Mazda Popularity

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
Maybe you should lend your crystal ball to Mazda. Seems like you've got all the answers. :p

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?
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.

Each innovation is different and the result is different too. The reliability on turbo can be improved by better heat-resistant material and better design on cooling and lubrication. On the other hand, theres no way to prevent big thermal variation for a few cylinders which are active and in-active frequently, and additional energy needed to compress the air in a sealed environment of in-active cylinders. These are the inherent deficiency from cylinder deactivation design, and theres no way to get around with them. Like the rotary engine, theres no way to reduce the fuel and oil consumptions as well as emissions because these come with the natural of the rotary engine. Hence rotary engine died because of them.

Im worried about Mazdas new SPCCI SkyActiv-X too. Its getting too complicated from original HCCI design which is supposed to be simple and efficient. It now has added not only the spark ignition, but also the super charger. Like cylinder deactivation, many had tried HCCI concept before and failed to bring it into production as a reliable product. Do you really believe Mazdas engineers are that superior than engineers in other car manufactures?
 

ColoradoDriver

Gen-1 Kodo Design
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
:
2014 CX-5 Touring
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?

It's straying from the initial HCCI concept quite a bit. But I'll reserve judgement for now and see how it ends up.

Inline-six sounds awesome to me.
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
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?

Yes, I do believe their engineers are better than some other manufacturers. That doesn't make them perfect, and I know they can fail, but they can succeed as well. I have my doubts about SPCCI as well, but as you said, it's different from the HCCI concept that others failed to bring to production. I guess I'm just more optimistic about their ambitions, but I'll wait and see what they end up with before I make any judgement.

Anyway, my point was that auto start/stop tech suffers from inherent deficiencies, but Mazda's i-Stop minimized some of those deficiencies. 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. If Mazda incorporated CD without tweaking it in some way, then I totally agree with you that they should have left it alone or used i-Stop instead. I have to wonder if the 2.5 N/A with CD would be as reviled by the gen pop as it is today, if it had debuted with the right software.
 

Avoidin Deer

Zoom Zoom, baby
Contributor
:
Central Virginia
:
2019 CX-5 Reserve
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.

Hasn't this engine been in the CX-9 for a while? I'm not a long-term Mazda guy. Has it been around long enough to have some indication if this might be an issue?
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
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!
 

Avoidin Deer

Zoom Zoom, baby
Contributor
:
Central Virginia
:
2019 CX-5 Reserve
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!

Yeh, so far I'm loving my Reserve.

Just for grins I snagged some CX-9 and Highlander US sales data. I see what you mean.
Six weeks of Highlander sales = 12 months of CX-9 sales:

Year......CX-9.......Highlander
2018....28,257....244,511
2017....25,828....215,775
2016....16,051....191,379
2015....18,048....158,915
2014....18,496....146,127
2013....24,628....127,572
2012....24,442....121,054
2011....34,421....101,252
2010....28,908.... 92,121
2009....21,132.... 83,118
2008....26,100....104,661
2007....25,566....127,878
(Of course, the CX-9 is not Mazda's top seller, so it's hardly a meaningful comparison)

By way of comparison, 2018 CX-5 sales were about 151,000.

I'm not sure what this In-Service base of CX-9s does to give us a sense of turbo reliability.
Other than knowing there's no universal catastrophic failure, probably not much, huh?
 
Last edited:
:
2014 CX-5 GT w/ Tech
Not to beat a dead horse, but more specs for the Rav4 plug-in just came out. They won't be able to build them fast enough https://jalopnik.com/the-2021-toyota-rav4-prime-makes-302-*******-hp-1839953918

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.
 
Last edited:

Avoidin Deer

Zoom Zoom, baby
Contributor
:
Central Virginia
:
2019 CX-5 Reserve
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 recently received and installed these.

Thanks for the recommendation! I've had convex mirrors on both my last trucks (for nearly 30 years now), and have always found the 2" ones to be sufficient on those large truck mirrors...so I was hesitant to put these larger units on my smaller Mazda mirror.

They work great!! You were right, there's still enough regular mirror real estate with these on. Regarding another comment you made about using these to safely merge several lanes over, I like them to see what some fool several lanes over might be doing as he cuts over racing up behind me.

I'll keep the BSM on for a while as a backup (I still like the warning beeps when I put my signal on to merge), but so far, whenever it's gone off, I've already seen the guy coming.
 
:
2014 CX-5 GT w/ Tech
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.
 

Avoidin Deer

Zoom Zoom, baby
Contributor
:
Central Virginia
:
2019 CX-5 Reserve
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).
 

Chocolate

Harpy Eagle
:
2019 CX-5 AWD
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).

Give the Grote 3.75" stick on convex mirrors a try. They're high quality glass unlike most of the plastic crap out there. 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.

Best $10 I've spent on the vehicle, so far.
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
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.

This. I had a discussion with another member about the SAE method vs. convex mirrors and the biggest benefit is only having to check one mirror. In my experience, the SAE method works just fine. The only way I would switch to convex mirrors is if they were sold as direct, full-size mirror replacements to the OEM glass.

I've been using the SAE method since I got my CX-9 and it's been awesome. Much, much better than how I used to adjust my mirrors.
 
:
Pueblo county CO
:
CX-5 Sport 16.5 6M
The SAE method is good for traffic but I like convex mirrors because I can see downward better backing up. Sometimes I use the controls to point a mirror down but usually the convex mirrors are enough.
 
Top