2014 CX-5 2.5L Skyactiv Performance

[xwedge]

This past weekend, I got to try out the new 2014 mazda cx5 2.5L. I could definitely feel the extra torque right away. According to some people who test drove it and thought that it wasn't much of a difference, I'll have to disagree because I thought it was a huge difference, especially entering the freeway as well as going up hills. I have to note that on flat road acceleration, it seems quite similar in the 0-2500 rpm range, but above that, the extra torque of the 2.5L really starts to show. The only thing keeping me from buying right now is probably the thought of the diesel coming our way. I'll probably wait it out for another year and a half or so and if the diesel never shows it's face, I'll be getting myself a 2.5L CX5.

I also got to test drive the new Mazda 6 and the way it drives is quite similar to the CX5. Definitely not rocket fast, but way more than capable for a commuter car. Actually, my fiance owns a 2010 mazda 6 and I have to say, the 2014 mazda 6 was quite a bit peppier in the lower RPM range and it really outhandled the 2010 mazda 6. There was very minimal body roll on hard maneuvers and taking the corners actually made me smile like on my Mazda 3.

 

[MATR6]

This guy tested 8.6 rolling street start with wet conditions.
Love the sound of the 2.5l engine!

 

[STE92VE]

Test drove the 2.5L yesterday and since I'm coming out of a premium gas, 6 cyl engine, I'm glad that Mazda upgraded the engine for 2014. Although, if the 2.0L was the only engine choice, I would be OK with that too.

 

[MikeM.]

Test drove the 2.5L yesterday and since I'm coming out of a premium gas, 6 cyl engine, I'm glad that Mazda upgraded the engine for 2014. Although, if the 2.0L was the only engine choice, I would be OK with that too.

Yeah, even coming from a Volvo sedan's straight 6 cyl. with twin turbos putting out 268 hp I feel the little 2.0L CX-5 has a far more sporty feeling. I like working the little 4 banger in the mountain passes. The Volvo had so much torque it only needs to downshift if you really wanted to move out. And the extra power of the bigger engine was welcome at speeds between 70mph and 150 mph (speeds at which the CX-5 really does feel gutless if it can attain them at all) but I really don't miss it at all with the CX-5 because it is such a well rounded vehicle and it's pretty rare that I feel like driving that fast anyway. And I really like the fact that the recommended grade of fuel for the CX-5 is regular. The Volvo would run on regular but at the expense of power and smoothness, the manual recommended premium. It get's expensive. I still have the Volvo but it sees little use these days because the Mazda is more fun as well as being more practical.

 

[V8toilet]

The 2.0 liter engine has an EPA combined rating of 29 MPG and the 2.5 is EPA combined 27 MPG. The EPA combined rating is what most people will most likely see in the real world.

 

[CX-SV]

The 2.0 liter engine has an EPA combined rating of 29 MPG and the 2.5 is EPA combined 27 MPG. The EPA combined rating is what most people will most likely see in the real world.

Yes and the AWD version went from 28 (2.0L) to 26 (2.5L) EPA combined rating.

 

[mixmasterlove]

I drove a 2014 last night.... WOOOOOOOW very noticable difference in terms of the power.

 

[atitus]

I'm sure there are already a bunch of threads on the 2014 2.5L but I will just add this comment here for those who find this thread. I have the 2014 2.5L GT with AWD, and I specifically waited for it instead of buying the 2.0L. I get 24.9 mpg avg consistently over my 1/2 hour daily commute which is over back roads (so top speed ~35 mph) and there a number of intersections and traffic signals though I do not have to sit at them for long periods, its pretty much just make a stop and then go again. On the highway I can get 30.4 if not driving aggressively and its fairly flat.

 

[MikeM.]

On the highway I can get 30.4 if not driving aggressively and its fairly flat.

Hmmm... I have the 2.0L with AWD and, under the same conditions it can get 37 MPG. My 7500 mile average (since new) through the winter with 15-25% city driving and with 43 trips to the mountains to go skiing is 31.4 MPG (calculated using fuel receipts). My actual mileage is actually a little better because I've found my odometer to under report the distance traveled by about 3%. I attribute this to my snow tires.

Based upon a handful of early reports from 2.5L owners, I'm thinking the actual MPG difference between the 2.0L and 2.5L is a bit more than the EPA estimates indicate. Which makes me glad I felt confident enough to buy the first year of a brand new platform (before they forced AWD and AT buyers to accept a thirstier engine). And I cannot imagine how more power would add anything to the ownership experience. I can already go as fast as I want in every situation I've encountered.

 

[atitus]

I expect driving style has a lot to do with it. My previous vehicle was a subaru WRX, and I tend to drive a lot faster than I really should. I don't jam on the accelerator a lot and weave around (what I consider driving aggressively) but in my case I suspect speed is a big factor. If I go 65 mph on the highway the mpg (current) will show significant improvement. However, I am far too impatient to drive that speed for any length of time to get a meaningful measurement

I have 140 mile highway trip tomorrow (round trip) and perhaps I'll force myself to set the cruise control to 65 and see how it goes.

 

[atitus]

I get 24.9 mpg avg consistently over my 1/2 hour daily commute which is over back roads (so top speed ~35 mph)

I've got a little over 750 miles on it now and as it breaks in it continues to improve. My overall average mpg is now up to 25.7 mpg, with the same conditions as described above, city driving. Personally I am pleased with this; and I like the way it drives. Its not like the WRX that is for sure, but its pleasurable to drive and the good gas mileage is a bonus.