CX-5 Turbo vs Non-Turbo

[RedBaron]

Then don't pass. the 2.5NA is sufficient for any normal driver .

Really? Rude much?

 

[Charmer383]

Normal = boring

 

[jadmt]

you obviously do not live in Montana where you can get behind a string of trucks going 40 mph on twisty 2 lanes that have 70mph speed limits..safest way to pass is to get around them quickly so everyone else behind you can do the same....

 

[Mazdiod2]

you obviously do not live in Montana where you can get behind a string of trucks going 40 mph on twisty 2 lanes that have 70mph speed limits..safest way to pass is to get around them quickly so everyone else behind you can do the same....

One thing I've found in situations like this where you really cant do anything is to just wait it out for an extra 10 or 20 minutes and enjoy the slow boring ride. It can actually be a bit relaxing if you want because it's so easy to drive that slow. Grab something out of the cooler, bring up some tunes on the stereo, etc. Just dont do anything stupid, drop stuff on the floor, etc. I've gotten in the high 40's mpg for stretches like that. Sometimes I think of it as sort of a rolling 'rest break'. No, I don't recommend peeing on the way. On the other hand, if I'm feeling rushed because I have to pee I'd try to figure out a way to stop
Depending on how many trucks maybe passing is ok but what about trucks hauling stuff like wind turbine blades or plane fuselages. Hopefully there's a passing lane ahead and the trucks will let people pass but I've found I really don't want to put people that may be riding with me in a situation that could endanger life or limb.

40 miles at 80 mph would only take a half hour, but at 40 mph would only add another half hour. 60 mph would probably only get 15 mins, without checking a calculator. A pain in the ass if you couldn't manage to get around somewhere along there, but not worth the danger for an extra 30 mins, in my opinion, especially considering that with my luck I'd probably run into another string of trucks a few miles down the road anyway. It's just easier for me to relax and keep my stress down, then try to make up the difference when everything ahead clears up. Plus, I'm RETIRED so I don't care if I'm late

 

[Antoine]

Side note...Good job on keeping things relatively cool despite a few posts in here...A reminder for everyone, debates are fine as long as we keep it friendly and on topic. Snarky responses and or turning threads into arguments is neither productive nor helpful.

 

[GTXT23]

One thing I've found in situations like this where you really cant do anything is to just wait it out for an extra 10 or 20 minutes and enjoy the slow boring ride. It can actually be a bit relaxing if you want because it's so easy to drive that slow. Grab something out of the cooler, bring up some tunes on the stereo, etc. Just dont do anything stupid, drop stuff on the floor, etc. I've gotten in the high 40's mpg for stretches like that. Sometimes I think of it as sort of a rolling 'rest break'. No, I don't recommend peeing on the way. On the other hand, if I'm feeling rushed because I have to pee I'd try to figure out a way to stop
Depending on how many trucks maybe passing is ok but what about trucks hauling stuff like wind turbine blades or plane fuselages. Hopefully there's a passing lane ahead and the trucks will let people pass but I've found I really don't want to put people that may be riding with me in a situation that could endanger life or limb.

40 miles at 80 mph would only take a half hour, but at 40 mph would only add another half hour. 60 mph would probably only get 15 mins, without checking a calculator. A pain in the ass if you couldn't manage to get around somewhere along there, but not worth the danger for an extra 30 mins, in my opinion, especially considering that with my luck I'd probably run into another string of trucks a few miles down the road anyway. It's just easier for me to relax and keep my stress down, then try to make up the difference when everything ahead clears up. Plus, I'm RETIRED so I don't care if I'm late

The mentality of driving fast on roads in the Usa that are just not engineered for it is lunacy | I agree with the laid back attitude - because after all were all headed to the same place.- in the end ..why not be safe relaxed and really enjoy the ride of life - My NA is great on long twistys and fun - but I guess ive seen many accidents that occured for no good reason - so thats why i have the bose audio - I lived thru many rice rockets and near misses - had my speed fix - now i guess im one of those Sunday drivers with a big smile - enjoy your Mazda whatever it is and be safe

 

[AL Cx5]

One thing I've found in situations like this where you really cant do anything is to just wait it out for an extra 10 or 20 minutes and enjoy the slow boring ride. It can actually be a bit relaxing if you want because it's so easy to drive that slow. Grab something out of the cooler, bring up some tunes on the stereo, etc. Just dont do anything stupid, drop stuff on the floor, etc. I've gotten in the high 40's mpg for stretches like that. Sometimes I think of it as sort of a rolling 'rest break'. No, I don't recommend peeing on the way. On the other hand, if I'm feeling rushed because I have to pee I'd try to figure out a way to stop
Depending on how many trucks maybe passing is ok but what about trucks hauling stuff like wind turbine blades or plane fuselages. Hopefully there's a passing lane ahead and the trucks will let people pass but I've found I really don't want to put people that may be riding with me in a situation that could endanger life or limb.

40 miles at 80 mph would only take a half hour, but at 40 mph would only add another half hour. 60 mph would probably only get 15 mins, without checking a calculator. A pain in the ass if you couldn't manage to get around somewhere along there, but not worth the danger for an extra 30 mins, in my opinion, especially considering that with my luck I'd probably run into another string of trucks a few miles down the road anyway. It's just easier for me to relax and keep my stress down, then try to make up the difference when everything ahead clears up. Plus, I'm RETIRED so I don't care if I'm late

X2, retired and drive in the right lane around 65 MPH. I USE to be THAT guy in the far left lane with the peddle to the metal. I have progressed to one of or the fastest cars on the road to one of the slowest.

On a diesel truck forum, a long haul driver preaches to drive slower and over the course of a day, the difference is nil in Big Trucks. He calculates how much further he can go before fueling up and the time it takes. He also gets a bonus for using less fuel. I've used his techniques driving Solo or Towing. With some bolt on mods and change in driving increased FE by 30%.

With over a 100K as a "slowmover" my overall cost of ownership has decreased. Stuff like tires, brakes, transmission and even engine last. This turbo diesel has over 270,000 miles on it. Other than taking off the valve cover, it's never been opened up. Original turbo and uses zero oil over 10K. Our tests indicate it's nearly as tight as new. It should go 500,000 or more miles. I have a buddy with the same set up with over 400,000 miles on the engine and original turbo. He just drove his from Amarillo, TX to Rome, GA. These engines see 30 PSI regularly.

Our driving style will allow our turbo 2.5 to live a long life. Mazda has the boost dialed WAY back on this engine. Boost comes on a low RPM and Mazda backs it off at the higher RPM. I logged this engine during the tuning phase. It made about 17 PSI boost at WOT. I don't operate at WOT except to get the data for the tuner.

I trust Mazda fixed the head issues with the early turbos and mine doesn't have CD or i-stop. If we have a head crack issue, I trust Mazda will stand behind their product like the are doing today. If not, we have backup drive train insurance.

I bought an ECU tuning package for this car. It increased power at low RPM, right where we use it to merge or pass when needed. It smoothed out the over all operation and increased FE. Better FE is counter intuitive. The tuner is not constrained to meet any EPA emissions or corporate constraints. Smoother relates to a longer lasting engine.

Our 2024 has not been back to the dealership. Our only complaint was the front brakes squealed and produce a lot of brake dust. I changed out the pads and upgraded the rotors within the first 500 miles. Brake dust is all but gone and better braking performance. IF/when it goes back to the dealership I'll load the OEM tune.

As an aside: my wife asked me the other day what would happen if I died with our modified Mazda. I said she would either learn how to put the OEM tune back in the car before going to the dealership or have the dealership reflash it to OEM. She said she wouldn't like driving the car with an OEM tune! I guess she will let me stick around awhile longer!!

 

[badanth]

I like my non turbo just fine. I've had plenty of cars with turbos and they have always had issues.

 

[wlong01]

I like my non turbo just fine. I've had plenty of cars with turbos and they have always had issues.

I like my non turbo just fine but I also like my turbo and in almost 6 years have had ZERO problems with it.

 

[GTXT23]

I like my non turbo just fine but I also like my turbo and in almost 6 years have had ZERO problems with it.

If owners properly care for the turbo - and drive it with warmup and cool down practice- good maint - - yes Mazdas Turbo will outshine other 4-Ts. but abuse it and look out !

I would only consider a hp upgrade if Mazda dropped a proper na 6 into the cx5 - A straight 6 na is one of the most reliable engine configurations ever -if you need to move up from an inline dohc 4 for more power of course -
Now youve got a seriouly powerful reliable engine - but it poses frame / drive/ transmission re-engineering so they would need to go v-6 na - easy 275 hp log puller- i do enjoy driving the turbo however

 

[N7turbo]

If owners properly care for the turbo - and drive it with warmup and cool down practice- good maint - - yes Mazdas Turbo will outshine other 4-Ts. but abuse it and look out !

I would only consider a hp upgrade if Mazda dropped a proper na 6 into the cx5 - A straight 6 na is one of the most reliable engine configurations ever -if you need to move up from an inline dohc 4 for more power of course -
Now youve got a seriouly powerful reliable engine - but it poses frame / drive/ transmission re-engineering so they would need to go v-6 na - easy 275 hp log puller- i do enjoy driving the turbo however

That's a pretty low target. The current engine does that with a tune!

If Mazda came out with an I6 CX-5 I would hope it does at least the 340 / 369 numbers of the CX-70. Anything less is just not keeping up with the Jones'.

 

[Pitter]

Interesting thread. I have a 2020 signature. I had saved up cash to buy a non turbo CX-5 but after trying to sell my current vehicle of the time, a Renault Duster without any buyers I decided to just trade it in and get the Signature, Great decision! Love the turbo for passing on mountain road and on flat land highway. While I've had a slew of suspention repairs due to travel on unpaved roads the engine with about 76000 kilometers on it has been perfect. I've had one other turbo car with surprisingly about the same zero to sixty acceleration, It was a 1990 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo (Mitsubishi engine). As an aside an incredible bargain at the time, about $12,000. Car had four wheel dic brakes, 190 HP and was good for 148 mph (I chickened out at 120 fearing the Highway Patrol). Anyway the car made it to 160,000 miles with nary an engine or turbo issue though at that point there was blue smoke from the exhaust. I hope against hope that my Signature can give me the same service life.

 

[AL Cx5]

Interesting thread. I have a 2020 signature. I had saved up cash to buy a non turbo CX-5 but after trying to sell my current vehicle of the time, a Renault Duster without any buyers I decided to just trade it in and get the Signature, Great decision! Love the turbo for passing on mountain road and on flat land highway. While I've had a slew of suspention repairs due to travel on unpaved roads the engine with about 76000 kilometers on it has been perfect. I've had one other turbo car with surprisingly about the same zero to sixty acceleration, It was a 1990 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo (Mitsubishi engine). As an aside an incredible bargain at the time, about $12,000. Car had four wheel dic brakes, 190 HP and was good for 148 mph (I chickened out at 120 fearing the Highway Patrol). Anyway the car made it to 160,000 miles with nary an engine or turbo issue though at that point there was blue smoke from the exhaust. I hope against hope that my Signature can give me the same service life.

From the read, you are enjoying the power of your turbo!

We need to start a How many mile do you have on your original 2.5l turbo thread!

YES the oil change and spark plug change are sooner than a NA. I for one do both of these items. A few hand tools, floor jack, oil pan, funnel and jack stands is all that is needed for oil. A basic socket set and spark plug socket is all that is needed for plugs. The cost savings pays for these basic tools in a couple of oil changes. I'm 72 years old and plan to do these simple tasks a long time.

I put these two basic tasks with hand washing the car. I see rock chips and other damage I'd never see going through a car wash. Changing the oil and plugs gets a set of eyes top and bottom of the engine/trans.

I'm 2 for 2 going behind and finding issues from oil changes from shops. First, CX 5 of friend, they left the inspection plate off the belly pan. The filter is TINY and a No Name China BOMB. Second, I provided oil and filter and had a respected shop change the oil on my diesel. They didn't empty all the old oil. It was over filled by 3 quarts!

I've gone behind shops who changed spark plugs and didn't change the hard to get to plugs by the fire wall! The list goes on and on.

To lump that having issues some turbos that ALL turbos are trouble is a stretch. I expect my diesel turbo to go +350,000 miles. As mentioned at this time it has 275,00 trouble free miles. Large trucks turbos last the life of the engine between 700,000 and 1,000,000 miles.

Air filtration is equally important. A CAI filter will shorten the life of a turbo and engine.

IF, the big IF, the oil is changed per the maintenance and driven reasonably, there is no reason these won't last the life of the engine, +200,000 miles. I don't see an evidence Mazda skimped on turbo quality.

Here is what AI said about turbo chargers on big trucks.

• Over-the-road truck turbochargers, when properly maintained, often last as long as the engine itself, with some reaching the million-mile mark, while others might require replacement or overhaul before that point.
  
  Here's a more detailed breakdown:
  • Turbocharger Lifespan:
    • Designed for Engine Life: Turbochargers are typically designed to last as long as the engine, with some lasting for 700,000 miles or more.
    • Factors Affecting Lifespan: Maintenance, driving habits, and the quality of the turbocharger itself can all impact its lifespan.
    • Million-Mile Trucks: Some trucks, with proper maintenance, can reach the million-mile mark without needing a major engine overhaul or turbo replacement.

 

[GTXT23]

#1 best selling sports car in the world - Mazda Miata -181 hp -

Normal = boring

 

[GTXT23]

 

[N7turbo]

It's not the average that matters, it's how you use it.

 

[a69mach1377]

#1 best selling sports car in the world - Mazda Miata -181 hp -

It's not the total power...but the power to weight ratio that figures into this. And of course, the way it handles...

 

[AL Cx5]

View attachment 335426

My other vehicle, diesel, has an hour meter.

It's easy to calculate average speed. Mine is 30 mph over 275000 miles. We consider below 30 average mph will shorten engine life.

350k miles at 30 mph equals 11,666 operating hours. Average life of this engine is about 11,000 operating hours.

I don't let my engines warm up, let it idle when making a short trip and turn it off when stopped in traffic jams.

If we use 200k as an average 2.5l life at 30 average mph would be 6,666 engine hours.

 

[GTXT23]

I can relate with my NA 6. It was always adequate and even quick in certain conditions, such as when rolling in low speed at second gear with the torque converter unlocked. Punch it, and the 2.5, FWD combo is able to pass cars with more power.

It's "lacking" at 80km/h+, but that doesn't matter, at least not to me. I would rather take my time and get better fuel economy.

I think the thread title is a bit inflammatory for starters - as saying one VS the other is a call out --- So looking at the subject as OBJECTIVELY as possible-- Its one " better " than the other ? ...maybe - depends on ones needs or wants and reliability history //// - Turbo - faster - yes , more HP/ Torque- yes , More expensive - yes ( about +$10K with same trim options ) , Turbo More expensive to insure and maintain ? - yes oil services if missed or extended can cause considerable damage since the turbo is cooled by engine oil . Im not going to say definitively that one lasts longer than the other as the way its driven and maintained are paramount and relevant to that answer- This is tricky because based on evidence -Turbos have historically yielded head gasket , and turbo oil leak issues , not because they are inferiorly engineered- but due to poor owner oversight and driving habits -- thus most mechanics report that Turbos have higher cost engine repairs sooner than NAs - If the little old lady from Pasadena drives the turbo it may go 500,000 miles - If its a rent a car , maybe 100K ? . Gas mileage= Na is clearly the winner -- So it appears that with Turbos - its not so much what you do as its what you dont do - Not fully warming up or cooling down will cause issues -- If you choose a turbo and ignore these things its likely going to bit you later - at days end -- They are Mazdas !

 

[AL Cx5]

I think the thread title is a bit inflammatory for starters - as saying one VS the other is a call out --- So looking at the subject as OBJECTIVELY as possible-- Its one " better " than the other ? ...maybe - depends on ones needs or wants and reliability history //// - Turbo - faster - yes , more HP/ Torque- yes , More expensive - yes ( about +$10K with same trim options ) , Turbo More expensive to insure and maintain ? - yes oil services if missed or extended can cause considerable damage since the turbo is cooled by engine oil . Im not going to say definitively that one lasts longer than the other as the way its driven and maintained are paramount and relevant to that answer- This is tricky because based on evidence -Turbos have historically yielded head gasket , and turbo oil leak issues , not because they are inferiorly engineered- but due to poor owner oversight and driving habits -- thus most mechanics report that Turbos have higher cost engine repairs sooner than NAs - If the little old lady from Pasadena drives the turbo it may go 500,000 miles - If its a rent a car , maybe 100K ? . Gas mileage= Na is clearly the winner -- So it appears that with Turbos - its not so much what you do as its what you dont do - Not fully warming up or cooling down will cause issues -- If you choose a turbo and ignore these things its likely going to bit you later - at days end -- They are Mazdas !

Gee I didn't think the thread title was implying one is better than the other.

NA is by far the winner on lowest cost of ownership.

Turbo is the winner on performance and more fun to drive.

Folks break both NA and turbos. It is possible the turbos attract more drivers who run their cars harder. It's like comparing a Dodge Hell Cat Callenger to a Dodge V6 Challenger. Most Hell Cat owners bought them for the performance and do just that. Some don't even get very far from the dealership before the wreck them.

I'm into maintaining my vehicles. DIY oil chages is half of the oil change shops. DIY plug changes is even a bigger savings. In my case maintenance cost is a wash.

I knew going in the turbo deprciates more than NA. We keep out cars about 15 years. I'll get the difference in enjoyment out of the turbo.

The turbo has larger front brakes. It should stop quicker and the brakes last longer if both are driven the same. The trans is has upgraded clutches, same deal, it will last longer.

The turbo air filter element is larger than the NA. It has better filtration, will last longer and protect the engine better.

The turbo replaced our slug of a car, 09 Accord. I didnt want a different car. I had tuned this car and it was fun to drive. But if we were up grading, then we upgraded to a turbo I could tune. I have no regrets.

Since the OP didn't define what is better, then I say both are better for different reasons.

My plan, be happy and enjoy!