My 2018 CX-5 is now 5 years old with 52,000 miles. Other than the fuel pump recall and new tires at 40K miles it has been trouble free and fun to drive. It is a standard Touring, non-turbo. I have been thinking about getting the new 2024 CX-5. For anyone who has had a 2018 and a newer version, can you comment on whether the newer ones are worth making the change? Also wonder if the fun factor of a turbo is with it considering cost (and insurance) and less mpg. If anyone has a 2018 CX-5 compared to a CX-50 that would be appreciated too.

 

Welcome to the forum

The turbo charged version is overrated if you use the literal term "FUN FACTOR". And Mazda does not participate in certification for advertising true power information ratings.
You can come closer to the same power with less then $900 checking into a Versa Tune calibrated for your MAZDA.

So most of the rest of your question would be personal preference. Your Mazda is a great year and with what you posted should go another 50K miles with no unusual concerns.

 

My girlfriend's sister has a 2019 which is essentially the exact same as your car. My girlfriend ended up getting a 2021 CX-5 and the jump from the 2019 to 2021 was already a pretty nice upgrade. I have a 2021 Carbon Edition Turbo which is also a significant upgrade from the 2019. I would see what you would get for trade-in, or selling to Carvana, Carmax, etc. If any of them offer a great price, then I would look at a 2021-2023 Turbo model and see if you like it more than your car currently. I think you will, but only make the decision to switch if you get a great price and good financing. I would pass on a 2024 since they re-added touch screen to the infotainment and also put stop/start in it, both being things I hate along with many others because they just cause more problems and headaches. The turbo is worth it in my opinion if you don't mind getting oil changes done 2500 miles earlier, and spending more money on gas with a little worse city mileage. On the highway the Turbo does perfectly fine with gas mileage. I'm not sure about the '22-'23 models but on my 2021 Turbo there is no cyclinder deactivation as well which is a plus, but on the non-turbo motors the cylinder deactivation is so smooth that I don't have any complaints either. As far as the CX-50, I wouldn't bother looking at it. The quality is worse and it's literally a CX-5 re-badged to look like a Subaru. People don't seem as happy with it.

 

Thanks for the input. Carvana offering $18K against Dealership trade in of $14K. CarMax about the same. The 2024 Carbon Edition interests me. How is the paint holding up on yours? I am a cash only buyer. Not a fan of the start/stop. I see you can disable it but must do it every time you start up. Interesting comment on the CX-50. Reviews are mixed for sure.

 

Thanks for your input. I really like my CX-5, features, performance, quality. I have never owned a turbo so not inclined to change that, I guess.

 

Maybe if those "little" turbos grew it would be worth another look but that may not happen for a couple more years and then maybe?

I do read that some members that have had both or own claim that the N/A is by comparison notably less power than the Turbocharged models. The thing with this is I have done a few DYNO with both and there is not that much different in HP but Torque when you get into more then 10psi boost is notable. And also, your MPG drops by 60% or more when running higher boost levels. So, I guess it is a balance.

Here is the thing while many claims they notice a power difference if you go to reviews done by professional where they run the 1/4 and see the results and do the reverse power math you can get a good idea about what the real power differences are between the N/A and Turbo models on any given platform.

The end is hard for me to logically see paying the extra cost both in the model and possibly the insurance coverage of a *turbocharged engine regarding a Mazda, just by the Turbo emblems and attach it to your Mazda, very few would really know it was not a Turbo model ... lol


* I own 2 Turbocharged factory equipped engines BMW/MINI and Chryslers and one Supercharged BMW/MINI factory equip engine

 

I do certainly wish the turbo was just a little bigger, but I can't complain. I'm happy with mine considering I got it for a great price with everything else included on the car. If they slapped a bigger turbo with more power, it would make the car even better than it already is.

 

Ya so many get HYPED up when they hear the word Turbocharged engine not realizing that on many platforms it is there because the engine can't support in normally aspirated the requirements of power vs emission and MPG. The torque improvement is a plus if you plan to tow however in stock comparison between N/A and Turbo model platforms . A larger and modified Turbo with an ECU calibration can wake up the sleeping giant in the Mazda Turbocharged models.
As I have said a few times the cost balance for the slight power improvement over the N/A are IMHO not worth the cost. At least in my case where I can make more power for less and still remain California emission legal. If I had my Mazda registered in other less strict states My power numbers would most defiantly be higher and still be a reliable engine and the mods still thousands of dollars less, then a new Turbo model Mazda. And those are WHP (that means measured at the wheel) and repeated Dyno tested.

 

Ah I forgot the amount of BS California has with cars these days...

 

It is CA that caused all the auto manufacture to adhere to emission regulations. Also, many states are slowly going to those emission regulation that are in CA. Like electric vehicles emission standards in all states will soon adopt CA requirements. No more Federal and Ca emission vehicles all will be federal with CA standards.