SkyActiv-X may not reach US shores

V
2014 Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD
Some reports say Mazda may not bring the SkyActiv-X to the US after all.
While the engine is sold in Europe and Japan, it is a more expensive engine and, thus, may not make sense to the power-hungry US consumer, which will not want to pay more for about the same power, only to save on gas.
Unlike the SkyActiv-D, which is not really more efficient (according to the EPA) nor more powerful or fast, yet commends a significant price premium, the SkyActiv-X does provide better economy and more power per displacement. Comparing the 2.5L NA (186 HP) to the 2.0 X (178 HP), the former will make slightly more power but the X will cost more.
Perhaps with a larger displacement X, Mazda will make the numbers work better.
 
This makes 0 sense again.

If the engine is more fuel efficient and makes same power as the current 2.5L, what's the problem? They have already cut costs by changing their rear suspension on the new 3 and cx-30, something I thought might be used to offset the Skyactive-X engine going forward.

Mazda has been making some head scratching moves regarding their powertrains. They are falling behind in the MPG trend, IMO no Skyactive-X for the US market is not a positive move.
 
V
2016 CX-5 w/ Tech/Activsense
This makes 0 sense again.

If the engine is more fuel efficient and makes same power as the current 2.5L, what's the problem? They have already cut costs by changing their rear suspension on the new 3 and cx-30, something I thought might be used to offset the Skyactive-X engine going forward.

Mazda has been making some head scratching moves regarding their powertrains. They are falling behind in the MPG trend, IMO no Skyactive-X for the US market is not a positive move.
even though it costs 27% more than the base, 2.0-liter Skyactiv-G for a 9% improvement in fuel economy.
So while it it produces almost the same HP (not the same, 176 vs 186), it only gains 9% better fuel economy and costs 27% more.
 
V
2014 Mazda3 S GT auto, 2008 MX5 6-speed
I believe they are making a hybrid CX-30. If that is successful, why not do it with other models?
 
V
2014 CX-5 GT
So while it it produces almost the same HP (not the same, 176 vs 186), it only gains 9% better fuel economy and costs 27% more.
And the torque is 160 something for the Sky-X versus 186 for the 2.5 NA. Right now, the 2.5 NA in the CX-5 gets ~26 MPG overall. The Sky-X would be predicted to get ~29 overall which is great but when they were first talking about this engine, it was supposed to get 30% better MPG - which it is nowhere near close to.

And it currently uses premium fuel - which makes it an even bigger dead end.
 
V
2017 CX-5 GS AWD
This makes 0 sense again.

If the engine is more fuel efficient and makes same power as the current 2.5L, what's the problem? They have already cut costs by changing their rear suspension on the new 3 and cx-30, something I thought might be used to offset the Skyactive-X engine going forward.

Mazda has been making some head scratching moves regarding their powertrains. They are falling behind in the MPG trend, IMO no Skyactive-X for the US market is not a positive move.

It does not make the same power. It makes less.
 

shadonoz

SkyActiv Member
Contributor
L
State of Jefferson
V
2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Based upon previous performance, there is no hope guessing what Mazda will do in the future.
"We'll see."
 
V
2014 Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD
They have already cut costs by changing their rear suspension on the new 3 and cx-30, something I thought might be used to offset the Skyactive-X engine going forward.
27% is at least $6,300, which is more than the rear suspension (which I don't think is a cost cutting measure, also as explained by Dave Coleman).
Mazda fuel economy has been stagnant and sometimes hard to justify. The RAV-4 AWD and Forester now get 33 miles on the Highway and the CR-V AWD gets 32. The CX-5 AWD? 30 no improvement since 2013.
 
V
13' CX-5 and 16' Mazda6 both Touring w/Tech/Bose
27% is at least $6,300, which is more than the rear suspension (which I don't think is a cost cutting measure, also as explained by Dave Coleman).
Mazda fuel economy has been stagnant and sometimes hard to justify. The RAV-4 AWD and Forester now get 33 miles on the Highway and the CR-V AWD gets 32. The CX-5 AWD? 30 no improvement since 2013.
No mpg improvement since same engine/transmission but weights are increasing. 3 years ago I suggested Mazda go with an 8-speed tranny linked to 2.0 Turbo to bump up hwy mpgs and increase power at the same time.
 
V
2013 Mazda CX-5 Sport FWD Auto
No mpg improvement since same engine/transmission but weights are increasing. 3 years ago I suggested Mazda go with an 8-speed tranny linked to 2.0 Turbo to bump up hwy mpgs and increase power at the same time.
I completely agree. However, I can't believe how much it upset diehard fans of the Toyota RAV4. I love the 8 speed transmission in my 2019. Zero problems since I purchased it in October of last year. Any kinks in the transmission seem to have been worked out with reprogramming how it handles low speed acceleration (I believe the fix was already applied prior to purchase). RPMS are below 2000 when cruising at highway speeds which I'm sure is why I can get usually get 35 MPG even with my AWD on the highway.
 
V
2014 CX-5 GT
No mpg improvement since same engine/transmission but weights are increasing. 3 years ago I suggested Mazda go with an 8-speed tranny linked to 2.0 Turbo to bump up hwy mpgs and increase power at the same time.
I don't understand why they don't put a turbo on the 2.0. They have all the pieces and I assume it would work. There is no evidence or even hints that Mazda is going to a 8 speed or more transmission, which is a shame because the 2.5T has enough torque for it.
 
V
2014 Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD
No mpg improvement since same engine/transmission but weights are increasing. 3 years ago I suggested Mazda go with an 8-speed tranny linked to 2.0 Turbo to bump up hwy mpgs and increase power at the same time.
With gen 2, which was lowered 1 inch I believe and engine / transmission tweaked, they could have made a modest improvement. They did not.

Their competition gets better fuel economy with lower compression ratios, mostly because of a CVT (CR-V, Forester, Rogue) or higher gear count transmissions (RAV-4, Escape).
 
Top