Skyactiv-G 2.5 L engine 187 Horsepower -Enough Power?
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
We have driven both the turbo and non-turbo CX-50 and decided to reserve a turbo. I think it’s a personal choice though based on expectation and driving style. I am coming from a 400 HP Dodge Ram. My wife has a CX-30 with the base engine and finds it very adequate. The other reason we chose the turbo is based on tongue weight / towing capability. We don’t expect to be towing but we will be using hitch mounted accessories like a bike rack and wanted the extra buffer for tongue weight.
Joined
·
50 Posts
Thanks for the information; very much appreciated.
I agree, the added tongue/tow capacity would be nice.
I have ordered the pearl white non-turbo and hope to take ownership within two weeks. Unfortunately, I continue to think about the lower horsepower. Good to know the CX-30 is adequate.
Like yourself, I am coming from a large engine; BMW Z4 and X5. Just an FYI, the 2011 Z4 has turbo issues (wastegate) after 100k miles. Hence my turbo concern. My understanding is the average Mazda with a turbo engine is approaching 90,000 miles. Any knowledge about the Mazda Turbos?
Congrats on reserving the CX-50!
Thanks again!
I agree, the added tongue/tow capacity would be nice.
I have ordered the pearl white non-turbo and hope to take ownership within two weeks. Unfortunately, I continue to think about the lower horsepower. Good to know the CX-30 is adequate.
Like yourself, I am coming from a large engine; BMW Z4 and X5. Just an FYI, the 2011 Z4 has turbo issues (wastegate) after 100k miles. Hence my turbo concern. My understanding is the average Mazda with a turbo engine is approaching 90,000 miles. Any knowledge about the Mazda Turbos?
Congrats on reserving the CX-50!
Thanks again!
In my experience with car shopping, if you're already thinking about a feature, trim level, or engine that you'll be "ok" with or "settle" for over what you know in the back of your mind you want, you're going to be disappointed. You can always add accessories, rims, tires, etc., but the engine is with you forever. Just my opinion. Get what you can afford.
In regards to reliability, this is my first Mazda and turbo engine. I made my purchase solely banking on Mazda's track record and continued high marks on reliability to get 10 years and a min of 100k out of this car. Being on top of regular maintenance and overall general care, I have no worries about hitting this mark as I have with all my other cars.
Joined
·
14 Posts
I have the naturally aspirated 2.5, got it last week. It feels a lot peppier in my wife’s CX30 due to size and weight. I know the turbo will be A lot faster but for the commute I do, plus I have a 1 year old, my lust for fast cars is over. To each their own. Just enjoy what you have!
Joined
·
50 Posts
Agree, I am done with speed and at my age.....
How do you like the CX-50? I know only a week.
Thanks for feedback.
Joined
·
14 Posts
I love it so far. Drastically different than my previous gladiator but the ride is much quieter. I just wish it was a little higher so driving down the road so you have a more suv like riding position but for someone who is 6’4 I find Mazda’s seats to be the most comfortable I’ve ever been in.
Plan on taking it up to Nantucket Memorial Day weekend then to Cape Cod in August. I know it will be a comfortable road trip vehicle for my family.
I’ve had my non-Turbo Premium Plus for 4 weeks now, coming from an older non-Turbo Outback. While the hp ratings on both are almost identical, the difference is night and day. The 50 is a delight while the Outback, as much as I have loved it over the years, always seemed to hesitate and then struggle to get out of it’s own way. They’re geared differently — the 50’s 6-speed transmission has been shifting flawlessly — and that’s probably no small part of the difference. Plus the steering is more responsive and the handling is a joy. I’m sure the Turbo is even more fun to drive but I just can’t make the cost/benefit analysis work for my purposes given the 50 is already such a step up in every regard. Drive them both and you’ll want the Turbo just because…“zoom-zoom”. But I am more than happy with the natural, especially in Sport-mode on our twisty local back roads where Turbo doesn’t really get you as much. JMO…
Joined
·
9 Posts
Joined
·
50 Posts
I just wanted to follow up on my original post about the non-turbo engine. After driving BMWs (525, 740, X5 and Z4, and Mini) for the past 30 years, many models and all but one car had large engines I find the CX50 to be outstanding. The smaller engine has ample power and the CX50 drives and handles really well when compared to BMW.
I am now a huge Mazda fan! Go Mazda!
Thanks for all the replies to my post. I was not able to test drive the car before putting a deposit down on CX50. So, your thoughts were very insightful and helped me through the buying process; THANKS!
I am now a huge Mazda fan! Go Mazda!
Thanks for all the replies to my post. I was not able to test drive the car before putting a deposit down on CX50. So, your thoughts were very insightful and helped me through the buying process; THANKS!
Joined
·
50 Posts
Update: I hit the 600 miles driving like a grandma in the right lane following trucks. Actually, I am learning to like the right lane; no stress!
However, when the odometer hit 600 miles I kicked the mule but the mule did not move! The 187 HP engine is great cruising on the highway and even on the back roads but from a dead stop it's a turtle. Just realized, I never used "Sport" mode. I will once I hit 1,000 miles.....going easy on the new engine.
However, when the odometer hit 600 miles I kicked the mule but the mule did not move! The 187 HP engine is great cruising on the highway and even on the back roads but from a dead stop it's a turtle. Just realized, I never used "Sport" mode. I will once I hit 1,000 miles.....going easy on the new engine.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
