dragonteeth
Member
- :
- '15 CX-5 Touring AWD w/ Bose ★
I'm not a fan of minivans, but that's pretty nice. =o
Mazda roadmap...
- Thread starter craigo
- Start date
I'm not a fan of minivans, but that's pretty nice. =o
It is a shame that the Mazda 6 Tourer is not available in North America:
Engine & transmission options in UK
2.0l 165ps Petrol Manual (6-speed Manual)
2.2l 150ps Diesel Manual (6-speed Manual)
2.2l 175ps Diesel Manual (6-speed Manual)
2.2l 175ps Diesel Automatic (6-speed Automatic)
Cargo volume:
2-seat mode (to belt line) 1648 litres
5-seat mode (to belt line) 506 litres
Engine & transmission options in UK
2.0l 165ps Petrol Manual (6-speed Manual)
2.2l 150ps Diesel Manual (6-speed Manual)
2.2l 175ps Diesel Manual (6-speed Manual)
2.2l 175ps Diesel Automatic (6-speed Automatic)
Cargo volume:
2-seat mode (to belt line) 1648 litres
5-seat mode (to belt line) 506 litres
Well, looks like I might have to trade in my CX5 afterall!
Seriously, am I the only one excited about this?
I mean, especially since we can't have the Mazda6 wagon here in the united states, I've been hoping to get that 2.5L with a manual somehow. I'd probably buy this over a mazdaspeed3 for practical daily driver reasons.
If you go to truecar you can see the pricing for the 2015 S with manual.
It is way too expensive IMO
$25,140 for the S touring hatch and $24,640 for the S touring sedan...
if those prices are right it's over $4000 extra to upgrade the motor!
At that price point I think you'd be better off getting a mazda 6 sedan with the 2.5 and 6MT.
https://www.truecar.com/prices-new/mazda/mazda3-pricing/2015
I think the reason for the lack of Mazda diesels here is very simple.
Most Americans have silly requirements for acceleration and most Americans choose automatic transmissions. The Mazda diesel does not provide the acceleration that Americans expect (especially with the automatic)
This is from the UK mazda site (manufacturer specs):
The most powerful diesel (175ps AWD Manual) sold in the UK goes 0-62 in 8.8s
The automatic takes 9.4s!!
The manual 2.0L is listed at 9.0s
Many people in the USA complained about the 2.0L CX-5 being too slow and under-powered, so instead of bringing the diesel which is slower than the 2.0L gas engine with the automatic, Mazda choose to bring the powerful 2.5L gas engine instead.. and IMO the excellent sales for the 2.5L prove that Mazda made the right choice.
That is all relative as I consider torque as a more useful real-life feature than overall horsepower
The diesel engine ( 2.2l 175ps Diesel Manual (6-speed Manual) ) 420 / 2000 Nm / rpm
The petrol engine (2.0l 165ps Petrol Manual (6-speed Manual) ) 210 / 4000 Nm / rpm
0 to 60mph figures with diesels don't mean much, its acceleration through the gears, the auto is slightly faster in some tests than the manual.
But the 2L petrol is left for dead against the 175ps diesel, only the 2.5 petrol competes.
The diesel is so relaxing to drive performance is effortless, I routinely drive at 1500 rpm even though the engine torque peaks at 2K revs, 1250 rpm is no problem for it either.
ooops...those numbers are for the wagon.
For the CX-5
2.2 150ps Diesel (AWD 6-Speed Manual) 380 / 1800-2600 Nm / rpm
2.2 150ps Diesel (2WD 6-Speed Manual) 380 / 1800-2600 Nm / rpm
2.0 165ps Petrol (2WD 6-Speed Manual) 210 / 400 Nm / rpm
You already have a shifter with a leather boot. Installing a 2016 manual transmission into a 2014 would be a cinch. Just have to install the clutch pedal hardware. Computer might be unhappy about it though.
The high torque and fuel economy of diesels is nice.
It's a lot of fun to floor a diesel between ~2000 and 3000 RPM, but in the end, horsepower and good gear ratios determine how quickly a car can accelerate onto the freeway and how quickly it can climb a mountain pass with a full load.
The high torque of diesel engines gives the feeling of effortless acceleration.. until you really floor it and realize that there is not much power left.
I think that my argument for the lack of Diesels in the North American market stands:
The 2.0L Sky-G got bad reviews for being "under-powered"
The 2.2L Sky-D is slower with the automatic than the 2.0L Sky-G, so Mazda didn't bring it over and brought the 2.5L Sky-G instead.
A CX-5 diesel with 9.4s 0-62 isn't going to sell very well when at 2.5L Sky-G does the same in ~7.5s
It's a lot of fun to floor a diesel between ~2000 and 3000 RPM, but in the end, horsepower and good gear ratios determine how quickly a car can accelerate onto the freeway and how quickly it can climb a mountain pass with a full load.
The high torque of diesel engines gives the feeling of effortless acceleration.. until you really floor it and realize that there is not much power left.
I think that my argument for the lack of Diesels in the North American market stands:
The 2.0L Sky-G got bad reviews for being "under-powered"
The 2.2L Sky-D is slower with the automatic than the 2.0L Sky-G, so Mazda didn't bring it over and brought the 2.5L Sky-G instead.
A CX-5 diesel with 9.4s 0-62 isn't going to sell very well when at 2.5L Sky-G does the same in ~7.5s
Torque is what directly translates into acceleration. More torque - stronger instantaneous acceleration.
The reason diesel engines could accelerate slower is because the torque falls off sooner with higher RPM than a gasoline engine. In fact, if you had a car with 10K RPM redline, where torque is still abundant high up, it will out-perform a car with a traditional redline of same max torque .
http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/tech_dept.htm
And an electric car can deliver max torque from starting, which makes them very quick, and quite.
The red line on the diesel is 5500rpm, even so it doesn't rev as freely as the 173 ps xtrail diesel, a Renault unit, that engine would very quickly reach the red line which was under 5K revs.
Quoting the brochure figures I have.
2.0 petrol 165ps 0-62=9.2 secs for base car, 9.0 secs for sport. No auto.
2.2 150ps= 9.2 secs manual, 10 secs auto both 2wd. 150ps AWD= 9.4 sec
2.2 175ps= 8.8 secs manual AWD, 9.4 sec for Auto
All these figures are from the 2013 brochure.
Mazda UK also sent me a graph showing the difference in power and torque between the 150ps and 175ps. From the graph it shows the 175ps delivers.
200nm at 1000 rpm
340nm at 1500 rpm
390nm at 1800 rpm
420nm at 2000 rpm
404nm at 2400 rpm
404nm at 2600 rpm
390nm at 3000 rpm
352nm at 3400 rpm
333nm at 3600 rpm
303nm at 4000 rpm
276nm at 4500 rpm
232nm at 5000 rpm
209nm at 5200 rpm
The early cars red lined at 5200rpm, later ones 5500rpm.
compared to the 2.0 petrol which is 210nm at 4000 rpm.
The red line on the diesel is 5500rpm, even so it doesn't rev as freely as the 173 ps xtrail diesel, a Renault unit, that engine would very quickly reach the red line which was under 5K revs.
Quoting the brochure figures I have.
2.0 petrol 165ps 0-62=9.2 secs for base car, 9.0 secs for sport. No auto.
2.2 150ps= 9.2 secs manual, 10 secs auto both 2wd. 150ps AWD= 9.4 sec
2.2 175ps= 8.8 secs manual AWD, 9.4 sec for Auto
All these figures are from the 2013 brochure.
Mazda UK also sent me a graph showing the difference in power and torque between the 150ps and 175ps. From the graph it shows the 175ps delivers.
200nm at 1000 rpm
340nm at 1500 rpm
390nm at 1800 rpm
420nm at 2000 rpm
404nm at 2400 rpm
404nm at 2600 rpm
390nm at 3000 rpm
352nm at 3400 rpm
333nm at 3600 rpm
303nm at 4000 rpm
276nm at 4500 rpm
232nm at 5000 rpm
209nm at 5200 rpm
The early cars red lined at 5200rpm, later ones 5500rpm.
compared to the 2.0 petrol which is 210nm at 4000 rpm.
Very true.
I traded my Mazda6 Sportwagon for the CX-5 and had been writing Mazda of North America for a while to get them to import them again. Only 2% of Mazda6 sold here were wagons when they were available. I would have bought one in a second if they were available.
