It's Turbo Time: Mazda Boosts the CX-30

Tim Healey
by Tim Healey
it s turbo time mazda boosts the cx 30

If you ever thought, “Gee, I like this Mazda CX-30, but it could stand to offer a skoosh more power”, well, Mazda has news for you.

Yes, that’s right – “dude, you’re getting a turbo!”

The now available 2.5-liter four-cylinder turbo will make 250 horsepower and 320 lb-ft of torque when running premium (93 octane) fuel. If you’re running 87 octane, you cheapskate, you’ll drop to 227 ponies and 310 lb-ft.

Those numbers represent a big jump over the 186/186 presented by the 2.5-liter naturally-aspirated engine.

All-wheel drive is standard. Mazda didn’t mention a transmission, but it is likely to be the six-speed from the non-turbo CX-30.

Some new safety features will be available, too. Rear-cross traffic braking, traffic-jam assist, and a 360-degree camera among them.

The subcompact crossover’s exterior has specific changes for Turbo models. They will have 18-inch black aluminum-alloy wheels, larger tailpipes, gloss black door mirrors, and “Turbo” badging on the liftgate.

The 2021 Mazda CX-30 Turbo should be available by the end of 2020 (just like a coronavirus vaccine, hopefully). Pricing and details about specific trim/packaging options will be announced later.

Presumably, so will fuel economy numbers. Nothing is listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel-economy research site, as of yet.

A turbo CX-30 could end up being a fun little runabout, though the last one I tested ran through fuel fast. Not because of poor mpg, but because of a small fuel tank. A drive from Chicago to Detroit, around Detroit/Windsor, and back, required more refills than it should. A turbo will likely suck fuel even faster, but then again, the extra power will almost certainly be appreciated.

[Images: Mazda]

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 17 comments
  • Texasjack Texasjack on Sep 17, 2020

    Yummy. I like it.

  • Tankinbeans Tankinbeans on Sep 17, 2020

    I'm utterly ambivalent about fuel tank size as long as the fuel economy rating is high enough. I recall my 1995 Accord with its 17 gallon tank, one of the larger fuel tanks in a car I've owned. Given my habit of filling from half tank, something I picked up from my dad, I used to go in every 5 or 6 days. With my current car, what has a 12.7 gallon tank, I'm in every 4 or 5 days. It doesn't bother me much considering I like to buy a bottle of pop often enough and stopping for the extra 5 minutes isn't too much of a hassle to me. What I've noticed is that in adverts there will be a more prominently quoted range for a given vehicle, with no real reference to tank size. "Our vehicle, X, has a 350 range while its competitor, vehicle Y, only has a 300 range." This often hides that vehicle X gets 20 mpg out of 17.5 gallons, while vehicle Y gets 30 mpg out of 10 gallons***. All things equal I'd take vehicle Y with the shorter range, but better mileage. ***Numbers being pulled directly from the fundament for illustrative purposes only.

  • Nrd515 I bought an '88 S10 Blazer with the 4.3. We had it 4 years and put just about 48K on it with a bunch of trips to Nebraska and S. Dakota to see relatives. It had a couple of minor issues when new, a piece of trim fell off the first day, and it had a seriously big oil leak soon after we got it. The amazinly tiny starter failed at about 40K, it was fixed under some sort of secret warranty and we got a new Silverado as a loaner. Other than that, and a couple of tires that blew when I ran over some junk on the road, it was a rock. I hated the dash instrumentation, and being built like a gorilla, it was about an inch and a half too narrow for my giant shoulders, but it drove fine, and was my second most trouble free vehicle ever, only beaten by my '82 K5 Blazer, which had zero issues for nearly 50K miles. We sold the S10 to a friend, who had it over 20 years and over 400,000 miles on the original short block! It had a couple of transmissions, a couple of valve jobs, a rear end rebuild at 300K, was stolen and vandalized twice, cut open like a tin can when a diabetic truck driver passed out(We were all impressed at the lack of rust inside the rear quarters at almost 10 years old, and it just went on and on. Ziebart did a good job on that Blazer. All three of his sons learned to drive in it, and it was only sent to the boneyard when the area above the windshield had rusted to the point it was like taking a shower when it rained. He now has a Jeep that he's put a ton of money into. He says he misses the S10's reliablity a lot these days, the Jeep is in the shop a lot.
  • Jeff S Most densely populated areas have emission testing and removing catalytic converters and altering pollution devices will cause your vehicle to fail emission testing which could effect renewing license plates. In less populated areas where emission testing is not done there would probably not be any legal consequences and the converter could either be removed or gutted both without having to buy specific parts for bypassing emissions. Tampering with emission systems would make it harder to resell a vehicle but if you plan on keeping the vehicle and literally running it till the wheels fall off there is not much that can be done if there is no emission testing. I did have a cat removed on a car long before mandatory emission testing and it did get better mpgs and it ran better. Also had a cat gutted on my S-10 which was close to 20 years old which increased performance and efficiency but that was in a state that did not require emission testing just that reformulated gas be sold during the Summer months. I would probably not do it again because after market converters are not that expensive on older S-10s compared to many of the newer vehicles. On newer vehicles it can effect other systems that are related to the operating and the running of the vehicle. A little harder to defeat pollution devices on newer vehicles with all the systems run by microprocessors but if someone wants to do it they can. This law could be addressing the modified diesels that are made into coal rollers just as much as the gasoline powered vehicles with cats. You probably will still be able to buy equipment that would modify the performance of a vehicles as long as the emission equipment is not altered.
  • ToolGuy I wonder if Vin Diesel requires DEF.(Does he have issues with Sulfur in concentrations above 15ppm?)
  • ToolGuy Presented for discussion: https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html
  • Kevin Ford can do what it's always done. Offer buyouts to retirement age employees, and transfers to operating facilities to those who aren't retirement age. Plus, the transition to electric isn't going to be a finger snap one time event. It's going to occur over a few model years. What's a more interesting question is: Where will today's youth find jobs in the auto industry given the lower employment levels?
Next