Agreed, I commend you for your choice as well; if your commute is not that much, dropping from 30 mpg/highway (non-turbo) to 27 mpg/highway (turbo) might not be a big deal but for many customers it will matter.

 

Yep, looking at the alloys and the pics on the Mazda USA website, this is indeed the 2019 CX-5 turbo

 

Fortunately, I am retired and do not have to commute daily. 'Oh, what a relief it is'.

 

Thumbs up. Looking forward to my own retirement

 

 

True. I was expecting a loss due to the fact that the turbo does not have cylinder deactivation, but I did not expect this much loss. Is the CX-9 maybe aerodynamically better at highway speeds?

 

I assume if the sticker was on the car, it has to be a 2019 vehicle. They are starting to show up, so I would not doubt it is a 2019.

 

According to this
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300747331.html

It was 2019.

 

with the need for premium fuel to get the maximum performance, then the decreased fuel economy over the standard naturally aspirated engine , and based on my local gas prices at this very moment and driving 15000 miles a year just as an average , it would cost me $617 more a year to drive the turbo model using that premium fuel at the current gas price. Interesting thats all . . Not talking it Down. Then I guess times that by 5 years of so , and that's how much more it "could" cost you to do the same type of driving you do with the non-turbo model .

Also noticed turbo is standard on the cx-9 at a $34k, trim level , but for the cx-5 you have you be just barely under $40000 mark ..

 

I think this is sound logic. For most people, the fuel economy and power are more than adequate in the 2.5 NA. The 2.5T is for those that are willing to give up some fuel economy for more power. They are good options. I do agree that a 2.0T would be great. I still think the Mazda 2.0 NA is their best engine and even better in the new Miata.