By on September 17, 2020

2021 Mazda CX-30 2.5 Turbo. Photo: Mazda

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.

2021 Mazda CX-30 2.5 Turbo. Photo: Mazda

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.

2021 Mazda CX-30 2.5 Turbo. Photo: Mazda

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.

2021 Mazda CX-30 2.5 Turbo. Photo: Mazda

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

2021 Mazda CX-30 2.5 Turbo. Photo: Mazda

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]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

17 Comments on “It’s Turbo Time: Mazda Boosts the CX-30...”

  • avatar

    The turbo makes the CX-30 a compelling choice in the sub-compact crossover category. How much?

  • avatar

    I love the idea of more power, but I still cringe every time I see photos of the CX-30. Am I the only one put off by the cheap-looking, ridiculously oversized plastic fender flares? With the exception of the Pep Boys-grade cladding, it’s such a refined looking vehicle for its class. (We can discuss the played black wheel trend another time.) I expected better from Mazda.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m becoming less bothered by it, and its not as bad in person as in photos. I will grant, while this is no offroader, the cladded parts are the areas most likely to get dinged and chipped by road debris, parking lot bumper scrapes, etc., so there is a certain logic to it. I prefer the black to painted bumper covers, and if they ever get banged up bad I’m sure its simpler & cheaper to replace than dealing with color-matching one.

    • 0 avatar

      The fit and finish of Mazdas is pretty good. You really have to see them in person to appreciate them. I’ll take mine in Soul Red :)

      • 0 avatar

        Soul Red is a gorgeous colour and it highlights curves and creases in very good ways.

        • 0 avatar

          Agree about the Soul Red. Mazda has always had great paint choices, particularly shades of red. From Rosso Red in the 1980s to Soul Red today.

          The addition of boost to the CX30 makes it very compelling.

          • 0 avatar

            I agree, Soul Red is a nice color. The problem with it is they have offered it for many years and it is the only decent color they offer, so it seems that about half off the Mazda’s you see either in traffic or on dealer lots are that (extra-cost) paint choice, which is now very tired. They have a handful of other paints, none of them remarkable- white, black, silver and a blue that is so dark it reads as black unless it is in direct sunlight. I have never liked Mazda’s color choices.. with the exception of a bright blue and a teal offered some years ago on the 3, many of their paints are not discernible colours, being varied shades of drab metallic mud.

            The cladding on the CX-30 looks incredibly cheap when you see one up close. For a brand that aspires to be seen as premium, they need to do far better.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree I think the cladding on the CX-30 looks terrible. They should offer a way to delete it. If Buick can do it then Mazda can.

  • avatar

    You are correct that the fuel tank is on the small side however for me most vehicles fuel tanks are too small. Its great that my car gets 40 mpg but the tank is only 11-12 gallons, (not my real car) I feel that it compromises the vehicle. I think the smallest tank on any new vehicle needs to be 15 gal no matter how fuel efficient it is.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Chocolatedeath… I have a theory about this – although it might be total B.S.

      I have this nagging suspicion that the automakers want to keep range down with modern cars so EVs won’t seem so bad by comparison. It seems to me that they want to keep range in the 250-300 mile range, regardless of vehicle. Sure, there are exceptions. But they seem to prove the rule.

      Anyway, it’s just a theory.

  • avatar

    I am seeing more references lately on TTAC to:
    a) Vehicle weight
    b) Fuel range

    Pretty sure from years of reading comments on this site that:
    a) Vehicles weigh *exactly* what they should and if you removed one ounce of weight the vehicle would turn to crap, with absolutely no offsetting advantages.
    b) The fuel tanks are *exactly* the correct size and the fuel economy is *perfectly* optimized and if you disagree you are not worthy to be a customer of these amazing companies with their leading-edge innovative products.

    (If you are clueless, that second paragraph includes some sarcasm.)

  • avatar

    I’m curious how the mileage stacks up against the CX-5 in the real world. Granted the only real comparison right now would be 2.5NA to 2.5NA, but I wonder how the slightly altered frontal area and profile would affect things. As far as I know they’re roughly similar in weight, but with the lower stance of the CX-30 I’d give the nod to that model.

    When I drove the CX-5 I struggled to meet their estimates, even with E0. Having the Mazda3 with the same running gear is easy to exceed estimates. I know it comes down to hearing, weight, profile and numerous other things I’m forgetting.

  • avatar

    Now, put the 2.5T in the CX-3 and slightly revise the interior. That could be a chuckable little amusement. I’m surprised that even with the 2.0 that thing isn’t as bad as I’d thought it would be, but being a bitty hatch probably helps (CUV designation notwithstanding. It feels like the spiritual successor to the Vibe with AWD albeit with a smaller package).

  • avatar

    Yummy. I like it.

  • avatar

    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.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Crashdaddy430: Awesome cars, wish their legacy lasted longer. I’m hating the Tundra more and more.
  • SilverCoupe: My dad’s 1959 Oldsmobile did just barely fit into the garage of our 1957 house, but there was...
  • Trend-Shifter: I have a 2001 Chevrolet Blazer with only rear wheel drive. With all season tires or terrain style...
  • dal20402: The Volvo 240 owner I knew best growing up was my violin teacher. She was a deeply tight-fisted...
  • golden2husky: Wife’s sister had a 240. Solid and reliable. She did have the rear main seal issue and the blower...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber