Wow 0-60 in 3.9 - Mindblowing pwned you Tesla jejejejeje!!
(lol)
Wow 0-60 in 3.9 - Mindblowing pwned you Tesla jejejejeje!!
I think the value proposition for the diesel for me is not that it's going to save a tremendous amount of money or get hybrid-level gas mileage, but that it could give a good bit better gas mileage than the N/A while having similar power to the 2.5T.
If the savings in fuel are outweighed by the cost of the urea, or some maintenance thing down the road, whatever.
No, the 2017 CX-5 2.2L diesel 0-60 is about 8.7 seconds which is a lot slower than 2016 CX-5 2.5L gas AWD - 7.7 seconds tested by Car and Driver. That 0-100 km/h = 0-62 mph.Wow 0-60 in 3.9 - Mindblowing pwned you Tesla jejejejeje!!The new Touring diesel was just tested here in Oz and here are some performance figures for you (in km/h):
0-20km/h: 0.9s
0-40km/h: 2.1s
0-60km/h: 3.9s
0-80km/h: 6.0s
0-100km/h: 8.7s
No, the 2017 CX-5 2.2L diesel 0-60 is about 8.7 seconds which is a lot slower than 2016 CX-5 2.5L gas AWD - 7.7 seconds tested by Car and Driver. That 0-100 km/h = 0-62 mph.
The 2.2 SKYACTIV-D engine has been in the CX-5 since 2012. It's not new. Just new to the US.
EPA fuel economy ratings on 2017 CX-5 SA-G 2.5L are 27/24/31 on FWD and 26/23/29 mpg combined/city/highway on AWD, and Japanese JC08 ratings are 34.8 mpg and 34.3 mpg on FWD and AWD. Now if Japanese JC08 ratings on 2017 CX-5 SA-D 2.2L diesel are 42.3 mpg on FWD and 40.5 mpg on AWD, should we safely estimate the EPA highway rating on CX-5 diesel be 38.5 and 35.2 mpg? This is not that impressive as the newer hybrid CUVs coming out could easily beat that.
I think the value proposition for the diesel for me is not that it's going to save a tremendous amount of money or get hybrid-level gas mileage, but that it could give a good bit better gas mileage than the N/A while having similar power to the 2.5T.
If the savings in fuel are outweighed by the cost of the urea, or some maintenance thing down the road, whatever.
How many of you are willing to pay $36,262 to get a top-of-line diesel AWD CX-5?
No, the 2017 CX-5 2.2L diesel 0-60 is about 8.7 seconds which is a lot slower than 2016 CX-5 2.5L gas AWD - 7.7 seconds tested by Car and Driver. That 0-100 km/h = 0-62 mph.
Yeah pretty sure kaps was just being kaps there man..but it'll be interesting to see what Mazda brings us in terms of output where the actual cost vs. benefits will shake out but I'd say if you don't do a lot of driving- (highway driving) and/or some towing you're just costing yourself $ to not go faster. I think the diesel motor (turned up some) makes more sense in the 9er and the 2.5T as the upgrade in the 5 but these Mazda guys seem pretty smart so let's see! I remain cautiously optimistic.(2thumbs)
Europe gets 2 versions of the diesel. We get one (higher output version) and I suspect USA will get the same as us
Whilst (sorry had to) I'm again cautiously optimistic they're gonna bring more output and/or efficiency. I think they need to if they really want this thing to fly here. haha
I've never understood why diesel engines get slower 0-60 times. I think it's because when you're flooring it, you are higher in the RPM range so the diesel engine makes lower horsepower compared to the NA version. However when you're in your daily driving, 310 torque at 2k RPM, means you have more horsepower that low in the RPM range compared to the NA version which makes its horsepower up top at like 5.8k RPM. This explains why everyone says the diesel is peppier/stronger in daily driving.
The same source (www.wheelsmag.com.au) has a review of the 2017 CX-5 2.L with a 0-100 time of 8.5s, so only a hair faster. It's just an estimate though. Unless the same mag tests both cars on the same track under similar conditions, you can't really know how much difference there is.
I posted some acceleration and top speed videos of the previous generation CX-5, 2.5L and 2.2L, in this thread:
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123859920-2017-test-drive-CX-5-vs-CRV/page3
Watching the speedo needle swing, I can't tell which hits 100 km/h quicker. At lower speeds, they seem pretty close. But the acceleration in the 2.5 seems to taper off sooner than the 2.2. The diesel seems to be pulling stronger at highway speeds and reaches a higher top speed. The latter observation surprised me a little bit given the 2.5 has a small horsepower advantage.
Most tests I've seen had the Diesel slower to 60mph by about .5 sec. (from a standstill) The Petrol has the edge on initial throttle response from a standstill but on the move, ie. rolling acceleration, the Diesel is superior.
Remember you may not need to get a fully loaded GT to get the Diesel. In Australia, the Diesel is available from the base model all the way through to the top spec model.
From Maxx Sport upwards, not on Maxx.