[key1cc]

I don't think anybody really cares about the Kona on this forum😁

Read the title...

There are quite a few comparisons of the CX-30 to competitors on this forum....

There are also quite a few posts on this forum that people don't care about....

So those of us that read this thread should feel right at home on the forum..😉

 

[key1cc]

What a beast of a engine we have in our cars! 😁

A beast with flexibility...
We can decide to boost the power with ECU tunes...

Or be just as happy dropping down to cheaper 87 octane fuel...and still enjoy the thrills with around town driving..

Mazda is covering a lot of bases with this vehicle.

Key1

 

[SkuTorr]

Hyundai made the same choice as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, et al in using a higher state of tune to get equivalent power out of a 2.0 liter engine, albeit with less torque, than our turbo 2.5 liter, all to conform to European Tax standards, which are based upon engine displacement, not horsepower. Not a great idea for longevity. Our higher torque is built-in due to the relatively long stroke of the 2.5 liter engine, and gives us a very wide, not peaky, power band, which is why we don’t need an 8-speed transmission.

 

[key1cc]

I wouldn't call the N a CUV with 6.8" of ground clearance. This is 1.1" higher than a Camry and 1.2" higher than a Golf lol. I cut the CUV ground clearance standard at a firm 7.5" with preference of 8" or higher. Anything lower has no practical "utility" use in the real world. The N is a hatchback trying to be a CUV and the CX-30 2.5T is still the CUV power champ.

I tend to agree. Last time I checked, the "UV" in "CUV" stands for "utility vehicle"? At some point the size is so small that it's not providing much utility. I owned a Chevy Sonic hatchback for a while which was the smallest car I ever owned and it was only ~159.9 inches long. My wife named it "Teeny" because it was such a small car. The Kona N is only 6 inches longer so I agree with you.....they are definitely using the term CUV loosely.

Key1

 

[key1cc]

Hyundai made the same choice as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, et al in using a higher state of tune to get equivalent power out of a 2.0 liter engine, albeit with less torque, than our turbo 2.5 liter, all to conform to European Tax standards, which are based upon engine displacement, not horsepower. Not a great idea for longevity. Our higher torque is built-in due to the relatively long stroke of the 2.5 liter engine, and gives us a very wide, not peaky, power band, which is why we don’t need an 8-speed transmission.

That is great insight, thanks for sharing.....it also suggests the tuners have some runway to further increase the HP without putting the 2.5 engine in harms way. I look forward to that

Key1

 

[McMattface]

I wouldn't call the N a CUV with 6.8" of ground clearance. This is 1.1" higher than a Camry and 1.2" higher than a Golf lol. I cut the CUV ground clearance standard at a firm 7.5" with preference of 8" or higher. Anything lower has no practical "utility" use in the real world. The N is a hatchback trying to be a CUV and the CX-30 2.5T is still the CUV power champ.

Almost word-for-word what I was about to say. With no AWD and the ground clearance of a sedan, what makes it any more of a "utility vehicle" than your average hatchback? The plastic cladding?

I understand there is a spectrum to the CUV and crossover segments, but you've got to fit at least one criterion for all-terrain capability to be considered 🤣

That said, it is built for speed. The transmission is superior for speed but inferior for offroad stuff (DTC's overheat). The FWD makes it lighter, which again is good for speed but a big disadvantage for driving on adverse terrain. It's ride height is better for aerodynamics and cornering but worse for everything else.

The CX30 Turbo is still the best of both worlds. I have the JB4, the intake, the exhaust, etc. I haven't dyno'd it yet, or run a draggy, but I should be somewhere in the area of 325hp and 400tq and a 0-60 should be in the low 5's (I have big tires and am a mile above sea level) -- but that's with AWD and 9" of ground clearance.

The Subaru Outback/Forester Wilderness are the ones that best compare IMO.

 

[key1cc]

The CX30 Turbo is still the best of both worlds. I have the JB4, the intake, the exhaust, etc. I haven't dyno'd it yet, or run a draggy, but I should be somewhere in the area of 325hp and 400tq and a 0-60 should be in the low 5's .......

How is that JB4 tune holding up? anymore codes thrown or other issues since you corrected the pin issue?.....I seriously am considering it. I had a BNR (Bad News Racing) tune on my old Chevy Sonic turbo and it gave quite a noticeable lift in acceleration and never gave me a problem the 5 years I owned it....even with daily around town driving it felt "significantly improved". However that tune was done by simply uploading new software to the ECU through the OBD II connection using a laptop without any additional hardware.
Key1

 

[McMattface]

How is that JB4 tune holding up? anymore codes thrown or other issues since you corrected the pin issue?

It's been solid since I discovered that short/loose pin and fixed it. No codes 🙂

I usually drive around on map 1 (+3 psi and suitable for any octane) and only throw it into map 2 when the "need" arises. My hesitation with running it all the time is that, while I always use premium, the suggested 93 octane is actually hard to come by in my area. Most places offer 91...except for one place and it's $1 more a gallon.

From what I understand, given Colorado's high altitude/thin air, I should be fine using 91 on map 2 but I try to err on the side of caution (at least until I get Burger to look at my logs and confirm).

 

[key1cc]

It's been solid since I discovered that short/loose pin and fixed it. No codes 🙂

That's good to Know! Are you the only one with a CX-30 (that you know of) that is running the JB4 tune? (the guinea pig so to speak ).

If you are...Thanks for taking one for the team!
Key1

 

[McMattface]

That's good to Know! Are you the only one with a CX-30 (that you know of) that is running the JB4 tune? (the guinea pig so to speak ).

If you are...Thanks for taking one for the team!
Key1

There is a person on YouTube who has a CX30 Turbo w/JB4 and a K&N filter. He did one 0-60 run in about 5.4 seconds from what I could tell.

Doing an intake upgrade would help there by spooling the turbo faster, especially in combination with the JB4. Certain upgrades compound when used in conjunction with one another as compared to separately.

A Sprint Booster might help there, though he brake-boosted the launch at ~2.5k RPM so throttle lag shouldn't have been a factor. That said, the Sprint booster does seem to ramp the PSI up faster in general...🤷

I would say I have one of the most performance upgraded CX30's, but there are people running water-meth injection kits, doing e85 experimentation, etc -- along with the JB4 -- so it'd be a lie if I did 😅

 

[SoulRed2.5T]

I think the Kona N seems tailored for younger buyers .

 

[key1cc]

I think the Kona N seems tailored for younger buyers .

Interesting..... I was wondering the same thing about cx-30 buyers... I wonder if we can do a poll on this site to get the average age of cx30 buyers?
Key1

 

[SoulRed2.5T]

Interesting..... I was wondering the same thing about cx-30 buyers... I wonder if we can do a poll on this site to get the average age of cx30 buyers?
Key1

A friend of mine has a 2022 Turbo PP , he is 53 . I have the same , I am 54 . I have a coworker that has a non turbo , she is 46 .

 

[key1cc]

A friend of mine has a 2022 Turbo PP , he is 53 . I have the same , I am 54 . I have a coworker that has a non turbo , she is 46 .

If you search the word "Age" in our search community above, or click this link "Age of CX30 Owners" you will find a thread where people were already listing their ages....I think it would be easier to have a poll or just continue in that thread so it is all in one place.

I posted my age and background there on the "Age of CX30" thread....and I encourage others to do the same

Key1

 

[Flight Risk]

Except for the fact that they both fit the CRV designation you're talking two entirely different vehicles designed for two entirely different markets.

Having said that, I'm part of that entirely different market and the Kona N is the right car for me. Don't misunderstand - the CX-30 is a GREAT car but it's not a car for performance enthusiasts like myself.

Be proud of what you drive and if you're lucky enough to be driving a CX-30 you've got a lot to be proud of.