In a crossover the size of the CX-5, thats more than enough with some left over.

What is wrong with these automotive journalists anyway?

These automotive journalists thought all automakers were taking an easy way out with smaller displacement engine and turbo charger for better EPA fuel economy. They didn't even aware Mazda took a totally different SkyActiv way for better efficiency. (boom01)

 

[BigBuckNasty1]

Yeah they just jumped the gun and assumed since it's about theonly one without it.

Though it'd be nice if they started putting a turbo on too

 

[gazelle]

Though it'd be nice if they started putting a turbo on too

~8 sec 0-60 is not enough? it's a budget CUV for Christ sake

 

[yrwei52]

Though it'd be nice if they started putting a turbo on too

~8 sec 0-60 is not enough? it's a budget CUV for Christ sake

Several auto magazines got 7.6~7.8 seconds on a CX-5 GT AWD for 0-60! That's one of the fastest compact CUV's you can find. People just get spoiled nowadays. If you want more power, the fuel efficiency will suffer. There is no way to get around it.

SA-G naturally aspirated engines are designed for efficiency with 13:1 or 14:1 high compression ratio without the help of turbo charger. I wonder if it can really maximize the performance and efficiency with a turbo charger which against its principles of design? Besides, I personally prefer not to worried about possible reliability issue on turbo due to extra plumbing and extremely high temperature.

 

[Unobtanium]

~8 sec 0-60 is not enough? it's a budget CUV for Christ sake

It's sufficient, but I really would prefer a 0-60 in the 5.5-6.5 second range. Roughly 8 seconds is total pud territory, but it's not unsafe really, so I deal with it.

 

[MikeM.]

It's sufficient, but I really would prefer a 0-60 in the 5.5-6.5 second range.

I'm confused. You knew the CX-5 could not even come close to what you wanted but you bought it anyway.

Why??

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Actually there is a video of the chief mazda engineer saying a turbo system for skyg has been developed.

 

[ourlee]

i forget, do i have to be a better driver to drive a turbo or am i a better driver if i drive an underpowered car? damn it, someone set me straight.

 

[Unobtanium]

I'm confused. You knew the CX-5 could not even come close to what you wanted but you bought it anyway.

Why??

Because it's sufficient.

 

[paris1]

I'm confused. You knew the CX-5 could not even come close to what you wanted but you bought it anyway. Why??

Not so much confused as irritating Mike. You're a smart guy; I know you can figure these things out on your own!

 

[MikeM.]

Not so much confused as irritating Mike. You're a smart guy; I know you can figure these things out on your own!

No, honestly, I don't understand a purchaser lamenting the fact that it takes almost a whopping 8 seconds to reach cruising speed when he could have bought a vehicle that does it in his "preferred" 5.5-6.5 seconds.

Of course then it's not going to get 30 MPG (or it's going to be a much smaller car) which is what my point was. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you find my comments irritating then you have a similar kind of logical disconnect going on. This forum has an "ignore user" feature. Please use it.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

A 5.5 second suv of comparable size was ( and still is) out of my price range. I don't really like the bmw looks, audi looks is meh, Porchse Mecan is way out of my price range lol. That mercedes cuv looks decent, but still too $$. For me upgrading to 2.5 and getting a tune is enough until engine internals pop up.

 

[Unobtanium]

A 5.5 second suv of comparable size was ( and still is) out of my price range. I don't really like the bmw looks, audi looks is meh, Porchse Mecan is way out of my price range lol. That mercedes cuv looks decent, but still too $$. For me upgrading to 2.5 and getting a tune is enough until engine internals pop up.

And here is your answer Mike. The German vehicles didn't have near the reliability track record and the mileage sucked in comparison. And like I said....8 seconds is sufficient. Why didn't you buy a diesel or hybrid? I suspect 30s in the mpg dept....is sufficient.

 

[Oldengineer]

And here is your answer Mike. The German vehicles didn't have near the reliability track record and the mileage sucked in comparison. And like I said....8 seconds is sufficient. Why didn't you buy a diesel or hybrid? I suspect 30s in the mpg dept....is sufficient.

I own a M-B GLK 350 4Matic in addition to my CX-5. I've owned the Benz since 2011, and, there have been no reliability issues with it. Given that it'll do 0-60 in about 6 flat, the vehicle gets 24 MPG on trips running 75 on interstates. The Mazda beats it by about 3 MPG under the same conditions.

Regards:
Oldengineer

 

[Unobtanium]

I own a M-B GLK 350 4Matic in addition to my CX-5. I've owned the Benz since 2011, and, there have been no reliability issues with it. Given that it'll do 0-60 in about 6 flat, the vehicle gets 24 MPG on trips running 75 on interstates. The Mazda beats it by about 3 MPG under the same conditions.

Regards:
Oldengineer

I have not heard of issues with them, but sooner or later everything will break. The mazda is just cheaper to put right. Does the MB run on 87?

 

[iced_theater]

You guys would hate living where I do if 8 seconds to 60mph is too slow. The average naturally aspirated engine here will lose around 20% of it's power compared to it at sea level.

 

[halfast3]

You guys would hate living where I do if 8 seconds to 60mph is too slow. The average naturally aspirated engine here will lose around 20% of it's power compared to it at sea level.

Your response would have a lot more significance it you would take a few moments to fill out your profile indicating where that is...

 

[MikeM.]

You guys would hate living where I do if 8 seconds to 60mph is too slow. The average naturally aspirated engine here will lose around 20% of it's power compared to it at sea level.

I've only had my 2.0L CX-5 up to 5,500 feet ASL but I can report that I've never driven a NA car or truck that seemingly lost so little power due to the altitude.


It might have to do with the fact that the CX-5 can adjust both the intake and exhaust valve timing on the fly according to conditions. In fact, above 5000 feet and above 70 mph, my CX-5 feels like it has a little more acceleration than it does at sea level. At speeds 40 mph and below I can feel a little less power is available but it does really well on faster mountain pass highways when overtaking the slower moving traffic.

I don't have to rev the snot out of it as the middle rpm's work so well. It's the sweetest small NA engine I've ever had the pleasure of driving.