My Thoughts Driving a 2019 GT

:
CX5 GT-R
I think that turbos are meant (or at least portrayed as) to replace the NA V6 engines. And when compared to V6s, the gains are very minor in both the fuel economy and capabilities.

Maybe you're right that turbos provide a better capabilities in the smaller Crossovers but how much of those additional capabilities "regular" drivers use on a day to day basis?

So I like the current Mazda set up of having the option of both engines unlike other manufacturers who have completely switched to turbos. One of the reasons I bought the CX5.

Mine replaced my 4 NA cylinder. Much better mpg. Also, yes, I use the capabilities often that my 4 cylinder NA motor kept me from realizing the advantages of.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
I have not driven one but I don't doubt that turbos provide an improved driving experience specially when paired with Mazda's driving dynamics.

I just think that turbos will result in higher overall maintenance and ownership costs over time.

Just for example, turbos are recommended to have spark plugs replaced at 40k miles compared to 75k for non-turbos. That's 35k miles earlier which can be 2 or 3 years based on normal driving behavior. And I have mechanic friends who have seen many issues in longevity of turbos.

Now I know some people will argue the cost of changing spark plugs is cheap (if done by one self) but I am talking about regular people who can't do it themselves and this was just 1 example of how smaller costs can add up over time.

Also, at least Mazda turbo requires high octane gas to get the max out of the engine for towing and HP etc. So the cost of gas will add up to.

I am not here to bash the performance of the turbos and I think it's great that Mazda is providing the option unlike other manufacturers. I just like having the option to chose between the NA and Turbo engines.

The cost only adds up if you want to. You can run 87 octane and still stomp a mudhole in a NA CX5. Further, I get better mpg out of my turbo CX5 than my lighter NA 2015 CX5 (both AWD). Yes, the plugs is a thing. Yes, the turbo could die. Yes, that's why I got the 150K mile bumper to bumper warranty. Yes, it's worth it to have a vehicle that is massively faster and allows me to not hang out in the wrong lane FOREVER passing someone.
 
:
2016 CX-5 w/ Tech/Activsense
I haven't driven the Turbo yet, but am looking at upgrade to the 2020 when it comes out. Around Boston, its pretty much traffic from 6AM to 7PM 7 days a week. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where my '16 GT hasn't been enough. We don't really have passing around here.
 

7eregrine

The man, the myth, the legend
:
Land of Cleve
:
2016.5 CX5
Good review, brother.
I didn't have to change plugs any earlier in my turbos.
 
:
2017 CX-5
I think the higher maintenance thing for turbos is mostly myth at this point. That may have been true in the 80s (where I believe this opinion was established) but the technology has improved a lot. Sure there are other drawbacks and you cant have the power and efficiency at the same time. But I really love the torque and the fact that itll scoot even if youre a gear too high.
 
Mine replaced my 4 NA cylinder. Much better mpg. Also, yes, I use the capabilities often that my 4 cylinder NA motor kept me from realizing the advantages of.

The cost only adds up if you want to. You can run 87 octane and still stomp a mudhole in a NA CX5. Further, I get better mpg out of my turbo CX5 than my lighter NA 2015 CX5 (both AWD). Yes, the plugs is a thing. Yes, the turbo could die. Yes, that's why I got the 150K mile bumper to bumper warranty. Yes, it's worth it to have a vehicle that is massively faster and allows me to not hang out in the wrong lane FOREVER passing someone.

I didn't own a mazda or a crossover previously so I don't have a NA 4 to compare it to for MPG as I am only comparing it to the current mpgs for NA (26 mixed) vs Turbo (24 mixed) per Edmunds.

And my driving conditions are not same as yours and that's exactly why I love having the options which I am afraid are going away as more and more makers move to turbos.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
I didn't own a mazda or a crossover previously so I don't have a NA 4 to compare it to for MPG as I am only comparing it to the current mpgs for NA (26 mixed) vs Turbo (24 mixed) per Edmunds.

And my driving conditions are not same as yours and that's exactly why I love having the options which I am afraid are going away as more and more makers move to turbos.

Options are always nice, I'm comparing it to my last CX5 on the same daily commute, not something online that doesn't affect me.
 
:
2017 CX-5
I think it makes more sense to focus on the power and economy of the options vs a specific technology. They could for example use a 1.5 turbo instead of the 2.5 NA. Probably pretty similar.
 
I think it makes more sense to focus on the power and economy of the options vs a specific technology. They could for example use a 1.5 turbo instead of the 2.5 NA. Probably pretty similar.

I think due to Mazda being a smaller company, they are limited with their engine development.

They had the 2.5T with the CX9, so it was a natural progression for them to bring it to the CX5 and other models.

I think the longer a company uses a said engine the better reliability becomes..see the Totota 4 cyl and Honda V6s etc. So I think Mazda's NA 4 is here to stay but it will be limited in availability...like with base or Touring trims only.
 
I believe turbos are going to be in every trim level but the base in few MY.

I personally don't like turbos and always loved the NA engines. I do think that regular maintenance and long-term ownership costs will rise with the use of turbos.

I'm also not a big fan of turbo's. I also think my GT is fast enough and has enough power to merge onto highways. I had a turbo in the past and it was a maintenance nightmare. Mostly oil leaks and consumption.
 
:
2019 Mazda CX-5 GTR
You don't mention WHEN you had that problematic turbo, but they have come a long way. I had a problem free MINI Cooper S and now a GTR. Neither gave me even a hint of problems (so far) and if you didn't know it was a turbo motor, there'd be no way to tell when driving it. No lag, no whine, nothing but clean power.

Yes, the 40k mile plug change is a nit-picky PITA, but for the performance I'm enjoying, I can't complain.

If you are happy with your GT's performance, that really is all that matters!


I'm also not a big fan of turbo's. I also think my GT is fast enough and has enough power to merge onto highways. I had a turbo in the past and it was a maintenance nightmare. Mostly oil leaks and consumption.
 
:
2017 CX-5
I think due to Mazda being a smaller company, they are limited with their engine development.

They had the 2.5T with the CX9, so it was a natural progression for them to bring it to the CX5 and other models.

I think the longer a company uses a said engine the better reliability becomes..see the Totota 4 cyl and Honda V6s etc. So I think Mazda's NA 4 is here to stay but it will be limited in availability...like with base or Touring trims only.

I generally agree with you.

Maybe another way to put it is that, in my opinion, its a choice between better economy but less power or more power but less economy.

In the past this may have been an NA I4 or a larger NA V6.

With CX-5 it happens to be a NA or turbo I4 that just happen to have the same displacement which is maybe why its being viewed this way.

With an Escape as another example you have a similar situation but its a 1.5 (economy) or 2.0 (power) where both are turbo.
 
I generally agree with you.

Maybe another way to put it is that, in my opinion, its a choice between better economy but less power or more power but less economy.

In the past this may have been an NA I4 or a larger NA V6.

With CX-5 it happens to be a NA or turbo I4 that just happen to have the same displacement which is maybe why its being viewed this way.

With an Escape as another example you have a similar situation but its a 1.5 (economy) or 2.0 (power) where both are turbo.

You're probably right about comparing the 2.5L v 2.5T in the cx-5 and with the added weight over the years the difference is more noticeable compared to someone who didn't drive the pre 2017 CX-5.

But when comparing it to the competition's CR-V, RAV4, etc I think the NA 2.5 is plenty. IMO
 
The cost only adds up if you want to. You can run 87 octane and still stomp a mudhole in a NA CX5. Further, I get better mpg out of my turbo CX5 than my lighter NA 2015 CX5 (both AWD). Yes, the plugs is a thing. Yes, the turbo could die. Yes, that's why I got the 150K mile bumper to bumper warranty. Yes, it's worth it to have a vehicle that is massively faster and allows me to not hang out in the wrong lane FOREVER passing someone.
Totally exagerated, I've never had an issue passing traffic with the NA 2.5. Our 2018 CX5 hasn't ever made us think its power level was inadequate.

While the turbo is excellent, its also much higher priced.
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
Totally exagerated, I've never had an issue passing traffic with the NA 2.5. Our 2018 CX5 hasn't ever made us think its power level was inadequate.

While the turbo is excellent, its also much higher priced.

Yep, I agree. I've been very happy with my NA 2.5L in my 2014. Fast on paper? Nope, but very responsive, feels peppy, and has never failed to be pushed when I needed it to.
 
:
2019 Mazda CX-5 GTR
The question --- Is my power level adequate? Is obviously a highly subjective one. What someone thinks is adequate, I might suggest is not. What I might suggest is adequate, someone might suggest is overkill, while others might consider even that to be inadequate! There is no right or wrong answer!
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
The question --- Is my power level adequate? Is obviously a highly subjective one. What someone thinks is adequate, I might suggest is not. What I might suggest is adequate, someone might suggest is overkill, while others might consider even that to be inadequate! There is no right or wrong answer!

I agree. I think a lot of folks dissatisfied with the NA engine are used to higher output stuff. For me, I live at higher elevation, and when I bought it lived around a 9k elevation, and even then NA output was just fine. Pass no problem. I'll admit, above 70 MPH it doesn't have the same oomph as lower speeds, but it's still never failed to deliver. I've also driven sustained 110 MPH through stretches of I-80 in Wyoming before.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
Totally exagerated, I've never had an issue passing traffic with the NA 2.5. Our 2018 CX5 hasn't ever made us think its power level was inadequate.

While the turbo is excellent, its also much higher priced.

I wouldn't presume to tell you about your commute. I'm glad it worked well for you. It didn't for me.
 

shadonoz

SkyActiv Member
Contributor
:
State of Jefferson
:
2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
The question --- Is my power level adequate? Is obviously a highly subjective one. What someone thinks is adequate, I might suggest is not. What I might suggest is adequate, someone might suggest is overkill, while others might consider even that to be inadequate! There is no right or wrong answer!

Words to live by, kids.
 
I agree. I think a lot of folks dissatisfied with the NA engine are used to higher output stuff. For me, I live at higher elevation, and when I bought it lived around a 9k elevation, and even then NA output was just fine. Pass no problem. I'll admit, above 70 MPH it doesn't have the same oomph as lower speeds, but it's still never failed to deliver. I've also driven sustained 110 MPH through stretches of I-80 in Wyoming before.

maybe those that are satisfied with the NA are used to driving 4 cyl vehicles perhaps. Coming from 6 cyl vehicles, I wasn't going to "settle" for the NA when the turbo was available.