Turbo and NA - Let's love them both

[ScottSt]

Well I. was about to reply to the other thread I started with thoughts on our new Turbo (2025 Turbo Premium) compared to our existing 2020 Sport. Looks like that got locked because folks got a little wound up.

I wanted to share a few more thoughts. And BTW there were some really interesting points in the other thread. I'm curious to begin fiddling with our Turbo a bit. But, I'm talking about how these cars are out of the box.

I'm going to say nice and not so nice things about both cars here. Nothing is perfect

Our 2020 Sport is really fun to drive around town and lightly loaded in reasonable freeway drives. When we get up into the mountains it can wheeze a bit. When we load it down with 3 or 4 people or luggage it can have issues and get a little noisy and you have to plan ahead. Last fall I did a few hundred mile trip over the Cascades in crap weather in the 2020 Sport with two passengers. it was a fun drive. The power was enough to let me drive quite quickly... But, at altitude and at speed you really start noticing the lack of power. This little 2.5l puches above its weight most of the time and the immediate throttle response is great. Also fun to "wind it out". Overall, I think people are somewhat trying to justify their Turbo purchases when they denegrate the n/a cars. Remember, it's fun to drive slow cars fast, and this is a fun car. This was most evident when I sold my newer 4runner about a year ago and drove "my daughter's cx5" home and was blown away by how much more performant and entertaining it was. Zoom zoom.

The 2025 Turbo is a much more "grown up" drive. It feels mid-luxury. It's quiet. It wafts along on the torque. I knew this going in but IMO it is not a "sporty" tune out of the box. Probably why the Turbo doesn't effect insurance rates. The power is great. The feel of the torque is really nice and you have a lot m". ore confidence passing folks (and I drive about 10mph faster on the freeway). All that said, I don't think it's as "fun" as the n/a around town. The Turbo is about low end torque and it makes sense for this car, I suppose. It's a bummer that Dave Coleman and team couldn't have been let "off leash" a bit. You "ride the torque" and it shifts up very early. I don't think I've seen it rev over 5k rpm. I compared it to a good turbo diesel in the other thread. All torque not a lot of HP. This isn't a critique -- just an observation. I don't want to get into it here, but I did notice how tiny the intake "cold air" tube is. I need to compare it but it looks like the one on our n/a. I may pursue opening things up a bit like others have. I bet there is potential here for more HP, but I also think there's potential to lower reliability and blow up. the transmission and tiny rear diff and driveshafts

OK, take all of this as "they are both great". I think people are too quick to bag on the n/a cars. IMO they are more fun more of the time. That said the Turbo is really nice and we haven't grabbed the keys to the Macan once since we bought it. The funny thing is the Macan is to the CX5 Turbo as the CX5 Turbo is to the CX5 N/A. It's better at even higher speeds but less fun in normal driving.

 

[wlong01]

Having both I know where you're coming from. The NA is fun around town, nimble and fairly quick. The turbo is great on the highway or 2/4 lane highways. I enjoy both.

 

[GTXT23]

If you have been fortunate enough to have had each NA/Turbo then I would say its easier to consider what suits your personal needs best - Again There are clearly 3 ways to assess this - #1 Objectively -( by specific and measurable data ) #2 Subjectively - By your feeling and experience with the things which make it say better or worse -#3 A bit of both ! - There are considerations for maintenance costs, insurance and vehicle cost , wear and tear - etc , Then we pass the $$$ signs and say is this meeting my needs ? Is it my only vehicle or is it a weekend driver ? Im as well .......staying civil and have never singled out anyone for their personal opinions - Your experience and truth is just that - I am being redundant - But - Is the Turbo Faster - YES - Does the Turbo have performance upgrades to handle the power - YES ( brakes etc )- Does the NA cost less to maintain and operate - YES -
- I believe test DRIVING either and NA or a Turbo is one thing = But OWNING yields a completely different experience as you have awareness changes in the process of learning - One test drive in an NA after owning a Turbo is not going to yield necessarily accurate feedback - as we know they deliver power and torque far differently - Well thats my experience -- I have a 2010 Mazda 3 2.5 NA wagon also and its a good old NA which has rather linear but strong acceleration characteristics at 170 hp - Driving My Speed 3 of the same year - 2.3/T has about the same power ( 263 hp + more with premium - Torque 280 @ 3000 rpm ) --- as the CX5 T - but its not skyactive and most might think after one drive its underpowered -- but after a few 1000 miles -- it will esaily cook the CX5 with the right driver -( 0-60 terms ) It also weighs far less --3150 lbs --

On the CX5 NA its taken me 1000s of miles to learn how to properly harness the power that exists in these engines ( and BTW the 2025 CX5 NA post 11/23 build has far different power delivery than ALL previous CX5 - 2,5 NAs ) - ITs not a high rpm vehicle and is more of a bottom end brute - It takes finesse ( and a long break in period ) and I enjoy it - The Turbo exhibits similar characteristics yet in a way that has a greater and more forgiving spectrum which is immediately appealing - So I would say its easier to DRIVE a Turbo and say thats the one --but harder to DRIVE the NA and feel the same way - in one go round - or the same period of time - say -10- 20 miles on a unbroken in engine - and thats the story folks -

 

[ScottSt]

All good points. Wanted to share this anecdote. I was so stoked about the new Turbo and my 15.5 year old daughter got to drive it with me one night because she's on a learner's permit. All of her miles have been on the n/a car. She's getting to be a pretty good driver. She really digs the additional features and tech in the Turbo. She said she felt zero difference in the way the two drove. IMO that says a couple things: 1) Mazda did a great job building a turbo package with instant torque (something they failed to do with the Mazdaspeed Miata as one example) and 2) These are really the same car at the end of the day

 

[cxha]

Having both I know where you're coming from. The NA is fun around town, nimble and fairly quick. The turbo is great on the highway or 2/4 lane highways. I enjoy both.

Well put, horses for courses... choose which one suits you the best and you'll be a happy CX-5 owner.

 

[ceric]

Got both until a couple months ago when I sold the N/A to a co-worker.
Good points from many before me.
I want to mention that, MPG wise, Turbo is worse by 1-2 mpg on my commute (mixed 50:50).
As many said, very rewarding offline, highway passing, and hill climbing.

 

[GTXT23]

All good points. Wanted to share this anecdote. I was so stoked about the new Turbo and my 15.5 year old daughter got to drive it with me one night because she's on a learner's permit. All of her miles have been on the n/a car. She's getting to be a pretty good driver. She really digs the additional features and tech in the Turbo. She said she felt zero difference in the way the two drove. IMO that says a couple things: 1) Mazda did a great job building a turbo package with instant torque (something they failed to do with the Mazdaspeed Miata as one example) and 2) These are really the same car at the end of the day

Got both until a couple months ago when I sold the N/A to a co-worker.
Good points from many before me.
I want to mention that, MPG wise, Turbo is worse by 1-2 mpg on my commute (mixed 50:50).
As many said, very rewarding offline, highway passing, and hill climbing.

Well the 05 Mazdaspeed turbo has less power than the current Na - Yet the NA is what the people seem to want - The Miata Speed like all other turbos are aimed at a completely different audience - The NA-2.5- 3 Hatch from 2010 - is a great vehicle im looking at 160K no issue miles so far-- but the 2010 Speed=3 2.3 is a rocket but has had issues around 110 k - -- My 2025 11/24 build NA CX5 has very good power as long as Im in the 2500-4500 rpm - area its the torque and most often im solo or with my girl 120 lbs --I suppose if it was loaded to its max it would be different - which gross payload is 850 lbs ------I can yield 37-38 mpg now as long as I stay under 80 - It will improve as i break it in as My 23 CX5 Na was 40 MPG easily at freeway speeds 75-80-

 

[Lazy2.5]

I have a 2015 Mazda 6 NA with nearly 330,000 trouble-free KM on it. At 3200lb, the vehicle is substantially lighter than an AWD CX-5.

With the 91 octane Tune, torque peaks at around 2500rpm instead of 3000rpm, so the engine gets to be fairly low in the RPM range while still hustling the vehicle when needed.

I personally don't feel the need for more torque, but I'm sure I would if I had the 3900LB CX-5.

FWIW, other than reliability, the NA Skyactiv maintains better control over it's AFR ratios (Around 14.5:1 while cruising according to datalog). The turbocharged version doesn't have the luxury of making due with lean AFR's, which is a major drawback to me.

Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of trying the new 2.5T, but I've heard that my "6" with the tune maintains similar acceleration times as a CX-5 turbo, so I would understand why someone who insists on the CX-5 might be tempted for the T.

 

[ridenfish39]

I had a 2014 CX5 for 4 years and put 80k miles on it trouble free. I liked it so much I wound up getting a 2021 Carbon Turbo. The difference between the two is night and day. You just touch the gas on the turbo and it goes, all the low end torque makes it such a nice daily driver. I used to get 34 mpg at 70mph in my 14, for the same trip in my turbo I get around 30 mpg.
I had a 2010 Mazdaspeed GENPU (if you know you know) That was a fun car with all the Cobb bolt ons. I went to a 12 Mustang 5.0 after that. The Speed 3 was the most fun car I've ever had on back road burning runs.

 

[7eregrine]

People like to hate on the NA because it's not quick. These are probably the same people that like to "baby " their car. There's a reason my car has a kickdown switch on the FLOOR under the gas pedal.
Of course my supercharged 330 HP sedan is WAY faster...but my NA Mazda can still be fun to drive...if you're not afraid to floor it.
As crazy as it sounds there are a lot of folks unaware of that little switch on the floor. Just in case:

https://www.cars.com/articles/what-does-kickdown-mean-in-an-automatic-transmission-1420690417731/

I'm going to type that word one more time: FLOOR. LOL

 

[Lazy2.5]

People like to hate on the NA because it's not quick. These are probably the same people that like to "baby " their car. There's a reason my car has a kickdown switch on the FLOOR under the gas pedal.
Of course my supercharged 330 HP sedan is WAY faster...but my NA Mazda can still be fun to drive...if you're not afraid to floor it.
As crazy as it sounds there are a lot of folks unaware of that little switch on the floor. Just in case:

https://www.cars.com/articles/what-does-kickdown-mean-in-an-automatic-transmission-1420690417731/

I'm going to type that word one more time: FLOOR. LOL

Slap the NA engine into a car with a reasonable curb weight, that's low to the ground, pair it to a manual. (ie. mazda 3...) and maybe tune it, you'll have a great time.

 

[7eregrine]

Right on Lazy.

PS and for the record, my 330 HP Volvo sedan has a kickdown feature too, though it is now electronic (no switch). I'm assuming your turbo Mazdas still have it, as well. Most 4 cylinder cars do.

Those of you unfamiliar...should try it out.

 

[ceric]

Slap the NA engine into a car with a reasonable curb weight, that's low to the ground, pair it to a manual. (ie. mazda 3...) and maybe tune it, you'll have a great time.

I believe you. I still have a '14 Mazda3 (sGT) with 2.5N/A engine. I love driving it, though it is not a manual. Faster than my '16 Mazda6 (same engine), and '17 CX5 (same engine, sold). Not sure about '22 CX5 Turbo....

 

[N7turbo]

People like to hate on the NA because it's not quick. These are probably the same people that like to "baby " their car. There's a reason my car has a kickdown switch on the FLOOR under the gas pedal.

Is that only on 1st gen? Because there isn't one on 2nd gen.

 

[jakeuten]

I can definitely feel the weight when I have 3-4 passengers, especially on the highway. But in normal day to day driving with my partner and I or just myself, my CX-5 feels light on it's feet with plenty of torque starting at about 2500rpm. It's not a race, but I win every stoplight I'm at around here.

 

[jakeuten]

Is that only on 1st gen? Because there isn't one on 2nd gen.

Really? Both the 2018 CX-5 Grand Touring and 2025 Mazda3 Carbon Turbo I've driven both had kickdown switches.

 

[N7turbo]

Really? Both the 2018 CX-5 Grand Touring and 2025 Mazda3 Carbon Turbo I've driven both had kickdown switches.

As far as I know, there is no kickdown "switch". The entire thing is drive by wire with "kickdown" determined by load and pedal position. There is a detent at some point but it is neither on the floor nor is it a kickdown. It's for driver feedback only.

 

[RedBaron]

As far as I know, there is no kickdown "switch". The entire thing is drive by wire with "kickdown" determined by load and pedal position. There is a detent at some point but it is neither on the floor nor is it a kickdown. It's for driver feedback only.

But, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

 

[Towser]

My 2021 NA is plenty quick for. Equipped with everything but turbo. Just turned 30k miles.

 

[7eregrine]

My Volvo also has no switch but still supports Kickdown. It knows when you kick it past full throttle as explained in the manual.