I dont use crystal ball but I use my common sense. i-stop and i-Eloop have been used in other markets by Mazda for many years. They have some issues, just like many other features which unfortunately weve to pay the price with added features. At least Mazda dont have to spend additional cash to develop a risky new system like cylinder deactivation, and easily to help Mazda to get a bit of gain on EPA ratings.Maybe you should lend your crystal ball to Mazda. Seems like you've got all the answers.
You know what else has a bad reputation of long-term reliability issues? Auto start/stop. But Mazda implemented their own version, and by all accounts, it seems to be executed well. Factory turbocharged engines carry a stigma of poor reliability as well, but Mazda developed the dynamic pressure turbo engine anyway. The only way they were able to get where they are was to innovate and try new things. Now, I'll agree that CD was a bit of a let-down given the minor mpg increase and the recall that came out of the software flaw, but that doesn't mean that they should just stick to the old stuff. Obviously they thought they could reinvent CD to be better than the rest, and this time, they were wrong. "Standing still" with the non-CD Skyactiv-G engine would have done a lot for establishing reliability. But when the industry and regulations change, they have to adapt. Do you think that they should axe the SPCCI research as well? What about electrification? And the research on an inline-six engine and RWD platform?
Do you think that they should axe the SPCCI research as well? What about electrification? And the research on an inline-six engine and RWD platform?
I don*t use crystal ball but I use my common sense. ~ Do you really believe Mazda*s engineers are that superior than engineers in other car manufactures?
Turbocharged DI engines are more prone to carbon build-up by design, but Mazda engineered the 2.5T to minimalize the build-up. Time will tell if they were successful or not.
Is that right?
When I bought my Reserve, I had myself convinced it had been more time-tested. I guess 3 years is better than nuthin'
I don't like being an Early Adopter.
Yep, 2016 was the first year, debuted on the 2016 CX-9. It's been the only engine option on the CX-9 since then. For the 2018 Mazda6, they added the GT Reserve and Signature trims - both come standard with the 2.5T. Then they did the same thing for the 2019 CX-5.
I don't like being an early adopter either. I waited 2 years for Mazda to shake out any issues, but given the generally low sales of the CX-9, it's hard to really say just how reliable it will be because there are fewer examples out there (compared to a historically strong seller like the Highlander, for example). I bit the bullet anyway because nothing else in my price range could compare at the time. No regrets to this day!
The RAV4 Prime uses a tuned version of the 2.5-liter, four-cylinder gasoline engine. Combined with the electric motors, total system output is 302 HP, sent to all four wheels. It's a plug-in hybrid and has an all-electric mode with an estimated range of 39 miles, which is very impressive. The combined fuel economy rating comes to a manufacturer-estimated 90 MPGe. Zero to 60 mph happens in a claimed 5.8 seconds.
I put them on the lower outside corners of the mirror. You can still see a decent amount of the regular mirror, to me they are the perfect size. The bigger the mirror, the clearer the picture. I've tested a few different brands and the Grote has the best optical clarity. The other mirrors I tested (Camco and CIPA) are more cheaply made.
I might be in the minority here, but properly aimed, the CX-5 mirrors work fine without a convex mirror.
This C&D article talks about the proper way to adjust the mirrors: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots/
Most people keep the mirrors like the bottom where you can see the sides of your car. I used to do that too before I learned of the overlapping method. I can't remember where it was said but I remember reading "there's no reason to see the side of your car in the side mirror, don't worry, it will still come with you even if you can't see it."
After adjusting to the SAE method I'll never go back and most of the time don't even need the blind spot system. Before backup cameras were mandated I could see the argument that it helped when reversing to have it the old way, but with every car now coming with a backup camera that has a wider range of view anyways, there's no reason to not use the SAE method.
When I was searching for Chocolate's post for my reply today, I caught that article's link that was put up earlier and read it. I should have tried that before...I'm one of those people who always have the side of my car in view in the side mirrors. I only put the convex mirror on my driver's side (just bought one to test it out). Maybe I'll try that method for the passenger's side. But for going down an interstate, I really like a view that's several lanes over (includes the entire freeway).
The Car and Driver method is an improvement over the standard config, but not as good as convex mirrors if you have to check two mirrors (rear and side) to see fast approaching traffic, instead of one. If it works for semi-truck drivers, it works even better in a much smaller vehicle. The system is very simple, if someone is in your blind spot, you'll see them.