New 2.5L Engine Coming Soon

[CX-SV]

2.5 L standard on Touring and Grand Touring, loses only 1 mpg to the 2.0 L. I needed the SUV in December, but if I had known this I might have waited till January. If the price stays the same, everybody who bought a Touring or Grand Touring just took a big hit to their resale. Not to mention the horsepower and the torque deficit.

I wouldn't worry about it, prices for new 2.5L Tourings and GT's will be higher. (They have already increased pricing about $400 for GT's in 2013 since Feb/March launch)

And since the CX-5's mainly sold for their attractive price/size/MPG/style, those attributes do not change with either engine. The 2.5L still is modestly powered compared to 2.0L turbo Escape.

 

[ALafya]

The CX-5 has strong relation to the 3 with the same 2.0L engine, which does 40/28 MPG on the 3. On the CX-5 the economy dropped perhaps too much to 32/26 Auto FWD and 31/25 AWD, perhaps mostly because of the increase in drag and weight. With all this talk about new efficient engine technology, loosing 8 MPG is a lot. For example, compare it with the new 14' Forester 32/24 AWD, which has non-DI 2.5L engine.

However, I am still happy the new 2.5L it is on par and slightly better than the CR-V, 2013 RAV-4 and Escape, especially with AWD. All but the last use non-DI tried-and-true engine.

 

[CX-SV]

Given that CX-5 is amongst top compact SUV's, the 2.5L Skyactiv is another very competitive offering. And the CX-5 and Escape are the best performing/handling/fun to drive choices over CRV, Rav4, Rogue, Forrester competitors. In terms of fuel efficiency, the latest version of all these top compact SUVs are getting very close. And to be at the very top in both power and fuel efficiency (and related performance) D.I. and 6 speed trannys are needed.



(I don't think comparing MPG difference between sedan/hatch Mazda3 and crossover/SUV CX-5 is applicable at all considering differences in vehicle class, size, profile, frontal area, drag, weight, drivetrains, configurations).

 

[Evan55]

btw, really surprised about the small drop in mileage. makes you wonder why they didn't introduce it before... or if they have further refined it...

the 2.0 was only ever a stopgap until the 2.5 was ready.

 

[Evan55]

The CX-5 has strong relation to the 3 with the same 2.0L engine, which does 40/28 MPG on the 3. On the CX-5 the economy dropped perhaps too much to 32/26 Auto FWD and 31/25 AWD, perhaps mostly because of the increase in drag and weight. With all this talk about new efficient engine technology, loosing 8 MPG is a lot. For example, compare it with the new 14' Forester 32/24 AWD, which has non-DI 2.5L engine.

However, I am still happy the new 2.5L it is on par and slightly better than the CR-V, 2013 RAV-4 and Escape, especially with AWD. All but the last use non-DI tried-and-true engine.

drag has more impact on mpg than anything else at highway speeds. This is why I wish we got the mazda6 wagon! but america is obsessed with suv-ish cars on stilts, which makes for much worse aero.

btw, the 2014 forester has a new DI 2.5 and a CVT, along with a lower more carlike stance than most crossovers. im surprised its fuel economy isnt better. and i doubt anyone shopping for a mazda would be ok with the drivability of a cvt anyway

 

[CX-SV]

btw, the 2014 forester has a new DI 2.5 and a CVT, along with a lower more carlike stance than most crossovers. im surprised its fuel economy isnt better. and i doubt anyone shopping for a mazda would be ok with the drivability of a cvt anyway

tbh, I am not surprised.
2014 Forrester is 180.9" long, 70.7" wide and 68.3" tall (taller than CX-5, for both heights with and without roof rails)

Agreed a CVT is unacceptable in any car I own except for a hybrid.

Picture below (I will not comment on styling versus CX-5)

 

[paris1]

btw, the 2014 forester has a new DI 2.5 and a CVT, along with a lower more carlike stance than most crossovers. im surprised its fuel economy isnt better. and i doubt anyone shopping for a mazda would be ok with the drivability of a cvt anyway

Well I'm the exception Evan. My short list running up to purchase of CX-5 contained both the Imprezza and the Forester. Imprezza was a little too small and the Forester too long in the tooth, but I had no problem with the CVT. Which, BTW, surprised me after all the negative press this transmission has gotten!

 

[ALafya]

I believe the 2.5L FB engine in the Subaru is not DI.
The FA 2.0 Turbo is.

 

[ALafya]

I almost got the Impreza 2.0L wagon AWD. On paper, it gets 36/27 MPG with CVT. But in reality, people are averaging 28MPG with it. The main culprits are short trips, bad in-town MPG (way less than 27) and cold weather.
However, when I heard that FB engines (the 2.5L in the Forester and 2.0L in the Impreza and Cross-Trek) have propensity for oil consumption, along with a slew of annoyances (e.g. squeaky seat back), I've decided to look elsewhere.

I am not going to reject a transmission because it's a CVT, only that some transmissions are awful (e.g. the 4AT in the old Legacy) and some are well executed. It mainly depends on the CVT control logic - if it is annoying / naively implemented or properly done. I am not going to buy a manual for my commute, no thank you.

 

[CX-SV]

I believe the 2.5L FB engine in the Subaru is not DI.
The FA 2.0 Turbo is.

I think you are right (although not all press reports are consistent). Subie said base carryover engine is unchanged (non-DI).

 

[mpnret]

I am not going to reject a transmission because it's a CVT, only that some transmissions are awful (e.g. the 4AT in the old Legacy) and some are well executed. It mainly depends on the CVT control logic - if it is annoying / naively implemented or properly done. I am not going to buy a manual for my commute, no thank you.

Nothing wrong with a CVT. It's a real plus for me. I currently have a 2013 Outback, 2010 Legacy and a 2010 Rogue. All of them CVT. Also traded a 2010 Outback (CVT) for the 2013. I am looking at trading the 2010 Legacy very soon. I really like the CX5 only downside being wimpy motor and no CVT. I can live without the CVT but not the wimpy motor. My plan was to get the CX5 as soon as the 2.5 becomes available but now the new Forester has been announced. It looks like a good contender. It will get me the CVT but I prefer the CX5 looks. The Forester CVT even has a SportStep mode which will shift it through 8 speeds mimicking a 8 speed auto. Of course it's not as fast or economical as true CVT mode but meets the requirements of those who need to feel the shift.
By being able to hold the engine in it's sweet spot a CVT is able to deliver better mpg and power out of a given engine. Previously to getting a CVT all our cars were 6 cyl automatics. In 2010 we decided to trade our Lexus rx300 for an Outback. I was pretty sure it would be a 6 cyl Outback but one test drive with the 2.5/cvt had me convinced. The combination makes a small motor seem like a larger one. Since then all our cars have ben 2.5/cvt's with horsepower around 170-180. I tried the current cx-5 and just couldn't live with the 2.0/6 speed combo. I even think a 2.0/cvt might be a little on weak in this car. I am looking foward to test driving the 2.5.

 

[Mithan]

Loaded Ford Escapes are more than $1000 more expensive than similar CX-5's, using MSRP for comparison.

Fully Loaded Escape is MUCH more than $1000, but you get a lot more too obviously. I think it comes out to about $5000-6000 more here in Canada, taxes in.