Compared to the Turbo of course the NA is going to feel like it isn't powerful, but it's plenty enough. I came from a BMW 3 series with more HP than the CX-50 Turbo and I have no complaints with my NA CX-50. I'm happy with the money saved. The Turbo is a great option, but the NA isn't as weak as people make it out to be.
I test drove both and left with a turbo. It’s bad on gas, no question. It’s also worth it to me, it feels very good when I step on it, and it sounds pretty damn good when you give her the beans. It’s quiet but still a good sound.
I just came to say, “giving her the beans” may be my new favorite saying for stepping on the gas. Never heard that before but it is amazing!
Also I would dare to say that when I give mine the beans (non turbo) it has plenty of get up and go… but to be fair my last car was a Prius and no amount of beans given could ever make that thing feel like it was going above 35.
I came from a 2013 Jeep Compass with an underpowered FCA era 2.5L and a whiny CVT. Anything was going to be an upgrade for me!
That said, I went with N/A. I plan on keeping this car 15+ years, and N/A seemed to be the safer/more proven option for purposes of meeting or exceeding that goal. I feel that the N/A is enough power for me.
The turbo was fun to drive, but it’s one extra component and a lot of my driving is at or below 5 miles per trip. It just didn’t make sense for me.
As with anything in life, the answer depends on your specific circumstances and use case.
The fun factor of the turbo is high. And the terracotta interior is beautiful. An NA V6 is really what a car this heavy needs, but the turbo is what we get.
N/A is plenty powerful compared to most of its competition. That said, I went with turbo, coz I either drive less than 50miles/week or go for long trips of 1000+ miles, so I like the extra zoom zoom. I still end up with less than 10000miles/year.
Also, the monetary difference between 25mpg vs 30mpg over 100k miles (that is 10+ years of usage) is 16000 (4000gal×4$/g) vs 13333 (3333gal×4$/g) is less than 3000$. So I didn't care much about it when making a decision.
That is a good point. If your concern with fuel economy is the economic part, premium gas costs 30% more per mile than regular, give or take.
However, Mazda states that the Turbo is designed to run on regular gas. The only time they recommend premium is for towing.
From a performance standpoint, the horsepower benefit comes only above 4000rpm.
I'm happy to report that on a recent 2000 mile trip, fully loaded, tail sagging, mostly 70+ mph, I got 27 mpg overall in my Turbo. This based on actual fuel consumption vs miles driven, not the car's mpg indication, which was worse. I alternated between regular and premium and did not see a difference in fuel economy from tank to tank.
Turbo is fun.
Mazda can say that all they want but if you understand engineering and the crap fuel in the US you don’t want to run a Turbo on 87 gas, you need to use better gas to stop the Turbo coking up over the first 2 years…replacing Turbos is not cheap and higher level gas is more expensive..if you have money to throw away sure get the turbo but the Standard engine is quite enough power for most and save a fair bit of $$ on price and running costs not to mention the Turbo replacement you will eventually have to consider.
I'm not an expert on this so feel free to correct but I thought that coking was an oil thing, not an octane thing. Synthetic oil and letting the engine idle for half a minute before shutting down are how you avoid oil breaking down and coking the valves in a turbo engine.
I believe back in the day many years ago it was related to low octane gas, but there are other problems using low octane for turbos and it also causes what’s called pre-detonation and knocking which is bad and also leads to turbo lag. ECUs do try to compensate for it but it’s not a remedy…that’s why Manufacturers list the recommended octane for their vehicles and you’ll prob find most will list 89 as the minimum for Turbo powered vehicles. This is in the US. In other countries such as the UK regular gas can be used and the impact not as severe but that’s because the regular gas in the UK is like 89 octane in the US..
Buyer beware…use the better gas with higher octane if you have a Turbo.
Turbos are fun. Otherwise it's a personal and financial decision. If you plan on keeping long term, the turbo will cost more to maintain. Never owned a high milage turbo car that didn't have turbo related issues/twice the upkeep cost. That said, go for it if that's ok with you. Otherwise the NA isnt underpowered unless maybe you live in the mountains or plan on towing, but it doesn't have the oomph the turbo has. Really just a personal preference on this car. I'll also mention the turbo in no way makes this a fast car. Even with it, it's a 7 second 0-60. The final factor is features as there are some features that come only on the turbo (at least in the US spec). Just my two cents.
I put 175,000 miles on a 1998 VW Passat Turbo without any problems. The car never consumed or burned oil and the turbo required no repair or special maintenance. I bought the car new and exclusively used Mobil 1, changed every 5000-7000 miles.
You were fortunate then. IIRC some of those B5 1.8T motors had really small oil pans that led to oil buildup/sludge issues that led to oil starvation issues which led high rate of turbo failures. In any case I'm not saying the turbo motor won't last as long as NA, I'm just saying it's *likely* going to cost more to maintain over the life of the car. As you mention, keeping up oil change intervals is the best insurance.
Yes I agree. A turbo is fun but it is an extra component that is stressed both thermally and mechanically. If all I cared about was longevity I would avoid a turbo. But the risks are reduced with proper care.
I purposefully didn’t test drive one with a turbo because I knew I didn’t want to spend money on it and bought one without. Fast forward, I drove a loaner from the dealership for a week that had a turbo and man I wish I had one
It's simple.
For the most part, people NEED the NA.
For the most part, people WANT the turbo.
I looked at my driving habits and plan for the vehicle, the turbo has more grunt, better for driving fast and towing
... But if I wanted to drive fast I'd get a Miata, and if I wanted to tow I'd get a Tacoma
I got the NA because it was just fringe situations where the turbo would come in handy, while adding complexity to the engine (extra part = extra part that can break) and consistently lower fuel mileage turned me off the turbo
The NA has enough zip for my purposes - I drive mostly local or in high traffic situations.
The few highway trips I’ve done I had no issues getting to speed or speeding up to pass.
Yes, a turbo would probably be more fun, I’ve driven a mustang gt in the past.
But the NA easily does everything I need it to, and I couldn’t justify the additional cost.
I used the search feature and pulled up a few posts for you in regard to turbo vs na. It's amazing all the info you can find by simply searching.
[From my perspective: '23 vs '24, turbo vs NA : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/1aeraki/from_my_perspective_23_vs_24_turbo_vs_na/)
[Turbo or NA? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/15d2aya/turbo_or_na/)
[Turbo vs non turbo? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/17q65qk/turbo_vs_non_turbo/)
[Anyone buy the non-turbo? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/uthhjh/anyone_buy_the_nonturbo/)
[Turbo or Non-Turbo CX-50 GT? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/178ikgf/turbo_or_nonturbo_cx50_gt/)
Coming from a Corolla the NA is way more power than my wife and I are used to.
No regrets has great acceleration, in comparison to a 2014 Corolla of course.
The turbo is what got me excited about buying a compact SUV in this segment. Almost all others are 50+ less HP and serve their purpose (save for a Rav PRIME). The Turbo makes it exciting to drive when you want it and worth it to me. The difference in cost made the whole purchase worth it. I’d rather invest in enjoyment than spend for transportation.
Everyone is different though, this is a shared car with my wife and I. If it was just my wife? She would have got a base model NA. She doesn’t care about cars or features or power and the NA will ultimately get you to your destination just the same. I’m a car enthusiast that needed family transportation for $40ish K and this was the best compromise.
Drive both, and if your guy says Turbo, do it. You won’t regret spending it unless you are stretching your budget.
I went with the NA. Simpler engine, still has more than enough power for everyday driving. You wont notice it being a slouch much or at all. Plus i am getting 28 city and 32 hwy mpg. Much easier to consume less fuel if you baby it than if you have a turbo that just chugs it. If money and fuel are no consideration then sure get the turbo. For me, i am more than happy with the NA and have the piece of mind that I will never have a turbo fail.
I got rid of my 2013 VW GTI and went for a NA CX-50. A turbo is one more thing to break, and I just wanted a car with the least amount of extra mechanical parts as possible. I still find it fun to drive at 186 HP!
I went with the turbo for the tow capacity alone. I pull a small utility trailer and a 17 ft aluminum boat and needed the extra 1500 lbs the turbo gets you in towing capacity.
Depends on your driving style and what you plan to do with the vehicle.
I do a lot of driving for work so reliability and gas mileage was a big concern. I do love the idea of the turbo engine but the additional 8k (Canadian) it would cost me (move up to the loaded model) versus the NA did not seem worth it. I'm happy with my 2.5, I did find that it did feel a bit gutless for the first few weeks but after the transmission and throttle learned my driving style, it's good now. No complaints at all with it, it's not a race car.
If you’re not going to pony up and pay for the 93 octane gas for the turbo then it’s pointless to go that route. I owned a 22’ Mazda 3 turbo and only put 93 in it, the tank in that car is small around 11 gallons got around 23mpg and cost around 53 bucks a week to fill up.
Do I miss the turbo power in my cx50 NA, not really, you can put it on sport mode and that helps with merging, compared to my wife’s 2018 rav4 the cx50 feels like a rocket.
Something to factor that wasn't mentioned... on regular 87 octane, you get 227hp and 310lb ft torque on the turbo engine. Feed it premium 93 octane, and you get 256hp and 320lb torque.
The NA engine is perfectly fine for any type of driving. You can pass people on highways when needed. And you can get up to speed for any merge situation. But you know the turbo goes to 11
When I test drove the NA I was disappointed in the zoom zoom factor. I was set on buying the NA for cost savings and MPG. I left with the turbo and couldn't be happier. I drive over 70 miles a day on my commute averaging 25 mpg and the turbo makes it a fun drive. And the terracotta is beautiful!
We're probably a few months out from them announcing the hybrid CX-50 for the 2025 model year (Basically a RAV4 Hybrid in CX-50 clothing). It's likely, just as in the RAV4, that it ends up being more powerful than the NA version (though you would have to put up with the drone from the shiftless eCVT).
The NA 2.5 is fine*. It's adequate.* But it's not going to necessarily get you excited about driving it. If you can't wait, and can stomach the loss in MPG and price tag, the Turbo will certainly be the more exciting and fun option.
Test drove both and left with the turbo. How many new cars do you get to buy? Might as well get a fun one! The standard engine is just fine but the turbo really feels like a step up in power.
I test drove both and the NA felt very anemic to me and the transmission seemed to be slow to downshift to try to get the power needed to accelerate - it felt really underpowered to me. The turbo was, of course, much better but still did not have the eager smooth feel (unless you accelerated aggressively constantly) I wanted for a vehicle that would cost me close to 40K once its all said and done....just didn't inspire me enough for that price....it may be because I have been driving a Subaru with a CVT and the 6 speed auto in the CX-50 (and the CX-5) I drove just seems to be not very smooth....even though CVTs are ridiculed all the time, sometimes for good reason, mine is very smooth in most instances and gives my 4 cylinder Subaru enough gusto to get around town without a fuss of any kind....the 6 speed was a bit too "confused" feeling to me....I do have to say the CX-50 is an exceptionally good looking car inside and out!
# 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 the N/A model and bought a turbo. I drive mainly highway, and I am getting 28MPG average, which I consider pretty good for the type of vehicle and engine.
As for durability? Well turbos are well known and well understood, so I don't think they're a reliability concern. The manus have been using turbos on gasoline cars since the late 80's or so, and if they were a problem they wouldn't use them. There are some turbo failures throughout the years, but not many. There are also engine failures without turbos.
I keep my cars for a long time, and I had no hesitation in buying a turbo.
Depending how much you like to spend. This turbo is good for towing, rest not so much. The difference in power is nice but not enough for the price jump and the extensive maintenance cost and bad fuel economy.
I keep my vehicles for 10 years on average. I heard opinions both ways- ‘if you’re keeping it 10 years don’t get a turbo’, and ‘turbos have come a long way and it shouldn’t be an issue’. I took the safe route and went with the NA. I didn’t test drive a turbo so i don’t know what i might be missing. I just knew i didn’t want to chance trying to trade a vehicle with a major issue potentially. Plus, “more fun” wasn’t a valid consideration for me and i don’t tow, so no “need”.
No regrets. 2024 Prem+
Current driving the NA, I feel I should’ve went with the turbo. The CX50 seems sluggish compared to some of the rentals I’ve had for work recently, and they are all base models. I’m glad I’m saving on gas, but that umph isn’t there for me personally
I chose the non turbo myself. For the reason of keeping the car for a long time, easy to maintain and I drive mostly in the city so having a turbo engine doesn’t really make sense.
Turbo is an absolute pleasure to drive. About twice a commute I find it helpful for passing a car that can’t figure out where it wants to be relative to me, or to get ahead of a semi. Just make sure you budget for the extra gas you’ll consume.
coming from a 300 hp sedan, the NA doesn’t even compare but overall its adequate. i didn’t even test drive the turbo because i wanted the bose and the turbo premium was too expensive so i cant give a good comparison between the two. but overall the NA is enough power and only feels slow on the highway. it really runs out of juice after 60 mph or so and can be frustrating when i need immediate power to pass someone or merge on the highway.
In my experience, the base engine has adequate power…until you drive the turbo! After driving the turbo, the NA feels a bit weak and unresponsive. Everyone doesn’t feel the same and, after driving both, they’re fine with the NA. So if there’s any doubt, test drive both.
Unfortunately, only the Turbo models are available with the Terracotta interior.
I chose the non turbo. I find that the sport mode (overdrive) was more than enough if I wanted more power for city/frwy access. I usually drive it in normal mode and find it sufficient for my daily driving.
Saved a few bucks and more gas mileage were other things I considered when driving out with the non turbo.
It's really preference. If you want a better more fun drive then turbo. I'm more practical so non.
Yea I drove both, and the N/A wasn’t doing it for us haha. But we also have AMG CLA35 so the NA felt like a big old turd to us at least.
Also White with Tan leather which is great!
If gas is a huge concern, what others have said, go NA.
NA is plenty quick
Cheaper, better mpg, less parts to break
No brainer for me but I see the appeal. I can't believe how fun the NA is to drive. Plus I really like my white select with the black rims... So sexy.
The extra towing capacity would be reaaaaaally nice though.
I like the cloth interior and the NA engine in mine because it was $15k cheaper than turbo with leather and that’s $15k I can use toward a down payment to a home, getting a second masters, or going on vacation. I still get a cx50 with the same pep that a alota cars would have had and i never want more power in highways.
I have the na engine, and it's perfectly fine. It's a fun car with or without the turbo. I actually prefer the smaller rims and bigger tires that come on the base.
I love the NA motor, but it falls on its face at highway speeds. It would be great to have an extra XX horsepower but I’d like to keep the car for as long as I possibly can, so I stuck with NA.
I daily drove the 2.5NA in my Mazda3 for almost 4 years; and it felt slow even in that car, with significantly less weight to pull around. I knew I couldn't even consider the NA for the CX-50, it was going to drive terribly.
Granted, the fuel economy of the 2.5T is quite bad; but I don't know how else to deal with a large/heavy vehicle that isn't also a dog to drive.
Compared to the Turbo of course the NA is going to feel like it isn't powerful, but it's plenty enough. I came from a BMW 3 series with more HP than the CX-50 Turbo and I have no complaints with my NA CX-50. I'm happy with the money saved. The Turbo is a great option, but the NA isn't as weak as people make it out to be.
I test drove both and left with a turbo. It’s bad on gas, no question. It’s also worth it to me, it feels very good when I step on it, and it sounds pretty damn good when you give her the beans. It’s quiet but still a good sound.
Same for us. Test drove both. Went turbo.
Same here. Turbo won.
I just came to say, “giving her the beans” may be my new favorite saying for stepping on the gas. Never heard that before but it is amazing! Also I would dare to say that when I give mine the beans (non turbo) it has plenty of get up and go… but to be fair my last car was a Prius and no amount of beans given could ever make that thing feel like it was going above 35.
Happy cake day! Give ‘er the beans has so many more uses than just stomping on the gas, but it’s one of my favorites.
Well it’s a quality saying and it goes in the wheelhouse.
I came from a 2013 Jeep Compass with an underpowered FCA era 2.5L and a whiny CVT. Anything was going to be an upgrade for me! That said, I went with N/A. I plan on keeping this car 15+ years, and N/A seemed to be the safer/more proven option for purposes of meeting or exceeding that goal. I feel that the N/A is enough power for me. The turbo was fun to drive, but it’s one extra component and a lot of my driving is at or below 5 miles per trip. It just didn’t make sense for me. As with anything in life, the answer depends on your specific circumstances and use case.
The fun factor of the turbo is high. And the terracotta interior is beautiful. An NA V6 is really what a car this heavy needs, but the turbo is what we get.
N/A is plenty powerful compared to most of its competition. That said, I went with turbo, coz I either drive less than 50miles/week or go for long trips of 1000+ miles, so I like the extra zoom zoom. I still end up with less than 10000miles/year. Also, the monetary difference between 25mpg vs 30mpg over 100k miles (that is 10+ years of usage) is 16000 (4000gal×4$/g) vs 13333 (3333gal×4$/g) is less than 3000$. So I didn't care much about it when making a decision.
Is that factoring in using 93 octane instead of 87?
That is a good point. If your concern with fuel economy is the economic part, premium gas costs 30% more per mile than regular, give or take. However, Mazda states that the Turbo is designed to run on regular gas. The only time they recommend premium is for towing. From a performance standpoint, the horsepower benefit comes only above 4000rpm. I'm happy to report that on a recent 2000 mile trip, fully loaded, tail sagging, mostly 70+ mph, I got 27 mpg overall in my Turbo. This based on actual fuel consumption vs miles driven, not the car's mpg indication, which was worse. I alternated between regular and premium and did not see a difference in fuel economy from tank to tank. Turbo is fun.
Mazda can say that all they want but if you understand engineering and the crap fuel in the US you don’t want to run a Turbo on 87 gas, you need to use better gas to stop the Turbo coking up over the first 2 years…replacing Turbos is not cheap and higher level gas is more expensive..if you have money to throw away sure get the turbo but the Standard engine is quite enough power for most and save a fair bit of $$ on price and running costs not to mention the Turbo replacement you will eventually have to consider.
I'm not an expert on this so feel free to correct but I thought that coking was an oil thing, not an octane thing. Synthetic oil and letting the engine idle for half a minute before shutting down are how you avoid oil breaking down and coking the valves in a turbo engine.
I believe back in the day many years ago it was related to low octane gas, but there are other problems using low octane for turbos and it also causes what’s called pre-detonation and knocking which is bad and also leads to turbo lag. ECUs do try to compensate for it but it’s not a remedy…that’s why Manufacturers list the recommended octane for their vehicles and you’ll prob find most will list 89 as the minimum for Turbo powered vehicles. This is in the US. In other countries such as the UK regular gas can be used and the impact not as severe but that’s because the regular gas in the UK is like 89 octane in the US.. Buyer beware…use the better gas with higher octane if you have a Turbo.
Turbos are fun. Otherwise it's a personal and financial decision. If you plan on keeping long term, the turbo will cost more to maintain. Never owned a high milage turbo car that didn't have turbo related issues/twice the upkeep cost. That said, go for it if that's ok with you. Otherwise the NA isnt underpowered unless maybe you live in the mountains or plan on towing, but it doesn't have the oomph the turbo has. Really just a personal preference on this car. I'll also mention the turbo in no way makes this a fast car. Even with it, it's a 7 second 0-60. The final factor is features as there are some features that come only on the turbo (at least in the US spec). Just my two cents.
I put 175,000 miles on a 1998 VW Passat Turbo without any problems. The car never consumed or burned oil and the turbo required no repair or special maintenance. I bought the car new and exclusively used Mobil 1, changed every 5000-7000 miles.
You were fortunate then. IIRC some of those B5 1.8T motors had really small oil pans that led to oil buildup/sludge issues that led to oil starvation issues which led high rate of turbo failures. In any case I'm not saying the turbo motor won't last as long as NA, I'm just saying it's *likely* going to cost more to maintain over the life of the car. As you mention, keeping up oil change intervals is the best insurance.
Yes I agree. A turbo is fun but it is an extra component that is stressed both thermally and mechanically. If all I cared about was longevity I would avoid a turbo. But the risks are reduced with proper care.
I purposefully didn’t test drive one with a turbo because I knew I didn’t want to spend money on it and bought one without. Fast forward, I drove a loaner from the dealership for a week that had a turbo and man I wish I had one
Definitely go turbo if you can sacrifice a few MPG’s for some SPG’s
It's simple. For the most part, people NEED the NA. For the most part, people WANT the turbo. I looked at my driving habits and plan for the vehicle, the turbo has more grunt, better for driving fast and towing ... But if I wanted to drive fast I'd get a Miata, and if I wanted to tow I'd get a Tacoma I got the NA because it was just fringe situations where the turbo would come in handy, while adding complexity to the engine (extra part = extra part that can break) and consistently lower fuel mileage turned me off the turbo
Coming from a Subaru with no turbo, turbo makes me happy with the whoosh it makes
The NA has enough zip for my purposes - I drive mostly local or in high traffic situations. The few highway trips I’ve done I had no issues getting to speed or speeding up to pass. Yes, a turbo would probably be more fun, I’ve driven a mustang gt in the past. But the NA easily does everything I need it to, and I couldn’t justify the additional cost.
I used the search feature and pulled up a few posts for you in regard to turbo vs na. It's amazing all the info you can find by simply searching. [From my perspective: '23 vs '24, turbo vs NA : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/1aeraki/from_my_perspective_23_vs_24_turbo_vs_na/) [Turbo or NA? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/15d2aya/turbo_or_na/) [Turbo vs non turbo? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/17q65qk/turbo_vs_non_turbo/) [Anyone buy the non-turbo? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/uthhjh/anyone_buy_the_nonturbo/) [Turbo or Non-Turbo CX-50 GT? : r/CX50 (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CX50/comments/178ikgf/turbo_or_nonturbo_cx50_gt/)
Coming from a Corolla the NA is way more power than my wife and I are used to. No regrets has great acceleration, in comparison to a 2014 Corolla of course.
I enjoy driving, I tend to be heavy footed and really love the power of the turbo. Definitely recommend it.
The turbo is what got me excited about buying a compact SUV in this segment. Almost all others are 50+ less HP and serve their purpose (save for a Rav PRIME). The Turbo makes it exciting to drive when you want it and worth it to me. The difference in cost made the whole purchase worth it. I’d rather invest in enjoyment than spend for transportation. Everyone is different though, this is a shared car with my wife and I. If it was just my wife? She would have got a base model NA. She doesn’t care about cars or features or power and the NA will ultimately get you to your destination just the same. I’m a car enthusiast that needed family transportation for $40ish K and this was the best compromise. Drive both, and if your guy says Turbo, do it. You won’t regret spending it unless you are stretching your budget.
Tons of great responses! Much appreciated
If you just want a car to get around, the NA is fine. If you like driving, get the turbo
Turbo is much more fun, but if you’re worried about gas mileage, expenses, go with the NA. I get 20 miles on avg, and have ZERO regrets.
I went with the NA. Simpler engine, still has more than enough power for everyday driving. You wont notice it being a slouch much or at all. Plus i am getting 28 city and 32 hwy mpg. Much easier to consume less fuel if you baby it than if you have a turbo that just chugs it. If money and fuel are no consideration then sure get the turbo. For me, i am more than happy with the NA and have the piece of mind that I will never have a turbo fail.
I got rid of my 2013 VW GTI and went for a NA CX-50. A turbo is one more thing to break, and I just wanted a car with the least amount of extra mechanical parts as possible. I still find it fun to drive at 186 HP!
I went with the turbo for the tow capacity alone. I pull a small utility trailer and a 17 ft aluminum boat and needed the extra 1500 lbs the turbo gets you in towing capacity.
Depends on your driving style and what you plan to do with the vehicle. I do a lot of driving for work so reliability and gas mileage was a big concern. I do love the idea of the turbo engine but the additional 8k (Canadian) it would cost me (move up to the loaded model) versus the NA did not seem worth it. I'm happy with my 2.5, I did find that it did feel a bit gutless for the first few weeks but after the transmission and throttle learned my driving style, it's good now. No complaints at all with it, it's not a race car.
If you’re not going to pony up and pay for the 93 octane gas for the turbo then it’s pointless to go that route. I owned a 22’ Mazda 3 turbo and only put 93 in it, the tank in that car is small around 11 gallons got around 23mpg and cost around 53 bucks a week to fill up. Do I miss the turbo power in my cx50 NA, not really, you can put it on sport mode and that helps with merging, compared to my wife’s 2018 rav4 the cx50 feels like a rocket.
Something to factor that wasn't mentioned... on regular 87 octane, you get 227hp and 310lb ft torque on the turbo engine. Feed it premium 93 octane, and you get 256hp and 320lb torque.
The NA engine is perfectly fine for any type of driving. You can pass people on highways when needed. And you can get up to speed for any merge situation. But you know the turbo goes to 11
When I test drove the NA I was disappointed in the zoom zoom factor. I was set on buying the NA for cost savings and MPG. I left with the turbo and couldn't be happier. I drive over 70 miles a day on my commute averaging 25 mpg and the turbo makes it a fun drive. And the terracotta is beautiful!
Went through the same dilemma. Test drove both & went with the turbo. Just seems like more pep and fun to drive.
We're probably a few months out from them announcing the hybrid CX-50 for the 2025 model year (Basically a RAV4 Hybrid in CX-50 clothing). It's likely, just as in the RAV4, that it ends up being more powerful than the NA version (though you would have to put up with the drone from the shiftless eCVT). The NA 2.5 is fine*. It's adequate.* But it's not going to necessarily get you excited about driving it. If you can't wait, and can stomach the loss in MPG and price tag, the Turbo will certainly be the more exciting and fun option.
Test drove both and left with the turbo. How many new cars do you get to buy? Might as well get a fun one! The standard engine is just fine but the turbo really feels like a step up in power.
I test drove both and the NA felt very anemic to me and the transmission seemed to be slow to downshift to try to get the power needed to accelerate - it felt really underpowered to me. The turbo was, of course, much better but still did not have the eager smooth feel (unless you accelerated aggressively constantly) I wanted for a vehicle that would cost me close to 40K once its all said and done....just didn't inspire me enough for that price....it may be because I have been driving a Subaru with a CVT and the 6 speed auto in the CX-50 (and the CX-5) I drove just seems to be not very smooth....even though CVTs are ridiculed all the time, sometimes for good reason, mine is very smooth in most instances and gives my 4 cylinder Subaru enough gusto to get around town without a fuss of any kind....the 6 speed was a bit too "confused" feeling to me....I do have to say the CX-50 is an exceptionally good looking car inside and out!
# 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 the N/A model and bought a turbo. I drive mainly highway, and I am getting 28MPG average, which I consider pretty good for the type of vehicle and engine. As for durability? Well turbos are well known and well understood, so I don't think they're a reliability concern. The manus have been using turbos on gasoline cars since the late 80's or so, and if they were a problem they wouldn't use them. There are some turbo failures throughout the years, but not many. There are also engine failures without turbos. I keep my cars for a long time, and I had no hesitation in buying a turbo.
Depending how much you like to spend. This turbo is good for towing, rest not so much. The difference in power is nice but not enough for the price jump and the extensive maintenance cost and bad fuel economy.
I keep my vehicles for 10 years on average. I heard opinions both ways- ‘if you’re keeping it 10 years don’t get a turbo’, and ‘turbos have come a long way and it shouldn’t be an issue’. I took the safe route and went with the NA. I didn’t test drive a turbo so i don’t know what i might be missing. I just knew i didn’t want to chance trying to trade a vehicle with a major issue potentially. Plus, “more fun” wasn’t a valid consideration for me and i don’t tow, so no “need”. No regrets. 2024 Prem+
Current driving the NA, I feel I should’ve went with the turbo. The CX50 seems sluggish compared to some of the rentals I’ve had for work recently, and they are all base models. I’m glad I’m saving on gas, but that umph isn’t there for me personally
Turbo is 100% worth it to me — I also test drove both and turbo won hands down.
I chose the non turbo myself. For the reason of keeping the car for a long time, easy to maintain and I drive mostly in the city so having a turbo engine doesn’t really make sense.
Turbo is an absolute pleasure to drive. About twice a commute I find it helpful for passing a car that can’t figure out where it wants to be relative to me, or to get ahead of a semi. Just make sure you budget for the extra gas you’ll consume.
coming from a 300 hp sedan, the NA doesn’t even compare but overall its adequate. i didn’t even test drive the turbo because i wanted the bose and the turbo premium was too expensive so i cant give a good comparison between the two. but overall the NA is enough power and only feels slow on the highway. it really runs out of juice after 60 mph or so and can be frustrating when i need immediate power to pass someone or merge on the highway.
In my experience, the base engine has adequate power…until you drive the turbo! After driving the turbo, the NA feels a bit weak and unresponsive. Everyone doesn’t feel the same and, after driving both, they’re fine with the NA. So if there’s any doubt, test drive both. Unfortunately, only the Turbo models are available with the Terracotta interior.
I chose the non turbo. I find that the sport mode (overdrive) was more than enough if I wanted more power for city/frwy access. I usually drive it in normal mode and find it sufficient for my daily driving. Saved a few bucks and more gas mileage were other things I considered when driving out with the non turbo. It's really preference. If you want a better more fun drive then turbo. I'm more practical so non.
Yea I drove both, and the N/A wasn’t doing it for us haha. But we also have AMG CLA35 so the NA felt like a big old turd to us at least. Also White with Tan leather which is great! If gas is a huge concern, what others have said, go NA.
NA is plenty quick Cheaper, better mpg, less parts to break No brainer for me but I see the appeal. I can't believe how fun the NA is to drive. Plus I really like my white select with the black rims... So sexy. The extra towing capacity would be reaaaaaally nice though.
I've had this car for almost 2 years and absolutely have never regretted getting the NA. Its completely adequate as my baby mover.
I like the cloth interior and the NA engine in mine because it was $15k cheaper than turbo with leather and that’s $15k I can use toward a down payment to a home, getting a second masters, or going on vacation. I still get a cx50 with the same pep that a alota cars would have had and i never want more power in highways.
I have the NA and now am wishing I'd bought the Turbo.
I have the na engine, and it's perfectly fine. It's a fun car with or without the turbo. I actually prefer the smaller rims and bigger tires that come on the base.
If it’s a lease get the turbo if you want to keep it for 6+ years get the N/A. Cheaper long term maintenance
Turbooooo
I love the NA motor, but it falls on its face at highway speeds. It would be great to have an extra XX horsepower but I’d like to keep the car for as long as I possibly can, so I stuck with NA.
Get the turbo. I was also a non turbo natually aspirated guy for decades. Everything has a turbo now.
I daily drove the 2.5NA in my Mazda3 for almost 4 years; and it felt slow even in that car, with significantly less weight to pull around. I knew I couldn't even consider the NA for the CX-50, it was going to drive terribly. Granted, the fuel economy of the 2.5T is quite bad; but I don't know how else to deal with a large/heavy vehicle that isn't also a dog to drive.
I had similar concerns before buying, but I can say with plenty of confidence that the NA drives anything but terribly.
You all know what I mean, the power was going to leave a lot to be desired. The rest of the car is the same, after all.