Bump on highlighted. Haven't seen any CX-5 require maintenance on these parts (a good thing). Early 2000 BMWs were notorious for water pumps that didn't last long. Pre-Skyactiv Mazda3's had bad engine mounts that leaked under 50k miles.Hi,
I would also like to ask to owners with high mileage, other than the regular maintenance, what items did you replace? (water pump?, Fuel Filter?, Transmission solenoid? Engine mount? etc.) Please let us know if these are replaced at what mileage.
You've probably lost any chances of having any engine issues covered under warranty as Mazda says every 4 months or 8k Kms whatever comes first during the warranty period for oil changes in Canada. And yes 23k Kms without an oil change is high regardless if it's highway miles. I would get a flush done and change that oil more often.2015 AWD here, bought certified in Dec 2015 at 20,000 km, now approaching 43,000km mostly highway (Hamilton-Toronto commuter )
So far haven't done anything to it, runs fine. Taking it in next week for the filler pipe fix and drivers mirror fix. Question I have is, do I need anything more than an oil change now? The 40k scheduled service includes oil change, brake pad clean and inspection, caliper clean and lube, tire rotation, general inspection (or so they say). Also, as I haven't changed the oil for 23,000 km, do i need to do an engine flush?
There's really no mileage penalty with the 2.5, so why order the 2.0?
have you actually driven the 2.5L and got a couple opportunities to throughly test the two engines in traffic? for an extremely reserved driver who cares about only MPG, yes the 2L will be slightly more effcient. but as soon as you begin to do even somewhat-spirited driving, the 2L's fuel economy goes down the drain. the 2.5L engine is well suited to the mazda 6 sedan and just barely sufficient for the CX-5 in the real world with traffic, where you are not always coasting for best MPG.My driving is mostly highway and per Mazda the 2.0 is almost 10% better highway mileage. The 2.5 has enough moving mass to require a balance shaft which adds another engine chain drive, more inertia, more weight, more cost. My 2.0 is silky smooth, can hardly tell it is running at idle... see
It was a friends 2L, and it was one of the newer models with skyactiv tech. The average fuel economy was worse then what the heavier 2.5L 6 was seeing so Im skeptical.I own a 2016GT with 30,000 miles in addition to putting 40,000 on my 2.0 2013 GT so I am familiar with both engines. I do not find that spirited driving in the 2.0 sent the fuel economy down the drain. Same driver same conditions the 2.0 is 10% more efficient but the 2.5 is 20% more powerful/quicker. I do a lot of highway cruising so that is where the 2.0 shines. Your 2.0 Mazda 3 that gets bad mileage is likely not direct injected (skyactive).