2018 CX-5 head gasket issues?

:
2018 CX-5 Sport
I still think turbos will be problematic over the long term, 10 years or more. On the race track guys turbo charge their cars for speed and they are always rebuilding their top end and replacing the turbo. If they didn't have a turbo they could do run after run with no damage. They would go a lot slower on their passes though. I rather not have CD but I am guessing that it will be less problematic than a turbo for most people for the long term. If CD is a major issue in the long term then I will never get a car with CD or a turbo. It may be harder to find as manufacturers of gas powered cars have to add turbos or stop and go or other gimmicks to meet the government pollution standards. I guess electric cars will be what we get in the future.
 
The Mazda 2.5L turbo has been a DISASTER on the CX9. Look up 2.5L turbo coolant leaking…….makes the CD issue seem like a nothingburger in comparison.

It’s not IF a 2016 CX9 will develop engine trouble, it’s a matter of when.
Anyone thinking the 2.5L Turbo is without major issues, the facts do not line up. Just check the forums, tons of problems with the earlier 2.5LT.
 
The Mazda 2.5L turbo has been a DISASTER on the CX9. Look up 2.5L turbo coolant leaking…….makes the CD issue seem like a nothingburger in comparison.

It’s not IF a 2016 CX9 will develop engine trouble, it’s a matter of when.
Anyone thinking the 2.5L Turbo is without major issues, the facts do not line up. Just check the forums, tons of problems with the earlier 2.5LT.
Not sure what the fascination is with turbos. Took Honda off my list due to the turbo and oil dilution issues they are seeing. They even recalled CRVs in certain regions over it. So far Toyota has avoided turbos. And Mazda at least hasn't applied turbo to the whole line. Going to be hard to find a car without a turbo 10 years from now.
 
Thanks to all who responded to this thread. After lots of thought, my parents ended up test driving a CX30. What made this easier was the fact that the used prices are out of control and 0% financing on the CX30. I was really hoping they would want to get the 2016 CX5 GT with ONLY 13k on it, but the dealer wanted over 25k for it out the door and would not budge. My wife and I also drove the CX30 and really like it. It is a little on the small size for me, but for my parents its a good fit. They only put about 10k total on 2 cars, so even split, that is 5k on the new car a year, so this car should be enough for them for some time....unless all the "rust" talk turns out to be true.
 
:
NY
:
2021 CX-5 Sig.
The Mazda 2.5L turbo has been a DISASTER on the CX9. Look up 2.5L turbo coolant leaking…….makes the CD issue seem like a nothingburger in comparison.

It’s not IF a 2016 CX9 will develop engine trouble, it’s a matter of when.
Anyone thinking the 2.5L Turbo is without major issues, the facts do not line up. Just check the forums, tons of problems with the earlier 2.5LT.
Again, guys there's just constant anecdotes being posted here as fact. A small subset of 2016 CX9s having issues a DISASTER does not make. When MAZDA has to warrant for life 2M+ engines spanning multiple generations you'll have made your point.

Everything being brought up here is simply manufacturing issues that happen to all makes and models. Even the venerable Camry has grenaded a small subset of engines or transmissions throughout its model generations. You'll find no one claiming Camry's are disastrous.

Not sure what the fascination is with turbos. Took Honda off my list due to the turbo and oil dilution issues they are seeing. They even recalled CRVs in certain regions over it. So far Toyota has avoided turbos. And Mazda at least hasn't applied turbo to the whole line. Going to be hard to find a car without a turbo 10 years from now.
Smaller displacement leads to reduced fuel consumption for similar power levels to larger displacement engines. For instance, Mazda CX9 with the 2.5T makes the same power (with regular) as a Mistubishi Outlander GT with the 6B31 (a 3.0L V6) and has a +2MPG Highway and +2 MPG city delta. The outlander als ok REQUIRES premium fuel to achieve peak power and MPGs.

I still think turbos will be problematic over the long term, 10 years or more. On the race track guys turbo charge their cars for speed and they are always rebuilding their top end and replacing the turbo. If they didn't have a turbo they could do run after run with no damage. They would go a lot slower on their passes though. I rather not have CD but I am guessing that it will be less problematic than a turbo for most people for the long term.
I don't even know where to begin with this. How many street/strip cars have your raced? I've had 10+ turbo sedans and couples, 6 of which I had running well over 700hp on a small 2.0L engine. If I had to "tear them down after each run," I'd have been broke. Never a mechanical failure in any of my "race cars" I simply sold them when I felt like moving on to a new platform. Turbocharging is VERY well understood and materials science has come a very long way in 100 years. I'd be more concerned with complex or unproven mechanical systems like CD or variable displacement (looking at you Nissan) vs any forced induction. Forced induction isnt complex nor is it unproven and strictly comes down to the correct application of materials and material specs.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
Thanks to all who responded to this thread. After lots of thought, my parents ended up test driving a CX30. What made this easier was the fact that the used prices are out of control and 0% financing on the CX30. I was really hoping they would want to get the 2016 CX5 GT with ONLY 13k on it, but the dealer wanted over 25k for it out the door and would not budge. My wife and I also drove the CX30 and really like it. It is a little on the small size for me, but for my parents its a good fit. They only put about 10k total on 2 cars, so even split, that is 5k on the new car a year, so this car should be enough for them for some time....unless all the "rust" talk turns out to be true.
I believe you made a right decision getting a brand new 2021 CX-30 instead of a used CX-5 if your parents feel the size is fine. More importantly there’s no cylinder deactivation now on the 2.5L used on CX-30. If your parents live in the salt area, you do need to think about rust proofing on any Mazda’s, not just CX-30. Which trim level on CX-30 did you get? (LED lightings ⋯) Congrats!
 

HardRightEdg

US 2020 CX-5 Touring AWD Soul Red
It seems most issues with cylinder deactivation relate to low gear performance, jolts and lugs, as discussed at length in this thread:


In that latter pages of that thread is the following TSB as a possible solution:

file:///C:/Users/jdelf/Documents/Downloads/MC-10185048-0001%20(1).pdf

I had that TSB applied last week and since my initial impressions posted in that thread I've put on another 100 miles of local, less than zoom-zoom, driving. There are subtle but worthy improvements in my 2020. In trying to "manufacture" a jolt I was getting a not entirely unpleasant bump-zoom. I can now get it to the edge of a lug but it takes more effort to manufacture it and it is less notable and bothersome than before.

My pre-TSB impression that the low gear issues were not CD-caused per se, rather an engine-transmission integration issue, is on the way to being confirmed. I'm a driver, not an automotive engineer, but I think there's more to this TSB than just suppression of torque resonance. Or the question is, "What did they do to suppress that resonance?" I seem to feel a little more engine braking in the low gears and a little firmer gas pedal. I think they might have tweaked the torque curve and/or the power curve. It's a PCM change, not specifically a trans software update.

I had the TSB applied at the same time as an oil change--one year old oil with 4k miles. I doubt fresh oil would cause these kinds of differences.

All-in-all, so far, the vehicle behavior is now not outside the bounds of inherent limitations in a normally aspirated 4-cylinder 6-speed set up. Feels pretty good now, actually, pending more driving. I'm heading out on a 1,500 mile road trip on Sunday. I'll probably have a follow-up in that other thread after that.

Under the heading of “unintended consequences”, the gas mileage still looks good and no idiot lights have displayed—so far so good.

Or as one other poster said in that other thread with an enviable economy of words ;), "It's fixed!" or something like that. I may join him in that declaration after the road trip.
We got off topic here, but since we were on the subject here's an update post road-trip, 17 days and 1,900 miles (about 60% expressway) since the torque resonance TSB was applied.

Not much to add after the initial impressions above. It still bumps at times (I wouldn't say "jerks") when shifting up or down in low gears, but I'd still say those bumps are not entirely unpleasant, kinda like if you were driving a stick. My main beef pre-TSB was the lugging, such as when decelerating into a turn and then reaccelerating--that's been sharply reduced.

As for mpgs, 32.7 on the tip meter on my the last tank, exclusively downwind cruising around 70-72 mphs, so no change there. If there's any carbon buildup on this vehicle's valves at nearly 10,000 miles it's cosmetic; it does not show up in the mpgs, and that's the barometer I go by.