Trim or option regrets after purchasing

[bluegrass]

That's the problem, it really doesn't get up and move. It sort of levers itself out of the chair and shuffles along until it gets some momentum, and then it does OK. I'm gonna go against the grain here and say that the normally aspirated 2.5 is a dog when taking off, and pretty sluggish when merging....

I disagree with this.
The OP is asking about adequate power for merging into traffic, which it has.
Its real-world performance is comparable to the vast majority of other compact cars/SUVs.
He's not drag racing this vehicle or taking it to autocross events.

If you want better performance without upgrading to the turbo model...
then get the FWD version instead of the AWD version.

Car & Driver tested both, and the FWD version was quicker than the AWD in all acceleration tests:
0-60 MPH, 0-100 MPH, 5-60 MPH rolling start, 30-50 MPH, 50-70 MPH, 1/4 Mile

As a bonus, the FWD also has shorter 70-0 MPH braking distances, costs ~$1500 less, and lower maintenance/repair costs.

 

[hal2]

This is a generalization, so nobody's screaming me. I have found that most people who are happy with the non turbo model have never driven the turbo model. Yes the non-turbo is fine. However, those who have test-driven both usually find a way to make the turbo happen. It's like a completely different car.

 

[Sig cx-5]

This is a generalization, so nobody's screaming me. I have found that most people who are happy with the non turbo model have never driven the turbo model. Yes the non-turbo is fine. However, those who have test-driven both usually find a way to make the turbo happen. It's like a completely different car.

We first drove the non-turbo CX-5 and said "nope!". We were coming from a 2010 CR-V and were tired of trying to get out of our own way.

 

[bluegrass]

This is a generalization, so nobody's screaming me. I have found that most people who are happy with the non turbo model have never driven the turbo model. Yes the non-turbo is fine. However, those who have test-driven both usually find a way to make the turbo happen. It's like a completely different car.

Isn't this true of every vehicle made? Everything is a trade-off...
If cost/longevity/maintenance/fuel efficiency were not a consideration, then of course everyone would pick the higher performance version.

The Honda Civic is nice, but the Si is even better, and the Type R much better.
The Honda Accord Sport is nice, but the 2.0T is better.
But there is a reason that people buy the lower trim levels with the base engines.

Would I be happier with the performance of the turbo version? Yes, of course.
Did I want to spend $5K more out of pocket, have notably worse fuel economy, higher levels of maintenance, and potential longevity repair concerns? No.

I pay cash for vehicles and keep them for 11-15 years.
It is a lot easier for a payment buyer who switches vehicles every few years to justify.

 

[P-51 Lover]

I just bought a 2021 Grand Touring with Preferred Package. The turbo version would be nice, but it adds complexity to the engine, fuel mileage is worse, and it adds to the purchase price. I am not a hotrodder any more. I drive easy to get good gas mileage and to protect myself from doing stupid things. Plus, I live in an area where there is less traffic to contend with, and I am rarely on 2 lane state highways where I have to fight to pass the car ahead of me. The naturally aspirated engine is just right for my type of driving. Even if I had a Camaro SS with 455 hp, I’d drive it the same way I do my new Mazda - easy!

All the things you get with the preferred package are neat, but definitely not necessities. If you are buying a Grand Touring and can afford $1600 for the Preferred Package, get it. If money is that tight, get a 2-3 yr old CX-5 that is well equipped.

I also avoided the AWD option for about the same reasons I avoided the turbo option. I may take a hit on the car’s resale value because the vehicle doesn’t have those options, but maybe not if gas hits $4-$5 per gallon.

Just don’t over analyze your purchase. It will drive you crazy. I know, because I am one of those people.

 

[Buzzman12]

Re: Turbo vs non turbo:
Back in 2017 when I was shopping around, I drove a CX-5, and then the 6 right after.
Neither had the turbo of course (that came a year later).
However, the difference between the two was very noticeable, even though the engine was the same.
That extra weight and AWD system sucked the life out of the CX-5 in my opinion.
The 6 was just so much more lively and responsive. That was one of the reasons I didn't buy the CX-5.
If I was shopping for one today, I'd only get a turbo version.

 

[meow_man]

FWIW, I have found through many vehicle purchases that if I don't opt for what I want (within reason) that I have experienced mild (and sometimes not so mild) car envy after purchase. I don't drive enough miles/year to really care about the slight turbo & AWD mpg hit to discourage me. I'm very happy with my GTR. I drove the GTR back to back with the GT as well as a new VW Tiguan (I came from a string of 3 VW's which my dealer sells as well). I smile every time I drive my GTR.

 

[bluegrass]

However, the difference between the two was very noticeable, even though the engine was the same.
That extra weight and AWD system sucked the life out of the CX-5 in my opinion.

If I was shopping for one today, I'd only get a turbo version.

I don't understand this.
You were comparing the Mazda 6 (FWD) with the CX-5 (AWD) and concluded that the "extra weight and AWD system" put the CX-5 at a disadvantage...so you'd only get the Turbo version.

Why not consider the FWD CX-5?
As I mentioned previously, the FWD version is lighter, faster and more fuel efficient.

 

[yrwei52]

I just bought a 2021 Grand Touring with Preferred Package. The turbo version would be nice, but it adds complexity to the engine, fuel mileage is worse, and it adds to the purchase price.

If you’re concerned on complexity, you should be concerned more on cylinder deactivation coming with the non-turbo 2.5L. Personally I prefer not to get the turbo either. But between the turbo and cylinder deactivation, I definitely will choose turbo as turbo has been improved so much on reliability, but not the CD. All the issues we’ve seen in the history of CD from every car manufacture who has been using it should raise the flag to us. And the design theory with deactivated cylinders running passively and compressing the air uselessly which simply just don’t add up the efficiency.

Use the Mazda SkyActive-G 2.5L and 2.5T as the example. 2.5T has been out since 2016 and there’s almost nothing on serious issues and TSBs reported. But from the 2.5L with CD since 2018, we’ve seen at least 3 TSBs or Service Alerts, and one major safety recall for falling rocker arms.

⋯
I also avoided the AWD option for about the same reasons I avoided the turbo option. I may take a hit on the car’s resale value because the vehicle doesn’t have those options, but maybe not if gas hits $4-$5 per gallon.

Just don’t over analyze your purchase. It will drive you crazy. I know, because I am one of those people.

AWD gives us more safety protection during bad road conditions. And I would want the AWD feature on an SUV otherwise it doesn’t feel like a one to me. The complexity is minimum and it’s useful at a necessary time.

But to each their own, and that’s why you love the P-51 and I like the P-38 ⋯

 

[7eregrine]

It still surprises me that in this day and age that people still think a turbo 'adds complexity'. Turbos aren't new and are very reliable these days. As someone who has had more then a few turbo cars, I only ever had one fail. And that was my 99 Saab that started it's first 30,000 miles as a rental car.

Power windows add complexity, too, but you wouldn't own a car with crank handles.

 

[bluegrass]

AWD gives us more safety protection during bad road conditions.

Could you explain what you mean by AWD providing "more safety protection" during bad road conditions?

 

[P-51 Lover]

If you’re concerned on complexity, you should be concerned more on cylinder deactivation coming with the non-turbo 2.5L. Personally I prefer not to get the turbo either. But between the turbo and cylinder deactivation, I definitely will choose turbo as turbo has been improved so much on reliability, but not the CD. All the issues we’ve seen in the history of CD from every car manufacture who has been using it should raise the flag to us. And the design theory with deactivated cylinders running passively and compressing the air uselessly which simply just don’t add up the efficiency.

Use the Mazda SkyActive-G 2.5L and 2.5T as the example. 2.5T has been out since 2016 and there’s almost nothing on serious issues and TSBs reported. But from the 2.5L with CD since 2018, we’ve seen at least 3 TSBs or Service Alerts, and one major safety recall for falling rocker arms.


AWD gives us more safety protection during bad road conditions. And I would want the AWD feature on an SUV otherwise it doesn’t feel like a one to me. The complexity is minimum and it’s useful at a necessary time.

But to each their own, and that’s why you love the P-51 and I like the P-38 ⋯

But to each their own, and that’s why you love the P-51 and I like the P-38 ⋯

Just read a story about USAF Gen. James Howard, the only fighter pilot to earn the Medal of Honor in the European theatre during WW2. He stated that he didn’t like the P-38 due to its complexity. He earned his MoH flying the P-51. I do acknowledge the P-38 proved itself to be a great fighter in WW-2, so much so the Germans and Japanese feared even the sound of it.

Like the P-38 proving itself in combat, the CX-5 is proving itself to be a great little speedster with its turbocharged engine. You guys will soon guilt me into wishing I had the turbo version. But because I’m such an easy driver, I’d never get much good out of the turbo. However, just like most of you, I like the fact knowing I have the power available. Maybe on my next car.

 

[yrwei52]

Could you explain what you mean by AWD providing "more safety protection" during bad road conditions?

Use the major 133-car pileup in Fort Worth after the freezing rain on Feb. 11 this year as an example. A FWD car got stuck on I-35W uphill in the dawn with icy road condition. A 18-wheeler driving too fast rear-ended the car then started the chain reaction. I’d imagine the stuck car would have more chances getting up the uphill on slippery road with an AWD which would have prevented this terrible accident. And the accident caused 6 deaths and 65 people hospitalized.

 

[yrwei52]

Just read a story about USAF Gen. James Howard, the only fighter pilot to earn the Medal of Honor in the European theatre during WW2. He stated that he didn’t like the P-38 due to its complexity. He earned his MoH flying the P-51. I do acknowledge the P-38 proved itself to be a great fighter in WW-2, so much so the Germans and Japanese feared even the sound of it.

Like the P-38 proving itself in combat, the CX-5 is proving itself to be a great little speedster with its turbocharged engine. You guys will soon guilt me into wishing I had the turbo version. But because I’m such an easy driver, I’d never get much good out of the turbo. However, just like most of you, I like the fact knowing I have the power available. Maybe on my next car.

Yes, I like the P-38 mainly because of its uniqueness. Of course it adds up the complexity and was having many reliability issues than P-51.

As for cylinder deactivation on 2.5L with complexity, I simply can’t see any benefits featured. It offers no uniqueness with questionable long-term reliability. Even the MPG which gains only 1 or 0 based on the EPA.

 

[P-51 Lover]

Yes, I like the P-38 mainly because of its uniqueness. Of course it adds up the complexity and was having many reliability issues than P-51.

As for cylinder deactivation on 2.5L with complexity, I simply can’t see any benefits featured. It offers no uniqueness. Even the MPG which gains only 1 or 0 based on the EPA.

I’ll have to admit, in all my research on the CX-5, I missed the fact that the naturally aspirated version of the 2.5L engine had the cylinder deactivation. Would that have been a game changer if I had known it? I don’t know.

Like a few other commenters, I don’t think cylinder deactivation adds anything of value to the the engine. A gain of 1 mpg is no reason to screw up a good engine by adding it. In my limited experience of driving my 2021 CX-5 (600 miles), I cannot tell when the engine is running on 2 or 4 cylinders. The change is undetectable to me. From what I’ve read since discovering my car has this “feature,” it only deactivates under light sustained loads. Again, with my style of driving, cylinder deactivation will not probably occur that often, but it’s still there to screw things up down the road.

Wow, with no turbo, no AWD, and with cylinder deactivation, maybe I should be looking to trade again. I do kinda wish I had gotten a 1-2 yr old CX-9 with low miles (and a turbo). Buyers remorse rearing its ugly head again.

 

[sm1ke]

I’ll have to admit, in all my research on the CX-5, I missed the fact that the naturally aspirated version of the 2.5L engine had the cylinder deactivation. Would that have been a game changer if I had known it? I don’t know.

Like a few other commenters, I don’t think cylinder deactivation adds anything of value to the the engine. A gain of 1 mpg is no reason to screw up a good engine by adding it. In my limited experience of driving my 2021 CX-5 (600 miles), I cannot tell when the engine is running on 2 or 4 cylinders. The change is undetectable to me. From what I’ve read since discovering my car has this “feature,” it only deactivates under light sustained loads. Again, with my style of driving, cylinder deactivation will not probably occur that often, but it’s still there to screw things up down the road.

Wow, with no turbo, no AWD, and with cylinder deactivation, maybe I should be looking to trade again. I do kinda wish I had gotten a 1-2 yr old CX-9 with low miles (and a turbo). Buyers remorse rearing its ugly head again.

Personally I wouldn't worry about it unless it becomes an issue. Enjoy the new car for what it is! If issues start to crop up, that's when I would start looking into upgrades or replacements. JMO

 

[anckentucky]

We test drove a Touring and loved the interior but the engine left a ton to be desired. Test drove a Carbon Edition Turbo and we fell in love. Would have drove it off the lot that night if numbers made sense, but they weren't budging. We're still negotiating with several dealerships and hope to be in one by end of month.

 

[yrwei52]

I’ll have to admit, in all my research on the CX-5, I missed the fact that the naturally aspirated version of the 2.5L engine had the cylinder deactivation. Would that have been a game changer if I had known it? I don’t know.

Like a few other commenters, I don’t think cylinder deactivation adds anything of value to the the engine. A gain of 1 mpg is no reason to screw up a good engine by adding it. In my limited experience of driving my 2021 CX-5 (600 miles), I cannot tell when the engine is running on 2 or 4 cylinders. The change is undetectable to me. From what I’ve read since discovering my car has this “feature,” it only deactivates under light sustained loads. Again, with my style of driving, cylinder deactivation will not probably occur that often, but it’s still there to screw things up down the road.

Wow, with no turbo, no AWD, and with cylinder deactivation, maybe I should be looking to trade again. I do kinda wish I had gotten a 1-2 yr old CX-9 with low miles (and a turbo). Buyers remorse rearing its ugly head again.

Cylinder deactivation was a game changer to me once I learned Mazda had “secretly” added it to the 2.5L in 2018 CX-5. I cancelled my purchasing plan for a 2018 CX-5 GT, as I usually keep my car from new forever.

To be specific, cylinder deactivation added 1 mpg on FWD, but added 0 mpg on AWD from 2017 to 2018 CX-5 based on EPA ratings.

About uniqueness of the P-38 at the time, it had distinctive twin booms and a central nacelle containing the cockpit and armament. it used turbo-superchargers on its two 12-cylinder Allison V-1710 piston engines for good high-altitude performance and quieter operation. Lockheed who designed the P-38 also fitted with counter-rotating propellers to eliminate the effect of engine torque. It incorporated tricycle undercarriage and a bubble canopy which were also unique at the time for a fighter plane.

 

[yrwei52]

Personally I wouldn't worry about it unless it becomes an issue. Enjoy the new car for what it is! If issues start to crop up, that's when I would start looking into upgrades or replacements. JMO

I agree that generally people should not be concerned on cylinder deactivation feature. But for those like me who plan to keep the car as long as possible, CD should be a thing needs to be concerned.

For an engine coming out for 3 years, it has 1 major safety recall、3 CD related TSBs and Service Alerts. I’d consider it has some issues.

 

[P-51 Lover]

About uniqueness of the P-38 at the time, it had distinctive twin booms and a central nacelle containing the cockpit and armament. it used turbo-superchargers on its two 12-cylinder Allison V-1710 piston engines for good high-altitude performance and quieter operation. Lockheed who designed the P-38 also fitted with counter-rotating propellers to eliminate the effect of engine torque. It incorporated tricycle undercarriage and a bubble canopy which were also unique at the time for a fighter plane.

Glacier Girl - seen it in person at AirVenture, Oshkosh.