This

I won’t bother with the 2.5L N/A versus the 2.0L. Sure it’s better, but it’s not a night and day difference. The 2.5 turbo, now that’s something.

Great topic, i've just booked a 2.5na unit but still contemplating whether just go for 2.0..save some $$ save some fuel but less some power and less the 7" display as well as the 19" rims
My drive to work is city but ya monthly balik kampung trip using karak highway.....

2.5 turbo with 230hp
now new car without turbo somemore use big engine to produce only 230hp
better get x70..

This post has been edited by danielisme: Oct 14 2019, 10:07 AM

One more less if opt to 2.0, 2 safety feature ie Rear smart city braking and driver attention alert...the former is useful but the latter is not so for me...

Even 2.0 turbo more powderful than 2.5na, if 2.5 turbo is like way way more powerful.

Just use 2.5 for long distance and use smaller cc car for city driving. Long distance 2.5 not so terasa as compared to city drive. City drive big cc indeed will suck fuel. Its a trade off for powerful engine.

That tyre. If u not drive way too fast on highway, It can easily last 2 years and half. Some forumer here change tyre every year due to always drive consistenly above 160kmh on highway.

You wanted a 2.5 and yet worried about fuel consumption? I think 2.5 has a better fuel consumption than the 2.0 la! It beats me when one wanted to drive a big car and worried about fuel consumption.

I drive my car to work and its consist of some road with traffic and some without ( can go bit faster ). Even highway if it with bad traffic, it's no point as well.
Ya for city drive, especially when going out for meal or sending kids around during weekends, i always prefer my wife small car. Easy parking somemore.

Not to say to worry about the fuel consumption, more like i don't like to waste things..i always save water at home with some inconvenience way even though i don need to pay a cent for it....

Ya i guess i've decided to get the 2.5 na...no turbo coz dont think i need that and also dont want to push my budget for a car to high..which it's already high for my case....

Own 2.5 CX-5 felt the 2.0 is under-powered.

Eyeing CX-5 2.5 turbo or CX-8

Agreed

Seriously doubt the 2.5L's Fc is anywhere near 8km/l as 8km/L is the average Fc for my 3.5L 10 years old car .

why does no one suggest the 2.2D? any problem with it? iinm the FC under 2.2D is good right?

Ahh....get my car for ard 2 weeks now..
Power wise, ya it's good / enough for me..
Will i regret it if i get the 2.0 instead..maybe, coz i test drove the 2.0 few times b4 decided on 2.5 na...
Anyway havent really 'push' the engine..still sayang

mazda designed the 2.5T to yield high torque but a rather normal hp level. I still suspect that 2.5T FC is killing the owner at city driving.

just received my 2.5T last wednesday. went NSE on weekend. easily reach 190kmh without much effort. According to my online search, top speed are 209kmh. powerwise i feel there's not much diff from the 2.2 diesel. fuel consumption seems more economy compare to my last ford kuga.

This post has been edited by tomokomiki: Dec 2 2019, 01:02 PM

2.2d ftw, really enjoy penang kl at 160 cruisin with 15km/l fuel consumption