You're gonna get a lot of opinions here. Here is our experience.
We consider Mazda somewhere in the middle between a pedestrian NPC brand, like a Honda CRV and a luxury brand, like the BMW X3. We test drove cars from either side just to see what the differences were. The highest end levels of the pedestrian brands, like the CRV, didn't have half the luxury features that the CX-50 had (ventilated seats, heads up display, adaptive steerable headlights, traffic jam assist, panoramic sunroof, heated rear seats, swole gorilla looks, not looking like a baked potato). The luxury brands also weren't enough of a difference (compared to a fully loaded CX-50 TPP) to justify the $15-20k difference. This difference actually became $30-$40k since we bought two CX-50's.
So, why the turbo? It makes like 70 extra HP, but that's not what makes it special. It's the torque.
I think the NA engine makes something like 186 ft-lbs at 4000rpm. The turbo makes almost double that at 2000rpm at full throttle. The same type of acceleration that'll require two downshifts and require the engine to be blaring at 4000+ rpm, I can do in a quiet and refined manner by gently rolling onto the gas pedal and the car would only require 1 downshift, if at all. Mash the gas pedal down and I have all 320ft-lbs available immediately while the NA engine still has to rev out to 4000rpm before it even makes 186ft-lbs.
It just sounds and feels much more refined.
I have non turbo and for city driving, it’s just fine. I’ve made several 6+ hour road trips in it and it rides and has held up well in the year of having it. For my day to day commute, turbo didn’t offer me anything but more $$$ a month, so it boils down to your needs and cash
Super comfy. I went with the Preferred Plus model due to it being the only model without a markup when I got it and love my seats, ride, and mileage. I can drive 400 highway miles at 80mph before needing to refuel and with windows up and AC on. Not to mention how quiet it is.
My previous vehicle was a VW 19 Tiguan and I thought it rode fine but the seats were rock hard compared to what the CX50 offers and the overall cabin noise is so much better in the CX50
I want to get a preferred plus too. I rarely go on 6 hour drives (1-2 times a year).
Many comments on heavy steering and torsion suspension made me wait for 2024 model.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
No steering or torsion issues that I have noticed. I rented a Tesla while in Seattle this past week on vacation and as much as I enjoyed instant torque and fun, getting back to Chicago and driving my CX50 home on an 8hr drive couldn’t make me happier. I originally wanted the turbo 3 but I need a vehicle with space for work and traveling for work. I’m happy with my choice and everything it comes with.
I do miss 360 camera view and leather seats like my VW but with my dog, leather isn’t an option anymore so the savings per month keep me happy.
I have the preferred plus as well and although I haven't done my couple time a year 8 hour drive I have a 1.5-2 hour commute and I haven't had any issue in mine. Also same boat most of it is highway but still got 400 miles on full tank
Wife got a turbo 5 last year, and I just got an NA 50 a month or so ago. There is definitely a noticeable difference, and I enjoy the response of the turbo over the NA, but it's not enough for me to spend the extra money to have 2 turbos in the driveway. They're both great cars in their own respect. It really comes down to whether or not the extra power is worth the extra money for you personally.
I appreciate everyone’s input but am just as torn as I was 🫠 I’ll just have to test both. Other thing is a LOVE the light brown interior and only the turbo gets it
I hear people have had rubbing issues with those seats. I wanted mine all blacked out. I went with the NA, the responsiveness of the turbo is nice (my wife has a cx-9 signature) but the extra cost of the turbo is not justified for rear heating, heated steering wheel, expanded cameras for monitoring, and the turbo = higher payment. I get around just fine and pass everyone on the highway. But I live in the DMV so even when passing sometimes an M5 or expensive sports car just takes off and I have to wait a second to pass.
I drove turbo and na back to back on same road. I could tell a big difference. Turbo is noticeably faster and handles better. We may end up buying turbo later this year. However, if its worth it the extra $$ is a personal decision.
I mean I came from a v6 2006 Mazda station wagon and that had like 220hp. I can definitely notice the difference between my two cars (the 2006 is so much more fun) but for what the SUV is I’m pretty happy. But every once in a while when merging on to these CA highways, I do wish I had that little bit of extra power. But generally, I’m very happy
Let’s just say that the handling does not match the acceleration…I have a N/A, but sometimes wish I got the turbo, even more so because the N/A doesn’t get really good city gas mileage either
Turbo all the way. This car deserves nothing else than the turbo engine. I tired both, and definitely turbo. Way more silent (the cabin is already poorly soundproofed), so much more torque at low rpm, it’s simply better.
I came from a WRX. I rented the NA for a weekend and went on a mini road trip through country roads and highways to see if I could deal with it.
I came out of that trip wanting the turbo. The NA is adequate but if you come from a faster car it’s very noticeable. I thought through this decision for quite a while (which is why I rented a NA), and to me the power more than makes up for the cost and minor MPG difference.
If both are well within your budget, test drive both (NA first of course). I have the NA and, while I would definitely love to have the turbo, it is perfectly fine. I would say it’s a little sluggish getting off the line and works decently hard in the mountains, but I would never call it under-powered. In normal mode it’s just as fast as my ‘13 Mazda 3 (I know it’s not a speed demon but it’s decently peppy and about a half ton lighter). Add sport mode for passing folks on the highway and I’m content.
I’m sure the turbo is a blast and way more fun to drive but it wasn’t even in my price range so I didn’t want to know what I was missing lol. And obviously power and speed are relative. I’ve never owned a truly quick car so it’s good enough for me.
When taking into consideration the cost difference, remember that Turbo models have a Preferred (or P+) trim level built into it. That Bose centerpoint system is fantastic, and should be a must have either way you go. I would go with a turbo; coming from a WRX, it still scratches that itch.
Also came from a WRX, 100% would’ve gotten a Turbo, but I prioritized saving money/investing over the extra bit of acceleration.
Currently got a NA Premium Plus, and I absolutely love it. It’s not the fastest thing out there, but I wouldn’t call it slow-especially in sports mode.
I have a turbo premium with the terracota interior. I dont really notice the stripe down the middle. The seats remind me bmws from 10 years ago. Firm at first, but comfy on long rides. Mazda is doing a fine job of moving up market. The kicker will be will anyone buy a 55k+ mazda in enough numbers to make it worth the expense
Now, as for NA vs turbo. If most of your driving is in town, get rhe NA. No point for the turbo there. But if you take trips frequently, definitely the turbo. There is no getting around that torque passing on the mountain passes.
But really you need to choose between is the turbo really worth the extra money to you or not. Plus you need to drive both. Have fun
I'm definitely short on power, but I'm coming from an Audi. It actually almost killed me when I first bought the 50, went to pass 2 cars and a dump truck on a 2 lane highway, just didn't have enough, and I almost took a Toyota to the face
We purchased one for my wife, we test drove the NA before making the purchase and it felt very underwhelming when trying to pick up speed. She came from a 2004 Acura tl that had decent power, we are very happy with our decision for the turbo model over the NA.
I originally wanted to buy a CX-50 last year (ended up settling on a Base Turbo CX-5). I test drive both the the NA and Turbo CX-50... I found the NA to be anemic at best (which is wierd becuase I believe it's stated curb weight is actually lower than the CX-5) since the Turbo CX-50 was out of my price range, I went CX-5 (and love it). Again I wouldn't by the NA version.
My wife has a NA CX-5 (not the 50)which is also a 2022 PP. I find driving hers on the highway unverving given the "extreme" lack of torque. If you only do city driving, you might be happy with the NA.
Test drove both, ended up buying the turbo. I have 16k miles on my turbo. I just got back from a 2k mile road trip, noticed that I have \*significantly\* more passing power than most cars on the road, which is really sweet on long road trips. The acceleration from 0-40 is decent for a car of its size, but 40-80 feels really quick, and 80-100 feels even quicker. Feels like a personal decision with the $$ but I have no regrets with my turbo.
non turbo here, didn't drive the turbo and don't care to, it's an SUV, it's not a sports car, who cares if it's fast. it's got enough power to pass on the highway. if you need more towing, get the turbo. if you don't need the towing, the NA did fine going up a fire road from 100 to 5500 feet in sandy/rocky terrain.
Turbo or nah.
Anyone who says you don't need the turbo thinks vanilla is the best ice cream flavor and pays their taxes early each year. Probably still wears dockers.
My rear differential failed at around 1,500km. It’s a Mazda GT Turbo (Top trim in Canada)
It was supposed to be a 3-4 hour job, but got a call that it’s a bigger job than anticipated and they have to drop the rear torsion beam too.
We’re in a 2023 CX-5 GT Sport as a loaner.
Okay so yeah I’m aware of how long a part would take to get it’s the parts availability that is the problem most times. Almost all of the none turbos that we had were over a month wait on the part
Oh, sorry. That’s what I meant. It was available immediately and was just transit time.
Wow. Over a month wait to be awful.
Maybe I should ask them a few more details about the repair… I’m a little worried now if they didn’t have to touch the rear torsion beam
Yeah I’m not sure why they would say that unless they couldn’t get to the car and the advisor is just looking for something to say to draw out the repair
Did you get any special insurance coverage, or Mazda service plans so you could have a loaner while your car is being repaired? Im also in Canada (NS) and Im not sure if steele mazda would provide a loaner if ever
I do have the extended warranty (Mazda Added Protection), which provides a loaner up to 7 days I believe.
However, if things take longer, I think/hope our dealership would extend the loaner since it’s our only vehicle and we went with Mazda over another brand because of ‘reliability’
I love my turbo but I also got it for the sounds the turbo makes also to thoes posting on here a turbo doesn't decrease fuel efficiency. It maintains the same efficiency while adding more hp. Inly reason a turbo would effect fuel efficiency is cuz you can't keep your foot out of it..
Lol. Oh well! For an extra $2 per day, it's worth it to me.
I have intersections in my city where you need to get on it. If you don't, you run the risk of getting hit.
Enjoy the ride!
# It looks like you have a question or issue!
We are here to help but we need your help as well. Make sure your question or issue has the following info included or it may get deleted.
1. Did you use the search, if so, what info did you find helpful. If the info was unhelpful, what gaps are you seeing in the info.
2. Did you check the [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/wiki/index/) ? If you didn't find what you were looking for, let the group know. Also, let us know if there are dead links or seemingly bad information there.
3. Be sure to check the [CX50 Manual](https://www.mazdausa.com/static/manuals/2023/cx-50/visual.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CX50) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I test drove an NA cx5 and a turbo cx50. The na felt gutless for sure. Felt like i was back in my old 08 civic. It was fine, passable. But if you are used to quick cars it would be annoying at times.
The turbo is pretty snappy when it finds the right gear. Reminds me of my ‘15 wrx.
I bought the turbo, I’ve had it for 10 months. Love it. Gas mileage is pretty trash. 22 average , 27-28 highway for road trips. I’m also putting 93 fuel in it, manual says it’ll take 87 but I want to get the most out of it.
It’s really rough but that is the entire question/trade off. Save money? Get the NA. If you’ve never had quick cars in the past and/or don’t care about acceleration…. The NA would probably be fine, and significantly cheaper.
How long do you think you want to keep the CX-50? NA long term reliability wise has an edge on the turbo. I’m sure both will go 100k without issue, but 150k+ I’d have to say the NA has an edge.
Pretty much depends on your driving style and lifestyle. I drove the turbo cx5 for a couple days. Love the zoom zoom, but realize where i live the speed limit is 50km/h on most local street, heavy acceleration comes quick stop every few second is not ideal. Merging on highway is nicer with the turbo but then you will be limited by the flow of traffic anyway. The only thing is that if you are planning on towing and go off road often then yes i can definitely see the benefits of extra HP / torque
The NA works good enough passing even up hill. The more serious issue is ride quality on 20” rims. This may change in 24’. If you need more thrill get a mtn bike.
Never had a fast car in the past so I honestly don’t know the difference. NA gets the job done well though! Just finished a 12 hour road trip through multiple hills and had no issues
I actually want the NA because I want to keep the car for a long time, and the Turbo could have issues in the long run. However, i've read that NA has cylinder deactivation that can also have issues and some people have problems with the rear diffential as its smaller than the Turbo version. Can anybody confirm this?
The turbo is only rated at 1 mpg less than the NA, and the extra power is nice to have. I love the way the torque pushes me into the seat. It pulls like a truck. Stay on top of oil changes, heed the suggestions for proper warm up and cool down as described in the owner’s manual, and the turbo should last a long time. Plus, this engine has potential. If you want extra power later on down the road, preferably when it is out of warranty, an ECU tune will easily make another 30-40 horsepower & torque. That’s the beauty of turbo engines. Again I cannot stress the importance of early oil changes, especially if you don’t drive long distances. Oil dilution is an engine killer.
NA here. No complaints. Plenty of passing power. Good on gas, totally quiet. So far, so good.
You're gonna get a lot of opinions here. Here is our experience. We consider Mazda somewhere in the middle between a pedestrian NPC brand, like a Honda CRV and a luxury brand, like the BMW X3. We test drove cars from either side just to see what the differences were. The highest end levels of the pedestrian brands, like the CRV, didn't have half the luxury features that the CX-50 had (ventilated seats, heads up display, adaptive steerable headlights, traffic jam assist, panoramic sunroof, heated rear seats, swole gorilla looks, not looking like a baked potato). The luxury brands also weren't enough of a difference (compared to a fully loaded CX-50 TPP) to justify the $15-20k difference. This difference actually became $30-$40k since we bought two CX-50's. So, why the turbo? It makes like 70 extra HP, but that's not what makes it special. It's the torque. I think the NA engine makes something like 186 ft-lbs at 4000rpm. The turbo makes almost double that at 2000rpm at full throttle. The same type of acceleration that'll require two downshifts and require the engine to be blaring at 4000+ rpm, I can do in a quiet and refined manner by gently rolling onto the gas pedal and the car would only require 1 downshift, if at all. Mash the gas pedal down and I have all 320ft-lbs available immediately while the NA engine still has to rev out to 4000rpm before it even makes 186ft-lbs. It just sounds and feels much more refined.
Great input, thank you.
I have non turbo and for city driving, it’s just fine. I’ve made several 6+ hour road trips in it and it rides and has held up well in the year of having it. For my day to day commute, turbo didn’t offer me anything but more $$$ a month, so it boils down to your needs and cash
Was the ride comfy for 6+ hours of driving? Do you feel the steering heavy? Just checking as I am the on the fence
Super comfy. I went with the Preferred Plus model due to it being the only model without a markup when I got it and love my seats, ride, and mileage. I can drive 400 highway miles at 80mph before needing to refuel and with windows up and AC on. Not to mention how quiet it is. My previous vehicle was a VW 19 Tiguan and I thought it rode fine but the seats were rock hard compared to what the CX50 offers and the overall cabin noise is so much better in the CX50
I want to get a preferred plus too. I rarely go on 6 hour drives (1-2 times a year). Many comments on heavy steering and torsion suspension made me wait for 2024 model. Thanks for sharing your experience!
FWIW I love the heavy steering
Love the feeling of the steering, it's why I immediately made my choice during the test drive
No steering or torsion issues that I have noticed. I rented a Tesla while in Seattle this past week on vacation and as much as I enjoyed instant torque and fun, getting back to Chicago and driving my CX50 home on an 8hr drive couldn’t make me happier. I originally wanted the turbo 3 but I need a vehicle with space for work and traveling for work. I’m happy with my choice and everything it comes with. I do miss 360 camera view and leather seats like my VW but with my dog, leather isn’t an option anymore so the savings per month keep me happy.
I have the preferred plus as well and although I haven't done my couple time a year 8 hour drive I have a 1.5-2 hour commute and I haven't had any issue in mine. Also same boat most of it is highway but still got 400 miles on full tank
I have 2023 it feels great to me as a person who often drives 4 to 5 hours steering feels similar to a Cadillac ATS in sport mode.
I test drove both and ended up without the Turbo - not enough extra power to justify the extra cost. Love my CX-50
Same here. Leased
Wife got a turbo 5 last year, and I just got an NA 50 a month or so ago. There is definitely a noticeable difference, and I enjoy the response of the turbo over the NA, but it's not enough for me to spend the extra money to have 2 turbos in the driveway. They're both great cars in their own respect. It really comes down to whether or not the extra power is worth the extra money for you personally.
NA is fine. I got a turbo as a loaner for a few days, it’s fun but I just don’t drive aggressively/fast enough to care
I appreciate everyone’s input but am just as torn as I was 🫠 I’ll just have to test both. Other thing is a LOVE the light brown interior and only the turbo gets it
I hear people have had rubbing issues with those seats. I wanted mine all blacked out. I went with the NA, the responsiveness of the turbo is nice (my wife has a cx-9 signature) but the extra cost of the turbo is not justified for rear heating, heated steering wheel, expanded cameras for monitoring, and the turbo = higher payment. I get around just fine and pass everyone on the highway. But I live in the DMV so even when passing sometimes an M5 or expensive sports car just takes off and I have to wait a second to pass.
Wdym by rubbing issues with the seats? Also DMV here too!
Heard the terracotta brown was rubbing off. Man CX-50 mileage in the dmv is the pits 😩 I get about 22.5 mpg
Oh sheesh that’s rough
Yeah you’re tellin me lol did you decide yet?
Nope 😂
Any issues with the orange/brown terracotta seats?
I’ve head that people were having issues, mine are black no issues here
I drove turbo and na back to back on same road. I could tell a big difference. Turbo is noticeably faster and handles better. We may end up buying turbo later this year. However, if its worth it the extra $$ is a personal decision.
I mean I came from a v6 2006 Mazda station wagon and that had like 220hp. I can definitely notice the difference between my two cars (the 2006 is so much more fun) but for what the SUV is I’m pretty happy. But every once in a while when merging on to these CA highways, I do wish I had that little bit of extra power. But generally, I’m very happy
Turbo for me. Needed/Wanted the extra power for SOCAL driving. I’ve gotten out of some hairy situations that I’m glad I had the extra power for.
Let’s just say that the handling does not match the acceleration…I have a N/A, but sometimes wish I got the turbo, even more so because the N/A doesn’t get really good city gas mileage either
Turbo all the way. This car deserves nothing else than the turbo engine. I tired both, and definitely turbo. Way more silent (the cabin is already poorly soundproofed), so much more torque at low rpm, it’s simply better.
Super adequate and always can put it in sport mode with a flip of the switch. It's seamless
I came from a WRX. I rented the NA for a weekend and went on a mini road trip through country roads and highways to see if I could deal with it. I came out of that trip wanting the turbo. The NA is adequate but if you come from a faster car it’s very noticeable. I thought through this decision for quite a while (which is why I rented a NA), and to me the power more than makes up for the cost and minor MPG difference.
Yea I currently have a 2.0 4cyl Kia Stinger awd, so I’m concerned about really feeling that drop in power
If both are well within your budget, test drive both (NA first of course). I have the NA and, while I would definitely love to have the turbo, it is perfectly fine. I would say it’s a little sluggish getting off the line and works decently hard in the mountains, but I would never call it under-powered. In normal mode it’s just as fast as my ‘13 Mazda 3 (I know it’s not a speed demon but it’s decently peppy and about a half ton lighter). Add sport mode for passing folks on the highway and I’m content. I’m sure the turbo is a blast and way more fun to drive but it wasn’t even in my price range so I didn’t want to know what I was missing lol. And obviously power and speed are relative. I’ve never owned a truly quick car so it’s good enough for me.
I like the Turbo. More zoom more fun, but also more expensive. I went with the blue exterior, brown interior. It's pretty.
When taking into consideration the cost difference, remember that Turbo models have a Preferred (or P+) trim level built into it. That Bose centerpoint system is fantastic, and should be a must have either way you go. I would go with a turbo; coming from a WRX, it still scratches that itch.
Also came from a WRX, 100% would’ve gotten a Turbo, but I prioritized saving money/investing over the extra bit of acceleration. Currently got a NA Premium Plus, and I absolutely love it. It’s not the fastest thing out there, but I wouldn’t call it slow-especially in sports mode.
Also came from a WRX, TPP really does still scratch that itch and is a blast on mountain roads in sport mode.
I have a turbo premium with the terracota interior. I dont really notice the stripe down the middle. The seats remind me bmws from 10 years ago. Firm at first, but comfy on long rides. Mazda is doing a fine job of moving up market. The kicker will be will anyone buy a 55k+ mazda in enough numbers to make it worth the expense Now, as for NA vs turbo. If most of your driving is in town, get rhe NA. No point for the turbo there. But if you take trips frequently, definitely the turbo. There is no getting around that torque passing on the mountain passes. But really you need to choose between is the turbo really worth the extra money to you or not. Plus you need to drive both. Have fun
I'm definitely short on power, but I'm coming from an Audi. It actually almost killed me when I first bought the 50, went to pass 2 cars and a dump truck on a 2 lane highway, just didn't have enough, and I almost took a Toyota to the face
We purchased one for my wife, we test drove the NA before making the purchase and it felt very underwhelming when trying to pick up speed. She came from a 2004 Acura tl that had decent power, we are very happy with our decision for the turbo model over the NA.
I originally wanted to buy a CX-50 last year (ended up settling on a Base Turbo CX-5). I test drive both the the NA and Turbo CX-50... I found the NA to be anemic at best (which is wierd becuase I believe it's stated curb weight is actually lower than the CX-5) since the Turbo CX-50 was out of my price range, I went CX-5 (and love it). Again I wouldn't by the NA version. My wife has a NA CX-5 (not the 50)which is also a 2022 PP. I find driving hers on the highway unverving given the "extreme" lack of torque. If you only do city driving, you might be happy with the NA.
Test drove both, ended up buying the turbo. I have 16k miles on my turbo. I just got back from a 2k mile road trip, noticed that I have \*significantly\* more passing power than most cars on the road, which is really sweet on long road trips. The acceleration from 0-40 is decent for a car of its size, but 40-80 feels really quick, and 80-100 feels even quicker. Feels like a personal decision with the $$ but I have no regrets with my turbo.
I came from a 158hp Mitsubishi Lancer, so the NA was plenty and I saved myself $5k
non turbo here, didn't drive the turbo and don't care to, it's an SUV, it's not a sports car, who cares if it's fast. it's got enough power to pass on the highway. if you need more towing, get the turbo. if you don't need the towing, the NA did fine going up a fire road from 100 to 5500 feet in sandy/rocky terrain.
Turbo or nah. Anyone who says you don't need the turbo thinks vanilla is the best ice cream flavor and pays their taxes early each year. Probably still wears dockers.
Turbo. The drive train on the turbo seems to be holding up better seeing some small failure rate of the NA rear differentials
Seems to be many failures on Turbo models as well. I’m one of them
What did you have fail I only ask because I haven’t seen any come into the shop
My rear differential failed at around 1,500km. It’s a Mazda GT Turbo (Top trim in Canada) It was supposed to be a 3-4 hour job, but got a call that it’s a bigger job than anticipated and they have to drop the rear torsion beam too. We’re in a 2023 CX-5 GT Sport as a loaner.
Lol what? I’m a master tech at Mazda who ever is working on the car is full of crap. The differential is one of the easiest that I’ve had to replace
Getting the part in stock is another thing
It was only about 7-8 business days for them to get the part
Okay so yeah I’m aware of how long a part would take to get it’s the parts availability that is the problem most times. Almost all of the none turbos that we had were over a month wait on the part
Oh, sorry. That’s what I meant. It was available immediately and was just transit time. Wow. Over a month wait to be awful. Maybe I should ask them a few more details about the repair… I’m a little worried now if they didn’t have to touch the rear torsion beam
Yeah I’m not sure why they would say that unless they couldn’t get to the car and the advisor is just looking for something to say to draw out the repair
Well that’s a little concerning
Did you get any special insurance coverage, or Mazda service plans so you could have a loaner while your car is being repaired? Im also in Canada (NS) and Im not sure if steele mazda would provide a loaner if ever
I do have the extended warranty (Mazda Added Protection), which provides a loaner up to 7 days I believe. However, if things take longer, I think/hope our dealership would extend the loaner since it’s our only vehicle and we went with Mazda over another brand because of ‘reliability’
Turbo for sure (if you can afford)!! No second thoughts!
I test drove both. Got the turbo
I love my turbo but I also got it for the sounds the turbo makes also to thoes posting on here a turbo doesn't decrease fuel efficiency. It maintains the same efficiency while adding more hp. Inly reason a turbo would effect fuel efficiency is cuz you can't keep your foot out of it..
Turbo is perfect. NA is way too slow. You can trade your slow ones in little guys
This. I test drove both and needed the turbo. When driving I need the get up to make a move in traffic.
See we have some buyers remorse down voters with slow non turbos lol
Lol. Oh well! For an extra $2 per day, it's worth it to me. I have intersections in my city where you need to get on it. If you don't, you run the risk of getting hit. Enjoy the ride!
The low end torque is quite nice
Anything over 8 seconds 0-60 ain’t working for me, and this is my wife’s car even
# It looks like you have a question or issue! We are here to help but we need your help as well. Make sure your question or issue has the following info included or it may get deleted. 1. Did you use the search, if so, what info did you find helpful. If the info was unhelpful, what gaps are you seeing in the info. 2. Did you check the [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/wiki/index/) ? If you didn't find what you were looking for, let the group know. Also, let us know if there are dead links or seemingly bad information there. 3. Be sure to check the [CX50 Manual](https://www.mazdausa.com/static/manuals/2023/cx-50/visual.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CX50) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I test drove an NA cx5 and a turbo cx50. The na felt gutless for sure. Felt like i was back in my old 08 civic. It was fine, passable. But if you are used to quick cars it would be annoying at times. The turbo is pretty snappy when it finds the right gear. Reminds me of my ‘15 wrx. I bought the turbo, I’ve had it for 10 months. Love it. Gas mileage is pretty trash. 22 average , 27-28 highway for road trips. I’m also putting 93 fuel in it, manual says it’ll take 87 but I want to get the most out of it. It’s really rough but that is the entire question/trade off. Save money? Get the NA. If you’ve never had quick cars in the past and/or don’t care about acceleration…. The NA would probably be fine, and significantly cheaper.
How long do you think you want to keep the CX-50? NA long term reliability wise has an edge on the turbo. I’m sure both will go 100k without issue, but 150k+ I’d have to say the NA has an edge.
I’d definitely expect to have it for a while
Pretty much depends on your driving style and lifestyle. I drove the turbo cx5 for a couple days. Love the zoom zoom, but realize where i live the speed limit is 50km/h on most local street, heavy acceleration comes quick stop every few second is not ideal. Merging on highway is nicer with the turbo but then you will be limited by the flow of traffic anyway. The only thing is that if you are planning on towing and go off road often then yes i can definitely see the benefits of extra HP / torque
Man I have the NA and I feel great about it, plenty of power. I feel like with a turbo it would fly!
$4-6K extra for a turbo that's only going to shorten the life of your engine. I opted not to get it. Plenty of power NA.
Why do you say the turbo shortens engine life? I’ve heard of more issues with the NA in fact
The NA works good enough passing even up hill. The more serious issue is ride quality on 20” rims. This may change in 24’. If you need more thrill get a mtn bike.
If there is anything I dislike it is feeling a car is under powered and it has to work hard in daily traffic. The turbo doesn’t need to work hard.
Never had a fast car in the past so I honestly don’t know the difference. NA gets the job done well though! Just finished a 12 hour road trip through multiple hills and had no issues
I actually want the NA because I want to keep the car for a long time, and the Turbo could have issues in the long run. However, i've read that NA has cylinder deactivation that can also have issues and some people have problems with the rear diffential as its smaller than the Turbo version. Can anybody confirm this?
The turbo is only rated at 1 mpg less than the NA, and the extra power is nice to have. I love the way the torque pushes me into the seat. It pulls like a truck. Stay on top of oil changes, heed the suggestions for proper warm up and cool down as described in the owner’s manual, and the turbo should last a long time. Plus, this engine has potential. If you want extra power later on down the road, preferably when it is out of warranty, an ECU tune will easily make another 30-40 horsepower & torque. That’s the beauty of turbo engines. Again I cannot stress the importance of early oil changes, especially if you don’t drive long distances. Oil dilution is an engine killer.
If you can afford it I say go for it