Latest (bad) news on US diesel and MazdaSpeed options...

[paris1]

Quote from a credible industry source (http://www.autoline.tv/):" ...all you diesel and MazdaSpeed fans get ready to be disappointed. Robert Davis, Mazdas senior VP of U.S. operations has made three predictions as to when its diesel will hit U.S. showrooms, but while speaking to reporters he said he will no longer be making predictions and has no timetable for its release. Mr. Davis also had no answer as to when well see another MazdaSpeed vehicle, saying the automaker will continue to consider them as an option."(sad1)

 

[Dr_Watson]

That's not good, having driven the 2.5l and the diesel back to back at a dealer recently, you guys would really be in for a treat, you can't imagine the difference. Would be interesting to know the reasons behind the delay.

 

[paris1]

Well it' clearly got something to do with the reliability and engine damage you Brits and Aussies have been experiencing for quite some time!

 

[piotrek91]

Well it' clearly got something to do with the reliability and engine damage you Brits and Aussies have been experiencing for quite some time!

I really don't understand where this line of thinking on these forums comes form.
Every actual article on the topics states something along the line of:
Mazda Diesel Still On Tap, But Performance Must Be Suitable, Exec Says
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ap-but-performance-must-be-suitable-exec-says

The Diesel with the manual has good performance on paper (I've never driven the CX-5 diesel) but we all know how poorly manual transmission cars sell here.
The Diesel with the automatic transmission is almost as slow as the 2.0L gas engine, which was deemed to slow for the american market by most customers and journalists.
It might feel faster than the 2.5L in everyday driving, but feel only gets you so far.

 

[paris1]

When I see headlines like that (and I've seen it repeatedly) I see a smoke screen. I think Mazda is trying to disguise the reliability issues they've had with the diesel in other markets with an alternate explanation for the delay in the US (arguably their most important market).

 

[CC58]

It seems all new diesel makers are sent packing by US regulations. Honda tried with Civic around 2008, and there have been many others. Seems if you are not grandfathered in, US government doesn't want new diesels in the mix. May have to do with big oil shipping most gasoline to US and most diesel to EU. Oil is processed into those two parts and gotta be used somewhere. Could wind up with an excess of gasoline, and we couldn't have that.

 

[Dr_Watson]

I really don't understand where this line of thinking on these forums comes form.
Every actual article on the topics states something along the line of:
Mazda Diesel Still On Tap, But Performance Must Be Suitable, Exec Says
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ap-but-performance-must-be-suitable-exec-says

The Diesel with the manual has good performance on paper (I've never driven the CX-5 diesel) but we all know how poorly manual transmission cars sell here.
The Diesel with the automatic transmission is almost as slow as the 2.0L gas engine, which was deemed to slow for the american market by most customers and journalists.
It might feel faster than the 2.5L in everyday driving, but feel only gets you so far.

I test drove a 2.5 a few days ago then a diesel automatic. The 2.5 was shocking, I couldn't imagine having to drive above 4000 rpm to get anywhere. Unless you have driven both, you don't really have any grounds to comment. Feel is everything when you are selling an SUV. How many people buy this car for performance based on numbers. Not many I bet, average age and lifestyle of most buyers would prove that.

The best way I can explain the difference is this. Imagine the 1000rpm band of revs where you get the best acceleration in the 2.0 (or 2.5), probably between 4000 to 5000, in the diesel, you get this acceleration between about 1800rpm and 2500rpm. It's there to use instantly as this is the band that you are normally in as you cruise around. Gear doesn't matter, if you come up behind a truck doing 50mph and you are in 6th, put your foot down and your past.

From another thread, the 2.5 was so inert to drive I was shocked, you feel so disconnected from the car. I was driving through a town at 30mph, I had no idea what gear I was in because it just says D?!? The road climbed slightly so I gave it a little gas, there was no torque to allow acceleration in the current gear, so the box jumped down a gear...changing gear to speed up at 30 from say 28?? The twisty road I was driving was amazing fun, but in the 2.5, everytime I entered a hairpin, a little gas to hold speed through the apex, on exit, I couldn't accelerate without the box jumping down and if I gave a good bit of gas, it jumped down 2 gear, the acceleration was poor until 4000rpm was reached, then you good a great acceleration, but the engine is starting to scream, all a bit frantic if a family is in the car. I tried sport but gave up, cruising around with the revs sitting so high? Surely it should just give you a low gear when you need it, not all the time.

Reliability of the diesel is potentially poor on an early batch of cars up to a certain build date. After that there are no problems to report really. The German and Oz forum are very quite regarding problems with the diesel, Mazda are throwing in a 5 or 6 year 100k warranty on all new diesels here, they are confident the the problems are solved.

 

[erhayes]

I think that we, in the USA, would not accept the problems that have surfaced with the Mazda diesel. In addition; General Motors miserable attempt and failure to convert a gas engine to a diesel, has set the reputation of diesel cars in a negative light. Mazda's problems, the general attitude toward diesels will make it a difficult sell in MO. Ed

 

[piotrek91]

I test drove a 2.5 a few days ago then a diesel automatic. The 2.5 was shocking, I couldn't imagine having to drive above 4000 rpm to get anywhere. Unless you have driven both, you don't really have any grounds to comment. Feel is everything when you are selling an SUV. How many people buy this car for performance based on numbers. Not many I bet, average age and lifestyle of most buyers would prove that.

The best way I can explain the difference is this. Imagine the 1000rpm band of revs where you get the best acceleration in the 2.0 (or 2.5), probably between 4000 to 5000, in the diesel, you get this acceleration between about 1800rpm and 2500rpm. It's there to use instantly as this is the band that you are normally in as you cruise around. Gear doesn't matter, if you come up behind a truck doing 50mph and you are in 6th, put your foot down and your past.

You might be right that most people buy an SUV like the CX-5 based on feel.
I drove over 2000 mi (3200 km) in a brand new Mercedes C220 Bluetech diesel all through Germany and all over Switzerland last summer, so I know more or less how modern diesels drive. It feels fast in everyday driving, but when you really get on it you discover that you're already using all the power there is.

From another thread, the 2.5 was so inert to drive I was shocked, you feel so disconnected from the car. I was driving through a town at 30mph, I had no idea what gear I was in because it just says D?!? The road climbed slightly so I gave it a little gas, there was no torque to allow acceleration in the current gear, so the box jumped down a gear...changing gear to speed up at 30 from say 28?? The twisty road I was driving was amazing fun, but in the 2.5, everytime I entered a hairpin, a little gas to hold speed through the apex, on exit, I couldn't accelerate without the box jumping down and if I gave a good bit of gas, it jumped down 2 gear, the acceleration was poor until 4000rpm was reached, then you good a great acceleration, but the engine is starting to scream, all a bit frantic if a family is in the car. I tried sport but gave up, cruising around with the revs sitting so high? Surely it should just give you a low gear when you need it, not all the time.

I'm sure some of the numb feeling that you felt from the 2.5L came from the automatic transmission. It's one of the best there is, but it's still not a manual, and the shift patterns are calibrated for economy.
Have you driven the automatic diesel? I haven't, but I suspect that it might not feel much better than the 2.5, while being significantly slower 0-100KM.

Reliability of the diesel is potentially poor on an early batch of cars up to a certain build date. After that there are no problems to report really. The German and Oz forum are very quite regarding problems with the diesel, Mazda are throwing in a 5 or 6 year 100k warranty on all new diesels here, they are confident the the problems are solved.

This further proves my point that the reliability of the Diesel is not behind the lack of diesel CX-5 here.

 

[Dr_Watson]

Yes, numbness was probably 80% from the box, would love to try it with a manual. I have driven the auto diesel, it feels a lot different, the box never hunts unless you plant your foot. Never understand why the 175ps diesel comes with a manual but the 2.5 not, but that's Mazda!

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

The diesel CX-5 was on my list a few years back but couldn't wait any longer so bought mine last year. The 2.5L does everything I need it to do. I plan to keep for 10 years and over 100K mile so from a maintenance and reliability standpoint the petrol model will likely be more reliable in the long term. Just my subjective opinion.

 

[MikeM.]

I test drove a 2.5 a few days ago then a diesel automatic. The 2.5 was shocking, I couldn't imagine having to drive above 4000 rpm to get anywhere.

LOL! I rarely drive above 4000 rpm's (and I have the little 2.0L). Above 4000 rpm operation is generally limited to brief periods before a shift when passing another car or cruising above 90 mph. So I don't know what you're doing differently....

Imagine the 1000rpm band of revs where you get the best acceleration in the 2.0 (or 2.5), probably between 4000 to 5000, in the diesel, you get this acceleration between about 1800rpm and 2500rpm.

Peak power in the diesel happens at 4500 rpm and if you want to drive in a sporty manner, my opinion is that maximizing acceleration by proper use of the gearbox enhances the fun. Sure, it takes a bit more skill but isn't that the point? But the power curves on the diesel are so flat, you can get 90% of what you need by staying in the low revs. So there's not much reward for spinning the engine up. I actually like loafing along between 1800 rpm and 2400 rpm with the gas engine and, when I want to move out, dropping a couple of gears and going. It doesn't take any effort to use the higher rpm's, it's not like you're pedaling a bicycle. Sure, you have to shift but why did you buy a manual transmission if you don't like to shift? Even with pedal to the metal diesel driving, the 2.5L gas engine will slowly walk away from the diesel.

The twisty road I was driving was amazing fun, but in the 2.5, everytime I entered a hairpin, a little gas to hold speed through the apex, on exit, I couldn't accelerate without the box jumping down and if I gave a good bit of gas, it jumped down 2 gear, the acceleration was poor until 4000rpm was reached, then you good a great acceleration, but the engine is starting to scream, all a bit frantic if a family is in the car.

I get that. The gas engine is going to feel more sporty, less stately. The diesel is the best choice for hauling the family around. However, you don't need to wait for 4000 rpm's to get decent power, even the 2.0L gasser is making over 140 Ft./lb. of torque at a low 2100 rpm's. But, if you don't want to drive a locomotive, and you want to row through a few gears, the diesel is a poor choice because it's not going to reward you as much as the gas engines. I have both 2 valve and 4 valve Ducati 1000cc motorcycles. The 2 valve is a locomotive with a very fat but very flat (slightly declining) torque curve, the 4 valvers have good power through out their very broad power band but the power builds to an intoxicating crescendo at about 9000 rpm's. While you can just twist it and go while loafing along at 3500 rpm, you are rewarded by downshifting and hitting the true meat of the power band. On the other hand, the 2 valve, well, there's not much point in downshifting when you want to get on it. In my opinion the 4 valve is far more fun even though the 2 valve has more torque in the low part of the power band.

Reliability of the diesel is potentially poor on an early batch of cars up to a certain build date. After that there are no problems to report really. The German and Oz forum are very quite regarding problems with the diesel, Mazda are throwing in a 5 or 6 year 100k warranty on all new diesels here, they are confident the the problems are solved.

That's very good to hear indeed! I was feeling so sorry for all the worry and hair-pulling that was going on over on the other side of the pond with rising oil levels, engine oil diluted with diesel and failures of camshafts, etc. I'm glad Mazda stepped up and fixed the problems.

 

[yrwei52]

... However, you don't need to wait for 4000 rpm's to get decent power, even the 2.0L gasser is making over 140 Ft./lb. of torque at a low 2100 rpm's.

How about 310 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm? That would be the torque from an SA-D 2.2L! If these issues on SA-D have been truly resolved by Mazda, I just can't imagine why Mazda doesn't want to make its diesel available in the States. Although the market is suspicious, VW, BMW, Mercedes all have diesel's available here. With its outstanding specifications, Mazda should be able to grab majority of the limited diesel market.

 

[MikeM.]

How about 310 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm? That would be the torque from an SA-D 2.2L! If these issues on SA-D have been truly resolved by Mazda, I just can't imagine why Mazda doesn't want to make its diesel available in the States.

Probably because the diesels don't have the zoom-zoom sportiness of the gassers. It's all well and good to have strong torque down low but if it doesn't get hardly any stronger as the rpm's rise it creates a pretty one dimensional engine. Good for hauling the family around or pulling a trailer but not so good as a sporty and engaging driving machine.


My point about the torque of the smallest gasser (2.0L) is that, in everyday driving, 140 ft./lbs. is more than enough to get the job done. The claim was the power is "poor" until 4000 rpm's. Even at peak torque (somewhere near 4000 rpm's) the 2.5L only makes 148 Ft./lb. of torque). To be making almost as much at 2000 rpm's is a fine achievement and calling it "poor" doesn't reflect reality.

 

[Srad600]

It seems all new diesel makers are sent packing by US regulations. Honda tried with Civic around 2008, and there have been many others. Seems if you are not grandfathered in, US government doesn't want new diesels in the mix. May have to do with big oil shipping most gasoline to US and most diesel to EU. Oil is processed into those two parts and gotta be used somewhere. Could wind up with an excess of gasoline, and we couldn't have that.

There are bunches of current model diesels being sold in the US now? There's no reason Mazda couldn't do it as well...
Audi Has the TDI range (A3, A6, A7, A8, Q5, Q7)
BMW has their "d" range (328d, 535d, X3 28d, X5 35d)
Chevy Cruise Diesel
Jeep Grand Cherokee Eco Diesel
Mercedes Blu Tec line (E250, GLK250, ML250, GL350)
Ram 1500 Eco diesel
Porsche Cayenne Diesel
VW's TDI lineup (Golf, Golfsportwagen, Jetta, Passat, Beetle & Touareg)

All these are current year (2015 & 2016 models). The diesel is certainly not dead in America. It's not as popular as in Europe, but there are plenty of options to choose from.

 

[limleong]

The Diesel with the manual has good performance on paper (I've never driven the CX-5 diesel) but we all know how poorly manual transmission cars sell here.
The Diesel with the automatic transmission is almost as slow as the 2.0L gas engine, which was deemed to slow for the american market by most customers and journalists.
It might feel faster than the 2.5L in everyday driving, but feel only gets you so far.

This is not true. The 2.2 SA-D Diesel Engine is sold as a performance model in NZ. The automatic 2.2 SA-Diesel does 0 - 100 Km/h in 8 secs whereas the automatic 2.5 SA Petrol is almost 2 secs slower. It is a fact that it is faster and 30% more fuel efficient when compared to the petrol.

The caveat is there is a warm up cycle with all Diesel engines (not only Mazda Diesel). You can't expect the 2.2 SA-D to do 0 - 100 Km/h first thing in the cold morning.

 

[yrwei52]

This is not true. The 2.2 SA-D Diesel Engine is sold as a performance model in NZ. The automatic 2.2 SA-Diesel does 0 - 100 Km/h in 8 secs whereas the automatic 2.5 SA Petrol is almost 2 secs slower. It is a fact that it is faster and 30% more fuel efficient when compared to the petrol.

SA-D 2.2L AWD is also the top-of-line and most powerful model in Taiwan. But from Car and Driver's test, 0-60 (0-96 km/h) on a SA-G 2.5L AWD auto is 7.7 sec. While I do believe 2.2L SA-D will have better 0-60, it has to be better than you indicated (0-62 in 8 sec).

 

[IHeartGroceries]

The performance variant's abysmal failure in Le Mans must have damaged their pride. Lmao
I think the oil burner would be nice as an option. But, if there is any question regarding reliability, save it. Mazda seems to finally be on the uptick with American consumers, in regards to reliability and quality.

The truly bad news here is the possibility of no Mazdaspeed flagship. Though, I'm still fairly confident and hopeful we will see something debut in Frankfurt in a couple of months. Not counting on anything other than a Gen 3 MS3 at this time, though...


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[piotrek91]

This is not true. The 2.2 SA-D Diesel Engine is sold as a performance model in NZ. The automatic 2.2 SA-Diesel does 0 - 100 Km/h in 8 secs whereas the automatic 2.5 SA Petrol is almost 2 secs slower. It is a fact that it is faster and 30% more fuel efficient when compared to the petrol.

The caveat is there is a warm up cycle with all Diesel engines (not only Mazda Diesel). You can't expect the 2.2 SA-D to do 0 - 100 Km/h first thing in the cold morning.

Where are you getting your numbers?
http://www.mazda.de/modelle/mazda-cx5/specs-and-prices/
Lists them as:
2.2D 6AT: 0-100KM 9.4s (4x4)
2.5G 6AT: 0-100KM 8.0s (4x4)

With the MT the diesel is decently fast. But the automatic diesel 0-100KM time of 9.4 is slower than my "underpowered" 6MT
2.2D 6MT: 0-100KM 8.8s (4x4)
2.0G 6MT: 0-100KM 9.2s (4x2)
2.0G 6MT: 0-100KM 10.5s (4x4)

While I do believe 2.2L SA-D will have better 0-60, it has to be better than you indicated (0-62 in 8 sec).

see the official times from the German Mazda site above.

Torque is IMO very overrated. Performance is all about horsepower, curb weight and gearing.

 

[Dr_Watson]

That's it settle then, the 2.5l is better because it can get to 60 faster. That's the number one criteria with all CX-5 buyers of course!

I tend to think about the hassle of getting to 60, not how fast it gets there. I know that the diesel performance is certainly not the reason it is not being introduced to the USA, it would be nice if it was so that the debate had a bit more merit to it by people having driven both versions. Hopefully they introduce it but it doesn't look like it in the near future.