It's difficult to reconcile this article with other articles coming out during 2019, that Mazda would be turning out a new crossover at the new Mazda Toyota Plant in Alabama in the first half of next year.
One article said only that it would be new to North America, so it could be a version of the of CX 8 or Chinese CX-4. And then there is the MX 30 which may or may not show up here.
Offering normally aspirated engines is one thing that makes Mazda different from other manufacturers and one thing I am thankful they have stuck with. That along with not going down the CVT transmission route. The marketing influence that implies simply adding a turbo to any engine makes it superior is laughable. In most cases, not all, if you have a turbo engine you will require using higher octane fuel to realize any performance boost. I don't know what roads other people are driving on but with traffic in my area, no one is setting 0-60 record acceleration times in bumper to bumper congested traffic. On the highway, I really don't feel the need for a turbo from the 2.5L (186HP) engine Mazda currently offers. It is also fuel efficient on 87 octane which saves more money for my pocket. Perhaps I am the minority and in the future they will offer a Mazda CX-30 SPEED version for those looking for more peformance.
I am not suggesting people be forced to buy a turbo version which I agree is not as practical as the non-turbo, just that it would be a nice option for those with more cash seeking more fun.
Mazman; Although the the current 2.5 turbo used in other Mazda models only makes full power on higher octane fuel, it is perfectly happy to run on 87 octane and still offer an enormous gain in low end torque over the unboosted engine. Thank goodness, many, like myself do not live in bumper to bumper traffic and would get ample opportunity to feel the extra kick without even having to wind the engine out. The 2.5 unboosted engine makes 186 ft lbs of torque at 4000 RPM, the turbo makes 320ft lbs at 2000 rpm on 87 octane, same with premium. Only the hp rating at high rpm goes up with the more expensive fuel.
Mazda is out of the "Speed" model business, and just as well as far as I am concerned as those models were too rough and crude to suit me.
I hear what your saying Maznut and didn't intend to offend anyone. I know the specs on the 2.5 turbo and have driven it. I stand by my comments and I am sure that if enough people want the turbo and the market is there, Mazda will plunk one in like they did in the CX-5. Then everyone can be happy.
100% agree with MAZman and couldn’t have said it better. This coming from a VW/Audi guy where boost is king. Yes, that low RPM kick is great but the CX-30 doesn’t need it so why add the complexity and cost? In fact it might actually ruin a well-balanced car without other mods that could put it into the Mazdaspeed crudeness. I have to say I like it in the CX-5 but the CX-30 is near perfect as it is.
Now if they would only get rid of the CD. I didn’t notice it on the test drive but fear for long term reliability.
I am not in the least bit offended by your comments MAZman, quite the contrary. I started the thread just to throw out an idea for discussion, not to get on a soapbox and lecture. I appreciate the views of everyone who takes the time to comment. I would have been disappointed if everybody agreed with me. That would just be dull and useless.
I bought a 2020 m3 premium hatch just a bit after my last post here, and though some extra grunt would increase my driving pleasure, my major beef is the stiff ride. I see conflicting reports on whether the CX 30 is significantly better, and did not notice a difference while testing them on smooth roads. I doubt if the turbo model will address this. May have to switch brands next time.
A little research at the Mazda USA website shows the following in comparing the top CX 5 GT 2wd to the cheapest awd (turbo)GT reserve. Costs an additional $ 4825, weighs an additional 284 lbs and gets 4.5 less MPG.... Applying this comparison to my top-of-the line 2wd 3 premium hatch, I get a car that costs $31,785, weighs 3366 lbs and gets about 30/to 31 highway. That would have been a tough decision for me had a turbo 3 been available at the time. The non turbo being far more practical but the turbo being more fun to drive.
Taking the comparison 1 step farther, the turbo knocks 2 secs. off 0-60 in the CX5, which would result in a about a 5 to 5.5 second time in the turbo 3. GTI eater. Sounds good to me.
As long as I am so deep into fantasy speculation, I would think the turbo effects on a CX 30 to be about the same.