New member here w/ a few questions about a new CX-5

[N7turbo]

Turbo vs non-turbo is all about priorities.
I think YouTuber Car Care Nut said the turbo CX-5 adds basically three more mechanical parts to the engine.
The turbo is a major part of what elevates the CX-5 to a near-luxury driving experience. That 320 foot pounds of torque at such a low RPM make the car such a pleasure to drive.

Well if you count the complete NA engine as sold with cylinder deactivation, the parts are different, but not necessarily more in number. Because remember the Turbo motor does not have the solenoid, the pendulum damper, and whatever other parts needed for CD.

 

[Lazy2.5]

Turbo vs non-turbo is all about priorities.
I think YouTuber Car Care Nut said the turbo CX-5 adds basically three more mechanical parts to the engine.
The turbo is a major part of what elevates the CX-5 to a near-luxury driving experience. That 320 foot pounds of torque at such a low RPM make the car such a pleasure to drive.

The torque was absolutely nuts on the cx-5 t loaner I drove, but only past 3000rpm until 5000rpm. It was seamless, little lag, just so fast for a 3800lb car.

Compared to my NA, the throttle tip in was mushy and uninspiring. Of course there was lag, but I think more due to the added weight of the CX-5. It was very quiet. Sounded like a blender. But the torque and the way the AWD system put down the power was nuts. It was not impressive at all below 3000RPM though.

 

[BoomerZoomr]

The torque was absolutely nuts on the cx-5 t loaner I drove, but only past 3000rpm until 5000rpm. It was seamless, little lag, just so fast for a 3800lb car.

Compared to my NA, the throttle tip in was mushy and uninspiring. Of course there was lag, but I think more due to the added weight of the CX-5. It was very quiet. Sounded like a blender. But the torque and the way the AWD system put down the power was nuts. It was not impressive at all below 3000RPM though.

The turbo's 320 lb-ft of torque is at 2500 rpm, and mine feels like that is accurate. My previous car was a RAV4 with the 3.5L V6. Two different driving experiences, each engine with its strong points. The Mazda's turbo just makes forward motion seem effortless.

 

[ceric]

I had both Turbo CX5 (totaled) and a NA CX5 last year.

NA is adequate for city commute... struggle at hill climbing with loads.
The Turbo was fun to drive. MPG is about 1-2 less by my commute routes.
(Turbo has no iStop, no CD)
I dislike the iStop more than the CD. One can avoid iStop kicking in if you press the brake pedal lighter at stops.

 

[a69mach1377]

Well here at 5000 feet elevation, the NA is anemic. Now that the new cx5 is heavier, it must be worse. Turbo for the win!

 

[VQ35DE]

I had both Turbo CX5 (totaled) and a NA CX5 last year.

NA is adequate for city commute... struggle at hill climbing with loads.
The Turbo was fun to drive. MPG is about 1-2 less by my commute routes.
(Turbo has no iStop, no CD)
I dislike the iStop more than the CD. One can avoid iStop kicking in if you press the brake pedal lighter at stops.

Or just push the button [switch].

 

[wlong01]

Or just push the button [switch].

That seems safer and easier than trying to feather the brake pedal.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I had both Turbo CX5 (totaled) and a NA CX5 last year.

NA is adequate for city commute... struggle at hill climbing with loads.
The Turbo was fun to drive. MPG is about 1-2 less by my commute routes.
(Turbo has no iStop, no CD)
I dislike the iStop more than the CD. One can avoid iStop kicking in if you press the brake pedal lighter at stops.

did you notice any difference with throttle tip-in response between the two? the cx-5 turbo loaner i had felt sluggish taking off.

 

[N7turbo]

According to @sinistriel@ the torque converter has a higher stall speed, which could explain some of it.