PDA

View Full Version : First drive of the Diesel - Review and Photos/Videos



inodes
03-23-2012, 06:56 AM
Hi All,

About six weeks ago, I put a deposit down on a Diesel CX-5 having never seen a single CX-5 in Australia.

I was looking forward to my order: a Black Mica Diesel GT. An additional wait was required because the diesels were going to be released a month after the petrol models.

Order became....

Model: CX-5 Black Mica AWD GT
Build date: 15th February 2012
Ship name: Michigan Highway
VIN: JM0-KE1021-00102915

Having this information made it official. It existed. It had just been built *barely*.... just for me.

I watched the position of the ship Michigan Highway online (using http://www.marinetraffic.com), and imagined it was being loaded (carefully). I watched as it the ship departed Hiroshima on 20th February. I watched the ship visited other Japanese ports picking up other brands, and hoped that ship workers were careful not to overpack the ship and scratch my new paintwork.

Something particularly boyish about dreaming about a journey of a new car purchase along the route that takes it from port to port, before the keys get handed over. Waiting in anticipation, knowing that it exists... and knowing where it exists only adds further to the excitement.

It was only when "my" car had finally arrived in Australian waters that the earlier ship carrying petrol CX-5's had been, gone, and they were available for test drives.

As you may remember, I posted a review of the Petrol (a GT with Tech Pack) a few weeks back:
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123811358-Sizing-down-%28or-up-%29-Just-pulled-the-trigger-on-a-CX-5-GT!!&p=5898961&highlight=#post5898961

I did a drive with my best mate, then my wife and lastly a third test drive with my Mum. They were to be the critics, because I had driven only 20 metres by the time I knew this was the perfect replacement to my Mazda 3.

The dealership must have been annoyed with my persistence to test something (multiple times) that I'd already ordered. But as you know with my posts, I've been reading everything I can, researching as much as I can and annoying this forum with posts to the wazoo - even before I get my own set of keys.

I think with the knowledge and research I'd gained deciding the product was right, I'd managed to teach the friendly salesmen a thing or two, and probably even helped a sale by rabbiting on to someone looking over the vehicle while at the car yard.

The test drive confirmed it was the right vehicle, but the model I drove had the Tech Pack (which in Australia equates to blind spot monitoring, high beam control and lane depart warning). One thing became clear - the blind spot monitor was a must-have feature, particularly in Sydney traffic.
But unfortunately my order... my preciously tracked order.... didn't have the factory fitted option.

My romanticised tracking of the ship that contained "my" car was left futile as I cancelled my order on 6th March - just as (ironically), it was docking at my home port.

So close, and so far - the order clock was reset and the car containing my needed blindspot monitoring was sitting on the dock in Hiroshima, ready to board the ship Azalea Ace.

The start of a whole new tracking adventure, and waiting game started for....

Model: CX-5 Black Mica AWD GT + Tech Pack
Build date: 28th February 2012
Ship name: Azalea Ace
VIN: JM0-KE1021-00104494

Well today I was at the dealership within 30 seconds of their first diesel arriving....
The sales team hadn't yet had a drive before I arrived.

I looked over at a Black Mica CX-5 GT.
...and fate had it, that it was the very Black Mica I'd tracked then cancelled weeks prior.

Today I took the beast for a drive, and I am the process of uploading photos and videos as I type.

Review, coming every so shortly......

CodyZoom
03-23-2012, 08:25 AM
Well, you have my attention. Looking forward to it, even though diesel isn't an option in the states. Next vehicle will likely be diesel, hopefully by 2020 or so they'll have a lot more diesel options here.

inodes
03-23-2012, 10:36 AM
Still in the process of uploading photos and videos. So far uploading three very short videos (curse YouTube and upload speeds).

Firstly, the photos can be seen at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennstewart/sets/72157629532767321/

Excuse the quality. All rush jobs from my iPhone. You can only do so much when you're doing a test drive.
The diesel shots are clearly marked with filename of 2012-03-23 onwards (photo of key, onwards).

Videos are as follows:
1. Diesel startup - the diesel is reasonably quiet for a diesel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PKW7SUBEqE)
2. i-Stop usage in traffic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLU6pf4qAIE) - this also gives you an idea of the acceleration of the diesel from 0 to 60km/h.
3. Moving through traffic and i-Stop deciding when to kick in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47Q2ZpCSK0)

inodes
03-23-2012, 12:14 PM
The good, the better and the brilliant....

From the outset I'll say that both petrol and diesel CX-5 models are great to drive. The chassis is confidence inspiring. The steering is direct with a suitable amount of feedback. The suspension soaks up minor road defects, but provides enough communication back through the wheel enabling it to be just tactile enough to know what the car is gripping to.

We've all read excellent reviews. Most of them have been written without having the diesel to compare against. Very few have been critical of the petrol engine.

I review the first really critical review today, and it was out of the only car magazine I subscribe to: Australia's number one car magazine - Wheels.
They typically tell it like it is, and they were critical of the petrol version saying that per tonne, it was now Mazda's lowest torque vehicle - even more so than the Mazda 2.

To sum up, they said - "there's ample 'zoom-zoom' in the chassis, just not enough under the bonnet". They claimed that their tests of 0-100km/h (0-62mph) took 11 seconds instead of the manufacturer figure. And that even worse, is that in Australia a lot of country highways are two lanes where you often have to overtake into oncoming traffic. The 80-120km/h time required for this was said to be a poor 9.3 seconds.

The petrol CX-5 I drove didn't feel like it would post such a ridiculous (and non zoom-zoom) time.
Driven as an every day vehicle, the petrol CX-5 is completely acceptable. It's very comfortable and has all the creature comforts one would want from an SUV (CUV).

But jumping into the diesel after having driven the petrol, it's like night and day.

The first thing I noticed was that the diesel is quite tame in start up (for a diesel). The low rumble present in every diesel due to low revving and high compression, was far less noticeable. The engine note was quite masculine, throaty and not too annoying at all. It would take someone who knew cars to know it was a diesel from the engine note.

Kick off the line is immediate. The diesel responds very quickly when given instruction. The auto transmission (there isn't a manual option for this engine in Australia), is very quick to ensure power gets delivered from the engine to the wheels with only the slightest of delays. It's probably about halfway between the lethargic reactions of a torque convertor and the neck snapping response of a DSG. It's a good compromise between speed and comfort.

In isolation, the petrol performs take off in a similarly smooth manner and is able to get up to normal driving speeds with little hesitation. But in comparison, the petrol seems has a distinct fall off of torque as the gears quickly notch up through 2nd, 3rd and then far too quickly into 4th. The car feels like its given you a decent bulk of what it has to offer to get you moving, leaving little spare for later use. You know there might be more, but its tucked away and requires a mashing of the pedal to withdraw it, and is accompanied by the symphony of high pitch revs that comes with its delivery.

The diesel on the other hand gets off the line calmly with a tiny rumble and deepness in note. It goes into 2nd and 3rd but at this point you can feel that it has required very little input to get the momentum up to this point. There is a sensation that under the pedal, there is a lot more potential ready to be relinquished upon pressing the foot slightly deeper. Driving even up to speeds of 80km/h, it still felt as if it were being driven gently and wanted to be flogged. Pushing the foot to the floor the diesel felt as if it were on an audition for Mazdaspeed. Not quite... but the efforts, valiant.

The fuel economy achieved by the petrol engine is remarkable. But the evidence is clear. A lot of this economy may come from the design of the engine, the advanced direct fuel injection and optimised fuel spray patterns. A lot of it though comes purely from the transmission and it's desire to race its eco butt to 5th as soon as the chance is given. To coax it back down is like yanking the walking lead on a Rottweiler in an effort to make it heal. I'd dare say both would yelp.

It was far harder to gauge whether the auto in the diesel had the same desperation to be eco happy. It always seemed to have enough grunt above the current gear, and with immediacy no matter which gear it was in. Furthermore, at any given speed is exhibited the petrol's very smooth and calm nature. One engine was always showing you it was well behaved and needed a kick to get angry, the other was restrained in an effort to be well behaved but was ready to respond, no kick required.

Steering was more or less identical on both. My mate reckons the steering was a tad light on the petrol test drive, but I am certain he was mistaken.
The steering is on the lighter side of feedback and the greater side of electrical assistance. It's very hard to provide this forum an accurate illustration to compare with given that Mazda Australia chose the European specified steering calibration, Furthermore it mixed this steering with the auto transmission calibrated for the American market.
The European transmission is designed for calm inputs of the typical calm and well taught European driver, whereas the Australian/American transmissions are meant to take inputs as if they were throw in at random. The calibration of steering is still unknown to me and I am uncertain which between Europe and the US market would want the heavier steering. But I am happy to report that regardless of that, the steering is sharp as an arrow in its ability to go exactly where pointed. The steering also feels very quick,particularly when going round corners. It's as if more assistance is throwing in, to get you around - which as I type, doesn't sound logical - but in practice it appears to work quite well.

The last part of the test drive was dedicated to i-Stop. By default it's turned off. Apparently in the background a computer calculates whether or not the engine should be stopped at a given pause. But turning it on fresh (as in just off the boat) also seems to result in the i-Stop system not being available for a decent 20 minutes or so.

Once it is available though, it doesn't really get in the way of driving. The system shuts the engine off completely when the brake is applied completely and will only kick the engine back into life once it detects the brake lifting. The system is quick enough that it doesn't interrupt the driving experience. In traffic particularly, I could see this eliminating a bulk of the fuel that would otherwise be lost to idling. Very impressive!
The system is said to contribute a 10% saving in city driving and is certainly included in the fuel consumption figures below.

Moving onto fuel economy:
The following figures were provided by Australian government testing and given as:
a) combined - mixed city/highway
b) urban - city driving
c) extra urban -highway/country driving

Mazda CX-5 2.2L AT AWD Twin-turbo Diesel:
combined: 5.7L/100km (41.3mpg)
urban: 6.7L/100km (35.1mpg)
extra urban: 5.1L/100km (46.1mpg)

Mazda CX-5 2.0L AT AWD Petrol:
combined: 6.9L/100km (34.1mpg)
urban: 8.2L/100km (28.7mpg)
extra urban: 6.2L/100km (37.9mpg)

Mazda CX-5 2.0L AT 2WD Petrol:
combined: 6.4L/100km (36.8mpg)
urban: 8.0L/100km (29.4mpg)
extra urban: 5.5L/100km (42.8mpg)

For comparison...

Toyota Camry Hybrid (Australia manufactured version)
combined: 5.2L/100km (45.2mpg)
urban: 5.7L/100km (41.3mpg)
extra urban: 4.9L/100km (48.0mpg)

ourlee
03-23-2012, 12:25 PM
very nice write up, ask your Mazda team when the US is getting the diesel. Cheers!

inodes
03-23-2012, 12:44 PM
very nice write up, ask your Mazda team when the US is getting the diesel. Cheers!
Hope damn soon. But I'll ask the question of mates back in Japan. They might know something we don't.

DrTraci
03-23-2012, 03:16 PM
Great report inodes.. Thanks for putting in the time.

xwedge
03-23-2012, 03:25 PM
great review inodes. Makes me want the diesel cx-5 even more now. Until we get it in the states, I'll be keeping my Mazda 3.

prhac
03-23-2012, 04:37 PM
Very nice to hear the diesel is good, as I ordered one today before your review - phew. Thanks for the comprehensive appraisal. The 80 to 120km/h, when it is tested, will be an interesting comparison to the petrol car. Also, it will be interesting as to how the figures change as the engines get 'run in' and loosen up.
A silly question to our American friends or anybody. Why in America haven't diesel cars (in general) been popular, especially with all the extra torque they give? Is it because of tradition where gas/petrol is cheap(ish) and cars had large capacity?

inodes
03-23-2012, 06:14 PM
Why in America haven't diesel cars (in general) been popular, especially with all the extra torque they give?
And actually, further to that... what is the cost of diesel fuel?

Fuel cost... Is Diesel worth it?

In Australia at the moment, we are at double the price of fuel compared with 7 years ago. Not good!
Also note these prices might look expensive, because at the moment the Euro, UK Pound and US dollar are at their historic lows against the Australian dollar (lowest in 30+ years for GBP and USD).

We typically have 4 choices at the bowser: 91, 95 and 98
Inclusive of tax prices are roughly (as at now) per Litre.

91 = AUD $1.30 (€1.02, 112, CAD $1.36)
95 = AUD $1.37 (€1.08, 118, CAD $1.43)
98 = AUD $1.45 (€1.14, 125, CAD $1.51)
Diesel fluctuates between 91 and 98 prices. Sometimes the cheapest, sometimes the most expensive - but certainly not too different.

I'll have to convert - the US uses non standard fuel octane namings and non standard fuel measurement.

US uses AKI instead of international RON
So 91/95/98 in US terms is 87/91/94
US also uses US gallon instead of international L

Per USD $ per US Gallon that's
87 = $5.35
91 = $5.39
94 = $5.70

UK uses non standard fuel measurement - per gallon (not US gallon)
91 = 4.01
95 = 4.04
98 = 4.28

Is it worth it?

The average Australian driver, drives 15,000km/year. Taking the L/100km combined for the CX-5 AWD Petrol and Diesel and assuming the Diesel is going to cost the most at the pump...
CX-5 Petrol = 5.7L/100km = (5.7 x 150) = 855L per year =$1407.60
CX-5 Diesel = 6.9L/100km = (6.9 x 150) = 1035L per year = $1239.75

Over 5 years that's only a $839 saving of petrol vs diesel - which is much less than the $3000 premium we pay for the engine.

Answer: Diesel is not worth the cost variance - only desirable for increased resale value and performance

DougNuts
03-23-2012, 06:32 PM
A silly question to our American friends or anybody. Why in America haven't diesel cars (in general) been popular, especially with all the extra torque they give? Is it because of tradition where gas/petrol is cheap(ish) and cars had large capacity?

There are lots of reasons that people bring up. The answer varies from person to person and usually includes one or more of the following:

Diesel engines are perceived to be noisy and stinky in the US.
Diesel engines are perceived to be bad for the environment, so a lot of people who are willing to pay more for a car that uses less fuel seem to prefer hybrids.
Diesel is up to 15% more expensive than 87 octane gas (which most cars use), so the payback is very long since most diesels cost more at initial purchase.
Due to some bad engineering during the late 70s and early 80s, a lot of older people think diesel engines are unreliable.
Diesel car emissions have to be as clean as gasoline, which killed the plans of some car companies, like Honda and Subaru to bring diesels here.
The emissions requirements have lowered the mileage advantage that diesels used to have over gasoline.

Another reason is that they aren't offered in many cars that are affordable. The TDi cars from VW are the only affordable diesel cars that I can think of and VW doesn't have a reputation for reliability here either. Other than that, BMW, Mercedes and Audi seem to be the majority of passenger vehicles (besides pickups) that you can get a diesel in.

So, in my opinion, consumer ignorance is the main reason.

Edit: According to some people, we also don't like wagons!

inodes
03-23-2012, 06:59 PM
Diesel engines are perceived to be noisy and stinky in the US.


The Japanese documentaries about the CX-5 say exactly the same thing. The purchase rate of diesels in Japan is 1%.
The explained that one negative of the low take up is to do with oil refining.

All fuel sold in Japan is sourced from imported oil. They refine it, and as part of the refining process petroleum and diesel are produced as part of the process. They have far more diesel than they can consume domestically. The diesel is then exported, often for a marginal price. Ideally the more they sold domestically, the less loss that would occur.
The exhaust from the Mazda comes with a 0.01% black soot, mainly because of the re-design of the engine. No urea or expensive NOx treatments either. Maybe not quite as clean as petrol, but not far off. Furthermore, lower CO2 emissions.

The results speak for themselves in Japan:
http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/2012/201203/120315a.html

Twenty seven percent of total CX-5 orders are gasoline engine models, surpassing initial expectations. The gasoline engine CX-5 models boast a linear, refined and powerful driving sensation that results in the driver feeling at one with the car. The clean diesel engine model consists of 73 percent of total orders, also exceeding initial expectations, and delivers powerful dynamic performance equivalent to a 4.0L, V8 gasoline engine.

Somehow I don't think Corvette needs to be worried. The last sentence regarding being equivalent to a 4.0L V8 is barely true for the power side of the Skyactiv-D.

DrTraci
03-23-2012, 06:59 PM
DougNuts is spot on. I bought my 1st diesel in 1994 and never looked back (now I have 3, Jetta, Touareg, Dodge). Most Americans won't even test drive them. Everyone of my friends that I have badgered into test driving one, are now converts and would never go back. Back before 2004, the cost of diesel was less than our lowest grade gasoline (referred to as regular). I was enjoying great mileage/savings. Around 2004 for some reason the cost of diesel jumped and has remained close to or (at some points in time) higher than our premium grade of gas. Really puts a damper on the savings (pretty much levels the 40mpg+ diesels with the 30mpg gassers), but it is hard to get away from that torque fix once you have tried it. (:)

I will definitely be in line to try out a diesel CX-5 when and if they come to the US (trade in my Jetta).

inodes
03-23-2012, 07:18 PM
Notice one thing that's interesting on http://greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/home.aspx
The website might look crap, but info is handy. Shows pollution, noise and rpm consider to be standard running.

Typically diesel are low rpm, high compression and petrol and high rpm, low compression.
The Skyactiv-D is the lowest compression diesel on the market. Significantly lower than most other diesels, and as a result the light components the rpm of the diesel is closer to normal petrol engines in rpm - hence the lesser rumble and warbling of traditional diesels.

See the following comparison:
Car Make - L/100km combined, urban, extra-urban - C02 - Noise (dBa) - test rpm

Petrol:
Mazda 3 SP20 - 6.2, 8.1, 5.1 - 145g - 84 - 4500
Mazda CX-5 FWD Petrol - 6.4, 8.0, 5.5 - 149g - 77 - 3750
Volkswagen Tiguan 118TSI - 6.9, 8.7, 5.9 - 162g - 75 - 3750

* Mazda 3 - highest rpm, noisy, most fuel efficient
* VW and CX-5 have same rpm

Diesel:
Mazda 3 Diesel - 5.7, 7.0, 5.0 - 150g - 76 - 2625
Mazda CX-5 AWD Diesel - 5.7, 6.7, 5.1 - 149g - 77 - 3345
Volkswagen Tiguan 103TDI - 6.2, 7.1, 5.7 - 164g - 74 - 2375

* CX-5 most fuel efficient, VW least
* CX-5 has almost petrol like rpm and least emissions

You can do your own comparisons, but it's very clear:
* Noise in CX-5 is closer to VW Tiguan than Mazda 3 SP23 (much quieter)
* Old Diesel in Mazda 3 is fairly standard diesel and runs same rpm as VW, CX-5 spins much faster
* CX-5 is more fuel efficient than Tiguan counterpart but only slightly louder in cabin

xwedge
03-23-2012, 08:30 PM
Very nice to hear the diesel is good, as I ordered one today before your review - phew. Thanks for the comprehensive appraisal. The 80 to 120km/h, when it is tested, will be an interesting comparison to the petrol car. Also, it will be interesting as to how the figures change as the engines get 'run in' and loosen up.
A silly question to our American friends or anybody. Why in America haven't diesel cars (in general) been popular, especially with all the extra torque they give? Is it because of tradition where gas/petrol is cheap(ish) and cars had large capacity?

It's also because of Corporate America. The hybrid heads have lobbied the government into giving incentives to hybrid buyers and not to diesel owners, therefore further isolating the diesel engine. However, it seems times are changing and more people are starting to come on board, especially in California where the price of premium gasoline is now more expensive than diesel.

jaman_ca
03-23-2012, 11:07 PM
The average Australian driver, drives 15,000km/year. Taking the L/100km combined for the CX-5 AWD Petrol and Diesel and assuming the Diesel is going to cost the most at the pump...
CX-5 Petrol = 5.7L/100km = (5.7 x 150) = 855L per year =$1407.60
CX-5 Diesel = 6.9L/100km = (6.9 x 150) = 1035L per year = $1239.75


Are the fuel consumption numbers backwards?

inodes
03-24-2012, 01:44 AM
Are the fuel consumption numbers backwards?

Bugger. That's what I get for copy and paste. The words are around wrong way.
Diesel is the better figure, but honestly the petrol does very
well in this calculation because it's a class leader in its own right.
I compared to CX-7 figures, and it makes the diesel look saintly.

prhac
03-24-2012, 04:45 AM
Thanks for all the discussion regarding my post - very interseting. Here it only works out cheaper for diesel running if the annual mileage is quite high as the cars and fuel are pricier. My misconception as to Australia. I have always thought Australians did many more miles/km per year than you stated, inodes. And the same goes for the US - both vast countries. (note to inodes - we actually pay /litre at the pumps, but we think in /gallon).

inodes
03-24-2012, 05:55 AM
Thanks for all the discussion regarding my post - very interseting. Here it only works out cheaper for diesel running if the annual mileage is quite high as the cars and fuel are pricier. My misconception as to Australia. I have always thought Australians did many more miles/km per year than you stated, inodes. And the same goes for the US - both vast countries. (note to inodes - we actually pay /litre at the pumps, but we think in /gallon).

We have vast distances, but we're have a very high urbanisation rate (similar to UK), and about 10% higher than the US. The majority of people live in the cities, have fairly good public transportation. There is no reason to do large distances. But those that do like to drive, often do far more than 15,000km.

When stretching the figures over 5 years compared to a CX-7, the Diesel CX-5 pays for itself. The petrol CX-5 is just so damn good it begs a test drive of both.
Once you drive both though....

See this new review:
http://www.carshowroom.com.au/SectionResearch/ResearchNews.aspx?Article_ID=2877

Mazda CX-5 Diesel Verdict

Across both petrol and diesel models, the Mazda CX-5 is now the medium SUV ‘Crossover’ by which others will be graded – it’s that good.
We felt the excellent chassis could handle more grunt than the 2.0-litre petrol powerplant provides and we were right – the 2.2-litre turbo-diesel is a well-balanced and tasty proposition.Moreover it’s the all-round combination of style, space and performance which scores top points for Mazda’s CX-5.
We’ll take the diesel thanks.

Regarding /litre - I should have remembered that. It has been a few years since I've driven in UK though. London is certainly one of the easiest big cities to navigate and drive though. Such a pleasure.

inodes
03-24-2012, 06:42 AM
Seems Japanese Diesel test gets 0-100 fairly quickly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NlPEpC4STI

Canadian-ES-GT
03-25-2012, 10:50 PM
^ seems like it didn't want to go into second

T.Narley
03-26-2012, 02:26 AM
If they brought that engine here I'd certainly be interested!

inodes
03-26-2012, 04:42 AM
I'll do another post when I receive my vehicle. At this stage, it's less than a week away.

VK Sefirosu
03-30-2012, 02:17 PM
Diesel certainly looks interesting, unfortunately on our shores that may take a while. Maybe the sales figures and demand will make that happen sooner though.

Anyway, I was wondering, is I-Stop limited to the diesel engine ? I'd guess this should contribute somewhat to fuel economy especially in heavy stop and go traffic. That feature, along with Smart city brake support and lane departure warning is not available here at all in Canada and I beleive it is the same for the US.

Canadian-ES-GT
03-30-2012, 02:35 PM
The i-stop system is for all new Mazdas. Only thing is that us Canadians and Americans won't see this feature for some time.

inodes
03-30-2012, 05:22 PM
The i-stop system is for all new Mazdas. Only thing is that us Canadians and Americans won't see this feature for some time.

I am really disappointed to hear this. It's one feature I am liking A LOT. There is a little interruption to the drive, but in practice it only really impacts me if I want to beat another car off the line to cut into traffic. If I know this is going to happen, lifting the brake a little bit brings the engine immediately to life.

The manual has a whole two pages on the conditions that it does and doesn't work, so behind the scenes there is a bit of computation required to make it work. I'm sure this adds up to extra cost. The cost saving to fuel may or may not may for this extra expense.

We don't have any choice here. i-Stop is standard equipment on all models whether manual, auto, petrol or diesel.

It seems as if a combination of diesel and stop-start is common on new models these days.

Canadian-ES-GT
03-30-2012, 05:48 PM
I'm guessing Mazda will decide to bring the system sooner than later.
If I remember well, I read that they had no plans to implement it in North American cars. On the other hand, the new Kia Rio has the "start-stop" system in a 400$ eco package. As it gets more popular or cheaper to manufacture, Mazda will bring it here.

inodes
03-31-2012, 04:25 AM
I did a full drive today, so will have to post the report (and fuel economy) today.

hsb
04-01-2012, 09:28 AM
I testdrove the petrol manual stifter on friday. Pretty good, but am awaiting Inodes diesel report as the diesel will not be available in Sweden until May. Btw, Is it possible to completely turn off traction control?

inodes
04-01-2012, 10:07 AM
I testdrove the petrol manual stifter on friday. Pretty good, but am awaiting Inodes diesel report as the diesel will not be available in Sweden until May. Btw, Is it possible to completely turn off traction control?

It's possible to turn everything off :)

Six buttons on the side console:

* TCS OFF - Traction Control Off (Default: On)
* TPMS - Tire Pressure Monitoring reset (Only required for reset)
* i-Stop - OFF (Default Off)
* BSM OFF - Blind Spot Monitoring Off (Default On)
* AFS OFF - Adaptive Frontlight System Off (Default On)
* LDWS OFF - Lane Departure Warning System Off (Default Off)

hsb
04-01-2012, 10:29 AM
Ok. I didn't try it myself but read somewhere that tcs/esp turns on automatically if a certain speed is reached, I think it was above 30 km/h.

So what's your impression of the diesel and the automatic transmission? :-)

inodes
04-01-2012, 11:09 AM
Ok. I didn't try it myself but read somewhere that tcs/esp turns on automatically if a certain speed is reached, I think it was above 30 km/h.

So what's your impression of the diesel and the automatic transmission? :-)

I've never been a fan of automatics. I curse majority of transmissions for being far too slow for my liking. My personal favourite is VW's DSG transmission, but low speed on the DSG can vomit inducing for the more sensitive passengers.

The auto transmission on the CX-5 is very smooth to start off with, but very quick and seamless to change (nearly DSG like above 3rd gear). On the petrol though, the transmission is very keen to get all the way up to 5th or 6th. And at the low rpm that produces, there is very little torque or power to play with.

Conversely, the diesel has two tricks up its sleeve. The first is that because the engine is low revving to begin with (diesels are), the gear ratios cause gear changes to not go up so quickly. The gearing feels far more reasonable. In addition to that, there is a massive amount of torque down low. The diesel outdoes the petrol's torque by more than twice. And at least half of that is available at 1000rpm (diesel has 200Nm@1000rpm (max 420Nm@2000rpm), the petrol has max 200Nm@4000rpm). This really makes the diesel feel like it has MUCH more useable grunt that the petrol.

The difference is significant.

One thing that is very noticeable as well is that the low compression of the diesel allows it to rev higher than competitors diesels due to much lighter, more free spinning components. This seems to result in far less noise. The noise is still diesel like, but anyone who sees the car (particularly diesel owners), are very, very surprised. Putting a diesel Tiguan next to the Mazda and opening the engine bays I dare say the Mazda would not sound as noisy.

I did test drive the VW Tiguan and Passat as well. The Passat in particular feels like it has a similar power/torque to the Mazda. The Tiguan feels slower.

Unfortunately either it might be the bedding in of the engine, or my lead foot.... but I can't seem to get close to the stated fuel economy.
Australian government testing indicates 5.7L/100km should be achievable, yet so far the average indicated by the car is 8.0L/100km. I have checked this figure by looking at fuel receipts and reckon the car is fairly accurate at calculating its consumption.

prhac
04-01-2012, 12:30 PM
I did test drive the VW Tiguan and Passat as well. The Passat in particular feels like it has a similar power/torque to the Mazda. The Tiguan feels slower.


inodes, I have a tiguan which I am trading in for the Mazda because of many, many problems. Here there are 2 diesel versions - the 138bhp and the 168 bhp (approx.). Which did you try? have the 168 bhp so when I get the CX5 it will be an interesting comparison.

inodes
04-02-2012, 02:06 AM
inodes, I have a tiguan which I am trading in for the Mazda because of many, many problems. Here there are 2 diesel versions - the 138bhp and the 168 bhp (approx.). Which did you try? have the 168 bhp so when I get the CX5 it will be an interesting comparison.

In Australia, we only get the 168hp version. Australia is a country of 4WD's (highest ownership per capita) and towing (every second person owns a boat) - the 138hp version wouldn't sell.

That said, SUV's are not purchased by anyone really needing to tow.

I went to one of the many boat ramps in Sydney (we have 4 rivers and a harbour - if you're not out on the water, then you're missing out). Everyone seems to have massive vehicles. 4WD drive of choice seems to be a Nissan Patrol.

But, that said.... the CX-5 is for families who ski and snowboard instead. I'm loving the idea of throwing my skis into the back, and not requiring the use of snow chains.

Bring on winter!!!

prhac
04-02-2012, 03:18 AM
Thanks for the reply. I have acceleration times for various ranges e.g. 50-70 mph so will be able to compare.

inodes
04-02-2012, 04:29 AM
Thanks for the reply. I have acceleration times for various ranges e.g. 50-70 mph so will be able to compare.

What are they meant to be.

Magbarn
04-16-2012, 10:01 PM
It's also because of Corporate America. The hybrid heads have lobbied the government into giving incentives to hybrid buyers and not to diesel owners, therefore further isolating the diesel engine. However, it seems times are changing and more people are starting to come on board, especially in California where the price of premium gasoline is now more expensive than diesel.

I feel this is the case too. However, I did get a $900 tax credit in my diesel BMW 335d. Wife and I are looking for a suv type vehicle for her and our 2 year old. I'm disappointed that Mazda hasn't imported the diesel cx5 with the initial introduction. I think diesel torque/economy with Japanese reliability is a big plus. (don't get me started in my prior Audi a4, that's why I won't touch any VAG products like the Tiguan!). I'm currently getting about 34-36 mpg on my BMW and would love to get similar FE in a SuV. One potential negative about diesels in ca is these punks have mandated that diesels get smog checked every 2 years! On petrol you get 6 years before your first smog. Oh well our states broke lol.

inodes
04-17-2012, 12:28 AM
One potential negative about diesels in ca is these punks have mandated that diesels get smog checked every 2 years!

The Skyactiv-D is quite clever in this regard. The compression has been brought way down to 14:1 - which is lowest compression for a diesel (MUCH lower than the VAG TDI's). Coincidently it's the same compression as the European and Japanese spec Skyactiv-G, which is the highest compression for a mass produced engine.

Getting back to the low compression on the Diesel though. By reducing the compression the intention was to get a much higher percentage of the diesel combusted and therefore reducing soot significantly.

Tests in Japan have shown the soot content to be as low as 0.02% from the CX-5 Diesel due to the change in design.

With this, it's exceeded not only currently European requirements, but they have exceeeded the future Euro 6 (required of new vehicles from 1st January 2015).

One requirement of Euro 6 (that the CX-5 complies with) is that any device fitted to a Euro 6 compliant Diesel car to control pollution must be able to last for a distance of 160,000km prior to replacement, and require a check every 100,000km/5 years.

The CX-5 Diesel would most certainly pass the current Californian requirements with flying colours!

Euro 6 require PM (Particulate Matter) to be 0.005g/km (extremely low).
I can't seem to find the figure for California - which is typically measured in bhp-hr instead.

Does anyone have the specifications for California. It would be interesting to compare.
If the CX-5 exceeds Euro standards well beyond 3 years - then how many years would it exceed Californian specs?

inodes
04-17-2012, 12:43 AM
Looking at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php
California is 0.01g/mile (LEV II Emission Standards for Passenger Cars and LDVs < 8500 lbs, g/mi).

Euro 6's figure of 0.005g/km makes the California figure look very conservative.

This can't be right.....

Magbarn
04-17-2012, 01:49 PM
Looking at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php
California is 0.01g/mile (LEV II Emission Standards for Passenger Cars and LDVs < 8500 lbs, g/mi).

Euro 6's figure of 0.005g/km makes the California figure look very conservative.

This can't be right.....

It's not just the particulates that California is crazy about, they're also too obsessed with nox and HC. That's why the BMW diesels in Europe don't need urea like the USA versions do.

inodes
04-19-2012, 03:18 AM
It's not just the particulates that California is crazy about, they're also too obsessed with nox and HC. That's why the BMW diesels in Europe don't need urea like the USA versions do.

All the Diesels on sale in Australia require the urea. I don't think they sell them (even in Europe) without them.
But the change in design on the CX-5 also reduces NOx as well.

Urea is therefore a requirement of the CX-7 Diesel (which we sell in Australia), and the Tiguan, and the Passat.
But the CX-5 is the first without Urea.

The Mazda technians said the Urea refills proved to be expensive for the CX-7 owners and that not requiring on the CX-5 was one of the reasons some Diesel CX-7 owners were come in to do trade ins.

inodes
04-19-2012, 03:23 AM
Looking at NOx

Euro 6 (Set for 2015) - NOx - 0.06g/km
California is - NOx - 0.3g/mi = 0.18g/km (for ULEV) and double that for Tier 1.

The European - Euro 6 is 3x more strict than California

But even if we take the lowest possible requirement for a diesel vehicle, being a new vehicle under 50,000mi/5 years and ULEV - which doesn't even apply to CX-5
The European measure is still twice as stict on NOx as California.

The CX-5 Diesel therefore exceeds Californian requirements signifiantly on both NOx and PM. Low CO2 is also a bonus.

JockC
04-24-2012, 08:52 AM
After one week of owning my CX-5 (exactly the same config as iNodes except mine is white), I'm extremely happy with everything. I do a considerable amount of country driving and the automatic low beam is just great (it should be compulsory on all cars) as well as the bi Xenon lights. I initially thought the iStop would be a nuisance but the restart of the motor is so quick that I've left it switched on. Lane departure waring is also a great feature. One of the roads I drive on involves setting the cruise control at 110kmh (70mph) for one and a quarter hours straight and its very easy to lose concentration on that road. The LDW certainly wakes you instantly if you look like leaving the road!
No rattles or squeaks and the GPS is very functional with speed cameras etc. Average 39mpg (imp). Love my CX5!

Am told that Mazda Australia predicted 70% petrol and 30% diesel sales for Australia but the actual demand is closer to the opposite. As a result, acquiring a diesel can currently take some time.

inodes
04-24-2012, 09:32 AM
After one week of owning my CX-5 (exactly the same config as iNodes except mine is white), I'm extremely happy with everything. I do a considerable amount of country driving and the automatic low beam is just great (it should be compulsory on all cars) as well as the bi Xenon lights. I initially thought the iStop would be a nuisance but the restart of the motor is so quick that I've left it switched on. Lane departure waring is also a great feature. One of the roads I drive on involves setting the cruise control at 110kmh (70mph) for one and a quarter hours straight and its very easy to lose concentration on that road. The LDW certainly wakes you instantly if you look like leaving the road!
No rattles or squeaks and the GPS is very functional with speed cameras etc. Average 39mpg (imp). Love my CX5!

Am told that Mazda Australia predicted 70% petrol and 30% diesel sales for Australia but the actual demand is closer to the opposite. As a result, acquiring a diesel can currently take some time.

Thanks for posting Jock. You represent the other half of drivers. I am barely a 5 minute from the Opera House, so I am in the thick of the city.
With city driving. You can see the result of that on my Fuelly sig below. So I'm sitting on 8.2L/100, 28mpg.
Time for a drive tomorrow to stretch the legs.

My dealer said the next available diesels were delayed as far as August.

i-Stop is a blessing in the city. It's not a nuisance to me either.