I am currently in the market for a 2025 CX-5 Premium Plus. I have test drove 5 cars at different dealerships....one being a Turbo to feel the difference. Coming from two V8 cars,(which I currently own) I know power (2010 Jaguar XK and 2001 Lexus LS430). The current 2.5 non turbo absolutely feels considerably peppy for a 187 hp car. I like to use the sport mode which really makes it feel nimble with enough power especially around town. Here's the thing... I did test drive the Turbo, and around town, the difference (for me) was not very noticeable. I'm sure on the highway, it will be helpful for passing slow moving cars, however I drive mostly city. All my test drives were within the last month, so I most likely had a recently built car. I don't know what last years 2.5 non turbo felt like, but I find this 2025 more than I need to get around. I drive mostly alone or with one other passenger. This car does feel like it has more than 187 horsepower (for me) and I don't see an absolute huge difference with the Turbo. Regardless of what the OP is referring to, I just wanted to add my opinion of the base engine's power.... Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks all.

 

When you floor both cars, you can feel the night and day difference. In the city it's not too different until you're going uphill or have a full car. That's where it's most noticeable when I drove both engines.

 

Depending on all types of variables the 0-60 times between the N/A and Turbo is 1 second . Yet the 1/4 mile times between them are very close.
I suggest not to rely on what the internet shows for 1/4 mile unless they are showing actual time slips.
Having seen them both run at a couple of 1/4 mile track the turbo model is not impressive.
This supports that when the Turbo is boosting around around 10psi many get the omg wow feeling yet even at the best 17psi max boost in perfect conditions and 95+ RON other wise the ECU started protecting the engine by limiting or reducing engine operations and this is why under most circumstances there is no real advantage to the baby turbo model Mazda.
As for load comparing them the turbo will produce better torque at lower engine speeds and does make higher total torque, But unless you are shopping specifically for the need for that again the cost of a Baby turbo model Mazda is generally more the novelty then what most really need.

 

...than the 2.5 non-turbo. I recently shopped both models, and found the turbo car to be considerably more powerful, and just as importantly to me, a lot less noisy when accelerating or going up hills. Car & Driver reports that the 2.5T is almost 2 seconds quicker to 60mph than is the non-turbo, and my experience does suggest that these times are likely accurate.

PS: we purchased the CX-5 turbo model in 'Hot Wheels' red (it may take a while to get used to the color).

 

Have you measured them with an accelerometer or been to a Drag strip and have your seen your time slips? The butt Dyno can be very subjective.
2 seconds on what Mazda claims the power rated is mathematically using all the input information is not very unlikely in the physical world.
Car and Driver also conflict with other magazines testing results. And they do not post all the complete information as well a few other flaws in their testing over the decades?


I like the color name HOT WHEELS RED!


To repeat with a little more experience then most members on most all Mazda (and all but a drag racing forum) forums regarding Drag racing subjects, like 1320 times, 60ft times which in the case of comparing 2 different intake systems is very telling and 0-60mph times.

.
​​​​​​​

 

To be fair, if you look at any article comparing a 2.5T model to a NA 2.5 the numbers are between 1.5 and 2 seconds quicker to 60 for the turbo and 1/4 mile is about 15s for the turbo and over 16 sec for an NA . I don't need to go to a drag strip and prove it when there are no publications saying otherwise. Is it a hot rod? Nope. But after having a 19 with the NA motor for 20k miles and now a 21 with the 2.5T motor for over 30k miles, I can definitively say the turbo is markedly quicker in all driving conditions. That being said, the NA motor is quite fun as well.

 

Most articles are information from other articles. Got to go see what when and how the information was done.
I guess in this sense I am not going to enlighten anyone on this thread with real world experienced and measure over some information that must be true cuz its on the internet info. LOL

 

Once again... personal preference. How often is the owner going to put the pedal to the floor to zip by someone, or just feel the extra power? I own a 2010 Jaguar XK with a little under 400 HP and it moves...It's a Grand Tourer Sports car and yes it's fast. Do I get on it regularly? Nah.....I know it's there if I need it... which is just about never. The CX-5 is fun car that I find is zippy with the 2.5 N/A engine. I drive 85% around town. The Turbo is faster but it's not dramatic....Would I personally get on it if I owned it on a regular basis? Nope...Is the 2.5 N/A underpowered? Not really, and the sport mode really gets it going when going on ramps and starting off from a dead stop. After 4 test drives with the 2.5 N/A and 1 with the Turbo (on the highway as well), I don't find it to be "dramatically different" and thus, my personal preference for our little CX-5 is the 2.5 N/A which is perfectly fine.

 

You should look into a Versa tune

 

Retread we are all still waiting for a picture with the engine cover off to see your secret engine
maybe you and varoom can match race lol.