[ParSev21]

Really torn on which to pick. Trying to save a few bucks and get the base engine. I haven’t driven the turbo, just the base engine. It’s seems adequate but not sporty. Is it a bad call to get the base?

 

[cashmonee]

What car are you coming from? Where will you be driving? What kind of driver are you? These will help give a more targeted answer. If you're used to having power, the step down could be rough. If you are a freeway driver who sets traffic aware cruise control and sits back, the base engine would likely be fine. If you spend time in the mountains, then the turbo may be worth the price.

Having said that, the only way to really know is drive both. This is especially true if you are the type of person who will continue to ask "what if?" To me, if you can afford the turbo and would like having the power, go for it. Saving a few thousand (not sure the trims you are comparing) is nice, but I would rather have the car I really want.

 

[AWSD]

Once you drive the turbo, you're not going to want the base if you can afford it.

 

[ParSev21]

Coming from a V6 Honda Accord. No mountain ma around us. I’m hesitant to drive the turbo cause I know I won’t want the base haha. Looking at a premium plus trim base engine. Will head to Mazda to test out the turbo tomorrow. Thanks for the advice

 

[ccollins.krvv]

Coming from that V6, you will want the Turbo.

The base engine will likely feel sluggish transitioning from a naturally aspirated V6.

 

[Studly]

non turbo here. it's sluggish to about 25ish then is sporty. But....I'd pick the turbo if I had to do it again. Even with the 'turbo lag' and noise. But all in all the one I have is pretty sporty. I can keep up with the germans and japanese on our hilly/curvy roads!!

 

[PracticallyOffRoading]

I'm coming from a BMW 335. I got the non turbo cx-50.
I test drove both and the turbo is a huge upgrade. For me though, it still wasn't a "fast" car, it didn't pull like the bimmer... I decided to go with the non turbo because of the price ultimately, but what backed that up was the fact that even the turbo isn't fast...

The base isn't a bad motor either. It has good torque and is much better than my wife's camry. I am completely satisfied with it.

I would like to see an all electric cx-50 with like 900 hp. That would be amazing 🤩

 

[risingphoenix1116]

Really torn on which to pick. Trying to save a few bucks and get the base engine. I haven’t driven the turbo, just the base engine. It’s seems adequate but not sporty. Is it a bad call to get the base?

mine is not turbo and i love it. not sure why/who would NEED the turbo.

 

[PracticallyOffRoading]

who would NEED the turbo.

Towing would be a big one. You get a good bit more towing power with the turbo

 

[Clicky]

I have the base engine and putting it in sport mode helps. Normally it’s fine for me but it’s a little lacking when going wot. It’s acceptable and the price benefit was worth it for me.

try both and see which works for you.

 

[FLCX50]

Really torn on which to pick. Trying to save a few bucks and get the base engine. I haven’t driven the turbo, just the base engine. It’s seems adequate but not sporty. Is it a bad call to get the base?

IMO, turbo is the way to go. The CX-50 is a little hefty and the added torque/hp from the turbo, even when running 87 octane, is a good balance. MPG wise the EPA only rated them one mile different, between non-turbo and turbo. But I have been seeing 30ish consitenly on the highway with mine.

But it is all in how you like to drive and what you need. For me, I tow, I carry kayaks, etc and I like the comfort of a little bit of get up and go when the occasion calls. (and the turbo supports the 7 pin trailer plug) If you dont tow or dont plan on it and are looking more for a comfortable commuter then perhaps the non-turbo is right for you needs.

*Definitely do not drive the turbo if you are trying to talk yourself into the non.

 

[Windchill]

Look we’re not talking about just a few bucks here, there’s a $7000 spread between a 2.5 Select and the entry Turbo model. The base NA engine is not exactly thrilling but has no trouble keeping up with city or highway traffic, and is still fun to boot down a back road.

I like the CX50 a lot (which is why I bought one!) but its market position makes a lot more sense close to $30k (where it’s an incredible value) than pushing $40k. There’s some serious competition in that $40k price range but in my opinion CX 50 is the nicest player in the $30k zone.

 

[CX50 Toad]

My TPP is in the shop getting the sunroof rattle fixed and the provided a CX-50 non-turbo as my loaner so I thought I'd chime in. I live in Colorado, so my experience is between 5000-8000 ft in altitude. I drove about 2 hours on the highway in total and another hour around town today in the loaner.

Highway driving was where I noticed the biggest difference. Getting up to hwy speed definitely takes longer and if you floor it at highway speed there is a lot of noise with the downshift and not much reaction. I also found the downshifting on hills and related noise distracting. I use cruise a lot and with the turbo it seldom downshifts on hills but today it was changing gears constantly trying to keep at the set speed. It will cruise on the flat at 85 no problem. I'm sure it would help if I wasn't at high altitude.

 

[cashmonee]

Look we’re not talking about just a few bucks here, there’s a $7000 spread between a 2.5 Select and the entry Turbo model. The base NA engine is not exactly thrilling but has no trouble keeping up with city or highway traffic, and is still fun to boot down a back road.

I like the CX50 a lot (which is why I bought one!) but its market position makes a lot more sense close to $30k (where it’s an incredible value) than pushing $40k. There’s some serious competition in that $40k price range but in my opinion CX 50 is the nicest player in the $30k zone.

To be fair, the Turbo Base is on par with the 2.5S Premium when you compare features. Those trims are only $2000 apart. So sure, if you forego the turbo, you have the opportunity to save $8200 going with the Select (I think you are pricing a Preferred), but you are giving up a lot more than just the turbo engine. I do agree that the Select and Preferred are excellent values. However, the Turbo Base at $37k is not too shabby a value itself with a really nice interior, pano roof, and that engine.

 

[MazdaGuru]

I'm coming from a BMW 335. I got the non turbo cx-50.
I test drove both and the turbo is a huge upgrade. For me though, it still wasn't a "fast" car, it didn't pull like the bimmer... I decided to go with the non turbo because of the price ultimately, but what backed that up was the fact that even the turbo isn't fast...

The base isn't a bad motor either. It has good torque and is much better than my wife's camry. I am completely satisfied with it.

I would like to see an all electric cx-50 with like 900 hp. That would be amazing

Coming from a Audi Q5… the turbo it sport mode kills the Audi. No question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Windchill]

To be fair, the Turbo Base is on par with the 2.5S Premium when you compare features. Those trims are only $2000 apart. So sure, if you forego the turbo, you have the opportunity to save $8200 going with the Select (I think you are pricing a Preferred), but you are giving up a lot more than just the turbo engine. I do agree that the Select and Preferred are excellent values. However, the Turbo Base at $37k is not too shabby a value itself with a really nice interior, pano roof, and that engine.

I would have spent a couple thousand more to get a non-turbo premium plus if they had been building them last month, but all you could get was a Select or a turbo. It was easily an $8000 difference. Would I have preferred the pano sunroof and leather? for sure. But to get a car like this under $30K out the door felt like a smoking deal.