Wife drives a 19 Signature that I absolutely love, so does she. When I went to replace my car (06 Outback beater) I didn't want another CX5 so I got a new Outback XT w the little turbo. I'm not sure I'm keeping it though. Real world the turbo is thrashy and unrefined, a lot of the gee-whiz technology is glitchy, and most important to me the mpg is low. I cannot get anything above 21 no matter how hard I try, or don't try. Hence this post.
Since I bought the Outback right, I'm toying w idea of trading it on another 5 (it's a superior car in every way but cargo room). Now we get a consistent 23-24 from or 5 Signature, obviously it has the turbo. EPA #s don't show it but I'm wondering if the non-aspirated base 2.5 "generally" gets better mpg than the turbo in the real world? I know the Mazda turbo is different design but most little turbos are less efficient than their NA siblings. Fuelly seems to bear that out for the CX5 but it's very difficult to tell.
Any info?
Since I bought the Outback right, I'm toying w idea of trading it on another 5 (it's a superior car in every way but cargo room). Now we get a consistent 23-24 from or 5 Signature, obviously it has the turbo. EPA #s don't show it but I'm wondering if the non-aspirated base 2.5 "generally" gets better mpg than the turbo in the real world? I know the Mazda turbo is different design but most little turbos are less efficient than their NA siblings. Fuelly seems to bear that out for the CX5 but it's very difficult to tell.
Any info?