2014 CX-5 2.5 Liter Option

[DougNuts]

With a 25% increase in displacement you'll get an equally big hit in the mileage numbers.

It would probably be a 10% hit, at worst. A 2.5L Skyactive wouldn't have to work as hard - like how my 400hp 5.7L Caddy can get 26 on the highway while my 1.6L Civic gets 31. It's not a linear scale is all I'm saying.

Mazda already tried offering a more powerful engine in the CX7 and not enough people bought one but when they offered the naturally aspired 2.5 in the CX7 the sales climbed.

They also dropped the price.

This will not play well with a turbo. A turbo restricts flow out of the cylinder (the exhaust backpressure drives the turbo) causing knock, so you loose some of the high compression ratio advantage. Maybe they could put a blower(supercharger) on the G and drive it with an electric motor combined with the larger alternator/capacitor used for braking that Mazda has developed for electrical accessories.

A turbo wouldn't work well on a street driven 13:1 compression engine, but they could probably do 11:1 with a turbo (premium fuel). The turbo increases dynamic compression and therefore efficiency.

 

[inodes]

Mazda did start with the Skyactiv-G 2.0L and the Skyactiv-D 2.2L. But completely out of the spotlight has been the Skyactiv-G 1.3L (for Mazda 2):
http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/2011/201111/111116a.html

With this having been developed at the smaller end of the scale, I reckon they might produce the Skyactiv-G 2.5L. Obvious next step.

Only one catch....

If it's destined for the CX-5, it would produce performance similar to that of the 2.2L Diesel, but would poorer mpg.
It's likely an engine that would be fit for the US/Canada market purely on the basis that it's still the only market to have turned the diesel down.

But the US market is large enough to allow for another engine to be developed.

It would result in a vehicle similar in performance to the current CX-7 - a vehicle that has failed miserably around the world due to bottom of class fuel economy.

In Australia at least, there have been more sales of the CX-5 in two months in that all of 2011's CX-7.
20% have been petrols.
Enough said!

 

[plemieux]

The 2.5 would get worse mileage. Wait for the diesel. You get the extra power and extra mpg.

 

[V8toilet]

It would probably be a 10% hit, at worst. A 2.5L Skyactive wouldn't have to work as hard - like how my 400hp 5.7L Caddy can get 26 on the highway while my 1.6L Civic gets 31. It's not a linear scale is all I'm saying.

You have a good point. I'd say probably 8% hit highway or 29-30 MPG and 12% city or 23 MPG in the EPA cycle.

They also dropped the price.

Because the NA engine cost less and made it more attractive for customers to buy just like the Skyactive gas 2.0 engine in the CX5 vs the Diesel. (whistle)

 

[Game Rogue]

2014 Mazda CX-5 May Gain Larger 2.5L Skyactiv Engine Option

If there’s anything wrong with the 2013 Mazda CX-5, it’s that the 2.0-liter Skyactiv engine isn’t exactly a powerhouse.

Delivering 155 hp and 150 lb-ft of torque, the engine is slightly more powerful than the version in the 2012 Mazda3 , and is segment leading for fuel economy, though it lacks the punch of much of its competitors.

According to a tip we’ve received after a Mazda dealer meeting in Chicago, Mazda will solve that problem with a larger and more powerful engine that will be offered as an option. Set to first debut in the upcoming 2014 Mazda6, the 2.5-liter Skyactiv 4-cylinder should make closer to 170 hp with equal torque and deliver the brand’s fun-to-drive characteristics.

What isn’t yet clear is if Mazda plans to offer the CX-5 with a diesel powertrain option. Our tipster, however, has confirmed that the new Skyactiv-D diesel engine will arrive in the Mazda6 in October of 2013.

AutoGuide.com

~Source

If true, I'm sure glad I waited!

 

[nizzy1115]

Honestly I think people need to drive the 2.0 in the cx5. It is more than fine with power. I thought before I bought it it was slow etc but after owning it its more than capable. No its not a 5.0 mustang beater from a stop light, but its defiantly powerful enough to speed ahead of traffic when wanted. The only thing I could see the 2.5 being for is towing.

 

[DougNuts]

I think the 2.0 is on the low side of adequate, but it was adequate considering the fuel economy.

Since I won't be able to talk my wife into buying a diesel (if they come here), I've been leaning towards getting her a 1.6T Escape next year. But, if Mazda brings out a 2.5L for the CX-5, that would sway us back into the Mazda, for sure.

 

[kinks45]

Mazda fans, like me, want ZOOM-ZOOM!! More power, more power!

 

[ALafya]

The 2.2D can be awesome, if Mazda fixes the rising oil issue and it becomes suitable for predominantly short drives.
Otherwise, I'll stay away from it like it was the plague. My commute is only 10 miles each way and involves ~4 miles of expressway and stop-and-go on the highway, both of which will not get high enough RPMs to passively clear the DPF. Don't want to be forced to take the car for a long drive to clear the DPF.
I definitely don't want diesel to dilute my oil and have the engine damaged from increased friction and do not want to take the care for oil draining more frequently than oil change period, while having to pay for it as if it was normal for this type of engine.

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123817637-Engine-Oil-Rise

 

[fthomasr]

Honestly I think people need to drive the 2.0 in the cx5. It is more than fine with power. I thought before I bought it it was slow etc but after owning it its more than capable. No its not a 5.0 mustang beater from a stop light, but its defiantly powerful enough to speed ahead of traffic when wanted. The only thing I could see the 2.5 being for is towing.

I test drove the 2.0 with the 5 speed manual yesterday after driving the horribly slow auto a couple of months ago. The manual is better, I could live with it but I'm not. It's slow, not the worst in the world slow but it is slow. The transmission was AWESOME. The short throws combined with the butter smooth engagement left a smile on my face. The clutch is far too easy, which I could live with but man it's hard to modulate at first it's so easy. 15-20+ more hp and it would be a much bigger success in this country. It really would make a real dent in the CRV sales with that 2.5 liter.

Please please bring the 2.5 w/manual as the base, optional auto.

 

[PhoenixINX]

One thing everyone needs to realize about this motor while test driving is break in...

It WAS a dog during our test drive, but surprising both the 3i AND CX-5 became alive post 1000 miles. I would LOVE to see a 0 mile car dyno'd, versus one with a few thousand miles. It's typical to see a small difference, but I'm certain what we would find would be something very noticeable and measurable.

I have NEVER felt an engine open up so much after break-in.

Before you rule the car out because of how the engine felt during a test drive, I would recommend finding an owner on here that has one with a few miles to do a ride along.

 

[fthomasr]

One thing everyone needs to realize about this motor while test driving is break in...

It WAS a dog during our test drive, but surprising both the 3i AND CX-5 became alive post 1000 miles. I would LOVE to see a 0 mile car dyno'd, versus one with a few thousand miles. It's typical to see a small difference, but I'm certain what we would find would be something very noticeable and measurable.

I have NEVER felt an engine open up so much after break-in.

Before you rule the car out because of how the engine felt during a test drive, I would recommend finding an owner on here that has one with a few miles to do a ride along.

I'm optimistic about the car. I've been watching and waiting on this vehicle since this article: http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_arti...l-introducing-mazdas-skyactiv-technology.aspx
Believe me I don't want to be disappointed, I want to agree with you, but I can't. All due respect, it needs 15-20ft of torque as well and there is no way that's it's 'locked up in there' and released at break-in. What may be happening is that you've gotten more used to it. When I turboed my SE-R going from 120hp at the dyno stock to 265hp (also at the dyno) it felt FANTASTIC! However over time you have to fight the urge to turn the boost up. Same with my Evo IX, same with my wife's 335i. The Element I drive daily is very torquey down low, so it's fun to zip around town. Again I could live with it...I just don't want to take a step down. I'm torn.

 

[erhayes]

I agree that I would not expect any real power/torque increase with a modern engine during breakin or at 1,000 miles or whenever.

 

[CX-SV]

Agreed, only very small increase in HP later. Most of the improvement after a few thousand miles is auto tranny learning driver style and the driver developing a more sensitive foot to access gears desired (w/o using manual mode).

Note: See latest edition of C&D, compact SUV shoot out. CX-5 is slowest (but not that much) with easily best MPG. Good showing by Mazda.

 

[PhoenixINX]

I'm optimistic about the car. I've been watching and waiting on this vehicle since this article: http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_arti...l-introducing-mazdas-skyactiv-technology.aspx
Believe me I don't want to be disappointed, I want to agree with you, but I can't. All due respect, it needs 15-20ft of torque as well and there is no way that's it's 'locked up in there' and released at break-in. What may be happening is that you've gotten more used to it. When I turboed my SE-R going from 120hp at the dyno stock to 265hp (also at the dyno) it felt FANTASTIC! However over time you have to fight the urge to turn the boost up. Same with my Evo IX, same with my wife's 335i. The Element I drive daily is very torquey down low, so it's fun to zip around town. Again I could live with it...I just don't want to take a step down. I'm torn.

I would agree that something isn't locked up... That said, all I can describe is it felt like I got another lb or two of boost. Since that's a familiar metaphor, it should hit close to home. Coming from a Vishnu Stg 3 Evo VIII years back... even that single lb was measurable!

Don't read anything on here or listen to me. Go find one that has been broken in, and drive it like an S2000.

 

[fthomasr]

Coming from a Vishnu Stg 3 Evo VIII years back... even that single lb was measurable!

Well you don't say? I have a Vishnu tune myself, tuned by the man himself in person! Try a Vishnu tune on a mivec head, my viii friends are jealous. I have won about 7 autox times of the day (against all other cars/classes) at autox in that car, all with just a tune, panel filter and an old school ebc. I did my own alignment, stock exhaust, stock piping, street tires, etc. BTW, it only has 12k. I bought it new.

Sorry about the off topic stuff, back to CX-5 2.5 option talk...

 

[CX-SV]

Yes, both the CX-5 2.0L and the unconfirmed 2.5L have 0 pounds of boost, therefore no boost increase to feel or measure.

 

[PhoenixINX]

Well you don't say? I have a Vishnu tune myself, tuned by the man himself in person! Try a Vishnu tune on a mivec head, my viii friends are jealous. I have won about 7 autox times of the day (against all other cars/classes) at autox in that car, all with just a tune, panel filter and an old school ebc. I did my own alignment, stock exhaust, stock piping, street tires, etc. BTW, it only has 12k. I bought it new.

Sorry about the off topic stuff, back to CX-5 2.5 option talk...

I never danced beyond the VIII, as our son was born and I couldn't trust myself with boost. That said, Shiv tuned my car on a few occasions down in Georgia when he flew into Dyno4mance. Small world!

Yes, both the CX-5 2.0L and the unconfirmed 2.5L have 0 pounds of boost, therefore no boost increase to feel or measure.

Really?

I used the boost metaphor to explain what the car would feel like pre to post break-in, not literally implying the two Skyactiv engines I own were aspired in a fashion I wasn't aware of.

 

[EricF]

Yes, both the CX-5 2.0L and the unconfirmed 2.5L have 0 pounds of boost, therefore no boost increase to feel or measure.

He never said it did. He said it was a metaphor for what it felt like, for anyone who's ever had a car with boost.

I haven't felt any difference after break in. IMO the car is slow as hell, but if I wanted a fast car, I wouldn't have bought a CUV in the first place. The MPG it delivers is good and that outweighs the anemic power delivery, and for me its just fine.

 

[PhoenixINX]

I haven't felt any difference after break in.

Another area to check for difference, albeit not performance related, but MPG after an oil change.

On the 3i especially, it's tough for me to tick off 40 MPG when the oil is due. However when changed I shoot back up to 42-44.

IMO the car is slow as hell,

This is true!