skyactive opinions?

[joe944]

From the P5 forum. Car has 130k and running strong. Parents are looking into a new base model automatic skyactive hatchback. The are 64. Looking to trade their bling bling g35.
Wanted to know how you guys felt about the car. Problems? Parents are looking for reliability in retirement.
Is this a car you can take to an independent foreign car specialist. Local Mazda dealership couldn't even explain to me what skyactive is. Not the best of dealers as well. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[armycop]

If they are older, they may not like the "sportier" ride of the Mazda 3. It's not as quiet as most family sedans, but a blast to drive. The Skyactiv is just the reducing of weight in the body, direct injection, low friction transmission for better economy. I have been averaging 35.5-36.5 MPG in my Skyactiv 3 with mixed driving, which is excellent. I can get over 40MPG at 60mph on the highway.

 

[chrislitz]

^^ I agree. I had a 2007 2.0L auto and just got a 6-speed manual 2012 Skyactiv. The Skyactiv has more pickup while getting great gas mileage. I get 27-28 mpg in my hometown where my 07 got 20 mpg. (Terrible for gas mileage, all hills, stop and go galore). I have heard good things about the automatic gearbox as well, since it is newly designed for the Skyactiv. armycop also explained what Skyactiv is quite well. It's all about the reducing weight and new technology to get the car up into the 40 mpg range. The car rides smooth, it's comfortable, and on the highway I get phenomenal gas mileage. It's probably a little less refined as other sedans since Mazda wants to try to keep the Zoom-Zoom in their cars (sportier suspension, maybe more road noise, etc.) Best way to check is with a test drive.

 

[_Chris]

If they are wanting something with good gas mileage and have them look at the Cx5. The ride is a bit softer than the 3 with the same engine. I love Mazdas but they would be taking a step down in comfort going from the G35. But im sure they know that if they are looking at them.

about taking the car to someplace other than a Mazda dealer for repairs. Just depends on the repair. For the first number of years if you have issues it should be covered by the warranty. But you dont have to take it to them for normal oil changes and services like that for wear items. (brakes, oil, trans fluid changes, filters)

 

[joe944]

they went out and looked at the two. and yeah, they thought the cx-5 was the better choice.
tough call though as my p5 always comes out of shops with problems instead of the other way around on a bullet proof car. twice over on the local dealer. don't need my parents to go through that.

 

[CX-SV]

Do we have any owners here with a lot of miles on Skyactiv 3's so far?...

 

[lovmyrx7]

If theyre coming froma g35, the Mazda 3 will in no way feel sportier. Their isnt a "sporty" suspension in a skyactiv anything yet. The cx5 will be easier for them to work with. I'm not sure if they're are like my g-units, but they hate crawling in and out of lower cars. Do thy have a coupe or sedan? We've had 2 skyactiv 3s come in today for a 20k and 30k service. Both seem to be averaging 33-35 mpg mixed driving. Also, anything passed cruise control iluded my g-units, trying to explain how bluetooth worked was like explaining magic to them lol. Do some research before the decide. As far as Independant work shops, I'd trust them with the basics, but no more han the normal maintenance, oil changes, tire rotations, filters etc. Just make sure the proper weight oil is used and always ALWAYS keep receipts. You never know down the road.

 

[atldinan3]

Skyactiv loose steering on hwy

Their isnt a "sporty" suspension in a skyactiv anything yet.

Can you elaborate on that? I just switched from a 2011 Mazda3 2.5 5dr to a 2012 Mazda3 Skyactiv 5dr and am finding a big difference in the suspension. Specifically, it feels "loose & floaty" on the highway. I am constantly making micro-corrections to the steering. I thought there wasn't supposed to be any zoom-zoom differences between the 2.5 and the Skyactiv?

Thx

 

[Jamis]

According to the Mazda web site, the only difference in the chassis between the "i" models (Skyactiv 2.0G) and the "s" models (2.5L motors) is the size of the front and rear brake rotors and the wheels and tires. The "i" has P205/55R16 all-season radials on 16"x6.5" wheels, while the "s" has P205/50R17 all-season radials on 17"x7" wheels. The wheel/tire combination alone could make a difference in handling between the two models. Shorter sidewalls and larger/heavier wheels will make things feel different.

 

[atldinan3]

According to the Mazda web site, the only difference in the chassis between the "i" models (Skyactiv 2.0G) and the "s" models (2.5L motors) is the size of the front and rear brake rotors and the wheels and tires. The "i" has P205/55R16 all-season radials on 16"x6.5" wheels, while the "s" has P205/50R17 all-season radials on 17"x7" wheels. The wheel/tire combination alone could make a difference in handling between the two models. Shorter sidewalls and larger/heavier wheels will make things feel different.

Interesting, I hadn't thought about tire differences at all. Doing the math (taken from tirerack.com), I think the Skyactiv tires are .4 inches taller. And 1 inch wider. Should such a small sidewall difference really make a noticeable difference in handling?

 

[Jamis]

Interesting, I hadn't thought about tire differences at all. Doing the math (taken from tirerack.com), I think the Skyactiv tires are .4 inches taller. And 1 inch wider. Should such a small sidewall difference really make a noticeable difference in handling?

It's possible. I have a '97 Civic EX and it came with 185-65/14 radials. I replaced them with 195-60/14s. It made a huge difference in the handling and braking. It depends on the tire construction, but generally, the lower the profile (aspect ratio), the stiffer the ride and the less tread deflection. Also, the 17' wheel will be heavier than the 16" wheel and the greater unsprung weight should mean a slightly heavier feel to the car's handling. Another issue here is how wide is the tread width of the two tires, or how big is the tire's footprint on the ground?

 

[atldinan3]

Hmm. I'm thinking about going from the stock P205/55R16 to a P225/50R16. How much difference could that make? Worth the nearly $500 installed price?

 

[Jamis]

Hmm. I'm thinking about going from the stock P205/55R16 to a P225/50R16. How much difference could that make? Worth the nearly $500 installed price?

Same wheels? If so, will the 225s fit on them? Tires have a rim width specification. Also note that the stock Mazda 16s are 6.5" wide while the 17s are 7" wide. The half inch wider rim also alters the stiffness of the combination.

What is the revs/mile on the two tires? If it's more that 2% different, you may have speedometer (and related electronics) issues. Also, make sure you have a four wheel alignment done after mounting the new tires as they could alter how the suspension sits.

 

[atldinan3]

Same wheels? If so, will the 225s fit on them? Tires have a rim width specification. Also note that the stock Mazda 16s are 6.5" wide while the 17s are 7" wide. The half inch wider rim also alters the stiffness of the combination.

What is the revs/mile on the two tires? If it's more that 2% different, you may have speedometer (and related electronics) issues. Also, make sure you have a four wheel alignment done after mounting the new tires as they could alter how the suspension sits.

Yes, I was planning on keeping the stock 16" wheels. I suppose 225 is a big jump. Any thoughts on the handling difference 205/45-16 might make? The speedo would be off -5mph, but thats manageable I think.

 

[Jamis]

Yes, I was planning on keeping the stock 16" wheels. I suppose 225 is a big jump. Any thoughts on the handling difference 205/45-16 might make? The speedo would be off -5mph, but thats manageable I think.

I don't know what tires you are looking at, but going wider and keeping the same wheel diameter is a bit limited. Typically, my experience is that if you go up one step in width, you will need to go down one step in aspect ratio to keep the revs/mile inside that 2% delta. For example:
205-55/16 = 215-50/16 = 225-45/16.
Again, assuming the wider tire will fit on the rim OK. I don't know how much the revs/mile factor affects a particular modern car with all of their electronics and how much integration is done between the various processors. The wheel speed sensors on each wheel feed data to the ECM, TCM, and other processors for a lot of functions. Fooling all of these computers could have adverse results in certain situations. I'm not saying you can't do it, just be careful that you don't void a warranty, or yourself.