Are there compelling performance mods for the 2.5??

People have been whining about SRIs for as long as they've been available...
I prefer them to the full intake for 1 basic reason, I live in Florida, land of the instant flood.
I've watched many a motor get destroyed down here by the instant hard rain, can't see the puddle till your in it with a full intake.

I'm looking for an SRI for the CX, am hoping that Sure Motorsports builds one.
 
Sure has a bad rep for selling people poorly designed products, sri's are available from corskport, JBR, and k&N. the k&n one has a shield too.
 
Dmac43 said:
People have been whining about SRIs for as long as they've been available...
I prefer them to the full intake for 1 basic reason, I live in Florida, land of the instant flood.
I've watched many a motor get destroyed down here by the instant hard rain, can't see the puddle till your in it with a full intake.

I'm looking for an SRI for the CX, am hoping that Sure Motorsports builds one.
Click to expand...

The CX-5 is designed with a high intake that is very flood resistant. The water would need to be washing over the front of the hood to flood it. And the plenum below the air filter has a huge capacity to keep any water that might get splashed into the intake safely isolated to prevent it from getting sucked into the engine.


I doubt the aftermarket could improve upon this (short of going to an above the hood snorkel arrangement).
 
yrwei52 said:
If gaining 6~8 hp with 91~93 octane premium gasoline on NA 13:1 compression ratio SkyActiv-G is such an easy mod like you implied, why could Mazda just do the similar way to gain 6~8 hp instead of increasing compression ratio to 14:1 on SA-G for non-NA market?
Click to expand...

The 2.5L in Europe uses the same 13:1 and it has 192HP vs 184 here.
The only difference is that the European one has a ~91 octane tune.

The only benefit of 14:1 vs 13:1 compression is a slight boost in thermal efficiency.
Even the 12:1 compression motor from the 2012 mazda 3 produces the same 155HP as the 13:1 in the CX-5 and new mazda 3.
 
Speaking of which, MSDS released a header through a group buy for the "original" skyactive engine recently. Most of the buyer are in the process of installing them and getting tunes.
 
piotrek91 said:
yrwei52 said:
If gaining 6~8 hp with 91~93 octane premium gasoline on NA 13:1 compression ratio SkyActiv-G is such an easy mod like you implied, why could Mazda just do the similar way to gain 6~8 hp instead of increasing compression ratio to 14:1 on SA-G for non-NA market?
Click to expand...
The 2.5L in Europe uses the same 13:1 and it has 192HP vs 184 here.
The only difference is that the European one has a ~91 octane tune.
The only benefit of 14:1 vs 13:1 compression is a slight boost in thermal efficiency.
Even the 12:1 compression motor from the 2012 mazda 3 produces the same 155HP as the 13:1 in the CX-5 and new mazda 3.
Click to expand...
(uhm) Please go to any Mazda website in Europe or Asia to see the spec of 14:1 compression ratio all the way among SkyActiv-G gasoline and SkyActiv-D diesel engines. Lower compression ratio on SA-G engines in favor of using regular gas is the reason why we lost 8~10 hp in Northern America market. In fact, increasing compression ratio for more power and efficiency is the whole principle the SkyActiv-G engines is based on!

Besides, 2012 Mazda3 2.0L produces 148 hp @ 6,500 rpm, not 155 hp as you stated!
 
yrwei52 said:
(uhm) Please go to any Mazda website in Europe or Asia to see the spec of 14:1 compression ratio all the way among SkyActiv-G gasoline and SkyActiv-D diesel engines. Lower compression ratio on SA-G engines in favor of using regular gas is the reason why we lost 8~10 hp in Northern America market.
Click to expand...

The 2.5L gas engine is not sold in the UK. But it is sold in other European countries with 13:1 and with more power than the US version because it runs on ~91 octane there. Screen cap from german mazda website. The motor makes 192PS which is 189 american horses. (5 more than the US version while running 13:1 compression)
5LCsLak.png


yrwei52 said:
In fact, increasing compression ratio for more power and efficiency is the whole principle the SkyActiv-G engines is based on!
Click to expand...

Increasing compression ratio above a certain level does nothing to increase power/torque due to knock.

yrwei52 said:
Besides, 2012 Mazda3 2.0L produces 148 hp @ 6,500 rpm, not 155 hp as you stated!
Click to expand...

That's the non skyactiv model.. the skyactiv with 12:1 compression produces 155HP @ 6000RPM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-mazda-3-i-touring-skyactiv-test-review
 
GAXIBM said:
Mazda also has to meet epa standards which tuners don't bother with...
Click to expand...

bingo.
Tuners can make the car run very rich. This causes pollution/durability concerns but can allow for significant power increases even on an NA engine.

The skyactiv motors do not run a true 13:1 compression ratio in high load situations. They let some of the air back out through delayed closing of the intake valves.
With cooler cylinder temperatures caused by very rich operation, it's possible to close the intake valves closer to BDC allowing more air in, thus creating more torque and power.
 
Last edited:
The new Miata uses a 2.0 skyactiv engine. It may be identical to the 2.0 found in Mazda3's and CX-5 from a physical standpoint and on paper (150 hp, ect.) however Mazda tuned it to the recommended 91 octane. Being relatively the same engine yet tuned for 91 octane it would be interesting to read its whp and as compared to an 87 octane tuned 2.0 skyactive engine.

On a side note the new Miata's 0-60 run is only .5 sec slower than an S2000's despite being down 90hp. Aside from weight something tells me their 2.0 skyactiv engine's tuning has something to do with it.
 
CX-5um said:
The new Miata uses a 2.0 skyactiv engine. It may be identical to the 2.0 found in Mazda3's and CX-5 from a physical standpoint and on paper (150 hp, ect.) however Mazda tuned it to the recommended 91 octane. Being relatively the same engine yet tuned for 91 octane it would be interesting to read its whp and as compared to an 87 octane tuned 2.0 skyactive engine.
Click to expand...
The Miata doesn't use the fancy 4-2-1 headers, so it needs higher octane to avoid detonation at the same power/compression levels.

CX-5um said:
On a side note the new Miata's 0-60 run is only .5 sec slower than an S2000's despite being down 90hp. Aside from weight something tells me their 2.0 skyactiv engine's tuning has something to do with it.
Click to expand...

The 5.9s 0-60 time of the Miata is very impressive.. If only I could shave 900lbs from my CX-5 :)
 
piotrek91 said:
The Miata doesn't use the fancy 4-2-1 headers, so it needs higher octane to avoid detonation at the same power/compression levels.

The 5.9s 0-60 time of the Miata is very impressive.. If only I could shave 900lbs from my CX-5 :)
Click to expand...

The 2016 Miata is using the 2.0 skyactiv 155 horsepower and 148 pound-feet of torque engine. As stated minus the 4-2-1 header. If someone were to add an after market 4-2-1 header there should be some type of HP/torque increase if the ecu adapts to it. If Mazda did have space to fit 4-2-1 headers with a 91 octane tuned accordingly I could see the specs be something like 162 HP 155 Tq. A 0-60 closer to the mid 5 sec range. I wonder if you could mimic Mazda's factory tune of the 2016 Miata and apply it to the 2.5L motor while accounting for differences such as headers.
 
piotrek91 said:
The 2.5L gas engine is not sold in the UK. But it is sold in other European countries with 13:1 and with more power than the US version because it runs on ~91 octane there. Screen cap from german mazda website. The motor makes 192PS which is 189 american horses. (5 more than the US version while running 13:1 compression)
Click to expand...
So Mazda does play around the compression ratio between 13:1 and 14:1 on its SA-G engines depending on which fuel is used the most in the market. After checking several country's Mazda websites, it seems only Germany has 13:1 2.5L but with more horses at 192 PS / 189 hp than NA version at 184 hp. So Mazda did some special tuning to take advantage of premium fuel even with 13:1 compression ratio to increase some horsepower whereas other countries simply use 14:1 to take advantage of higher octanes. Wonder why?

piotrek91 said:
Increasing compression ratio above a certain level does nothing to increase power/torque due to knock.
Click to expand...
Of course it's understandable that you want as high as possible on compression ratio to increase the engine power and efficiency without causing any knock issues. This is still the principle of SkyActiv-G's philosophy.

piotrek91 said:
That's the non skyactiv model.. the skyactiv with 12:1 compression produces 155HP @ 6000RPM
Click to expand...
I forgot there was a interim version SkyActiv-G 2.0L with 12:1 compression ration without 4-2-1 exhaust header. Apparently Mazda did some special tuning too as even the full version SkyActiv 2.0 came out in the following year it didn't have any improvement on horsepower other than 2 lb-ft of torque!
 
Why spend so much money and time to gain so little power from a tiny little engine in a heavy family oriented SUV? I don't get it! I've seen this time and time again with the same results. In case no one knows Mazda is working on a turbocharged Mazda speed 3 with AWD and factory tuned (as Mike M said the best experienced engineers) 306 Skyactiv reliably horsepower. You want real performance from a more performance oriented vehicle than wait for this. Nothing beats a factory tuned performance built vehicle when you consider reliability and cost of ownership compared to the headaches of a modified vehicle that was never meant to be a performance vehicle.
 
V8toilet said:
Why spend so much money and time to gain so little power from a tiny little engine in a heavy family oriented SUV? I don't get it! I've seen this time and time again with the same results. In case no one knows Mazda is working on a turbocharged Mazda speed 3 with AWD and factory tuned (as Mike M said the best experienced engineers) 306 Skyactiv reliably horsepower. You want real performance from a more performance oriented vehicle than wait for this. Nothing beats a factory tuned performance built vehicle when you consider reliability and cost of ownership compared to the headaches of a modified vehicle that was never meant to be a performance vehicle.
Click to expand...

If I drove a mazda3, that would be worth considering (also aftermarket turbokits for the sky2.0 are already fabbed and being tested for release soon), however being a CX-5 pilot, I wouldn't trade into a smaller 3 with no towing capability and a lower roof for that. An engine swap would probably cost more than a turbo kit too. I doubt there will be a cx-5 with a boosted engine aside from the diesel, which if it was an option here, I would own even though it has some issues.
As far as factory being best, looking at mazdaspeeds, most people end up getting rid of the factory turbos because of poor reliability (smoky turbo is a big issue for 2.3t's in speed 3's and cx-7's.) The only convenience of a factory turbo set up really is that the pluming and fitment has already been taken care of, the turbo manifold is already there, and warranty. The rest of the parts are pretty much off the shelf OEM parts, perhaps modified to meet Mazda/etc requirements. Other than that people who modify are replacing factory components in most turbo cars because they perform less, be it reliability or number performance. The "tiny" engines are the same motors used for the basis of the performance versions in many cases. Look at foreign forums and see how many issues there are with the 2.2D; factory tuned and boosted. OEM is not immune to faulty components or bad design, either.
 
Regarding the 2.5L, I am test driving one next week. If I go for the purchase, I have a few choices of what petrol to put in. 95 Octane, 98 Octane or Shells 100 Octane.

Are there any benefits to using the higher Octane? My understanding is that the bhp rating will be with a certain Octane and may increase if higher Octane is used. Sorry, I can't comment on how these compare the US version, I only remember using hire cars in the US and having a choice of bronze, silver or gold at the gas station! But that was many years ago, when it 99c a gallon in Austin!
 
Dr_Watson said:
Regarding the 2.5L, I am test driving one next week. If I go for the purchase, I have a few choices of what petrol to put in. 95 Octane, 98 Octane or Shells 100 Octane.
Are there any benefits to using the higher Octane? My understanding is that the bhp rating will be with a certain Octane and may increase if higher Octane is used. Sorry, I can't comment on how these compare the US version, I only remember using hire cars in the US and having a choice of bronze, silver or gold at the gas station! But that was many years ago, when it 99c a gallon in Austin!
Click to expand...
Your Euro version SkyActiv-G 2.5L should require the minimum of 95 octane (Euro RON, which is equivalent to US AKI 91 octane) in your area. You won't get any more fuel efficiency benefit if you use higher octane gasoline than recommended. Check with your owne'rs manual and verify the gasoline (petro) recommendation. BTW, would you mind to check the compression ratio of the SkyActiv-G 2.5L in your area? I found they vary from country to country. In UK, SkyActiv-G 2.0L has 14:1 compression ratio but they don't have 2.5L. In Germany SkyActiv-G 2.0L has 14:1 compression ratio but 2.5L has 13:1 with 6 more horsepower than US version which has the same 13:1 compression ratio using low octane regular gas (US AKI 87 octane = Euro RON 91 octane). We have 13:1 on 2.0L too for using regular gas with 8 less horsepower.

99 per gallon? That's in 80's and 90's! And Austin has been growing from a college town to the fourth largest city in Texas!
 
V8toilet said:
Nothing beats a factory tuned performance built vehicle when you consider reliability and cost of ownership compared to the headaches of a modified vehicle that was never meant to be a performance vehicle.
Click to expand...

With almost every vehicle I've owned, there's been some good "butt dyno" performance mods with little to no negative impact other then cost. (ie cost of the mod and/or fuel related cost). Depending on the manufacturer, engineers tend to leave a whole lot of untapped potential on the table for various reasons.

In reading this thread I'm concluding there just isn't much "low hanging fruit" with a US CX-5 2.5.
 
If everyone had access to a real dynamometer dave than the manufacturers of these inexpensive bolt on aftermarket parts might go out of business because people would realize they usually don't live up to their claims. (scratch)

Modifying an SUV to try and be a sports car is like taking a scooter and trying to make it a street race bike.(rolleyes)
 
V8toilet said:
If everyone had access to a real dynamometer dave than the manufacturers of these inexpensive bolt on aftermarket parts might go out of business because people would realize they usually don't live up to their claims. (scratch)

Modifying an SUV to try and be a sports car is like taking a scooter and trying to make it a street race bike.(rolleyes)
Click to expand...
Yet you can go buy "suvs" or pickup trucks, as fast or faster than some sports cars. Chrysler, Porches, Mercedes, BMW, Infiniti, Ford, for starters. Apparently there is no interest in this segment that's why these companies produce them (scratch). Even Mazda had the mzr 2.3t in the CX-7, and with a little upgrade can move like a Porsche Cheyenne that costs 2x.
 
Last edited:
Still not as good as a real sports car Chris and they are also proof that factory performance (as I said above) is better than modifying one that wasn't design from the start to be performance oriented. The CX7 is not a good example of this. The Mazda CX7 had a relatively slow overweight poorly designed power-train that had significant engine and turbo issues. No way that thing can hold a candle to a Porsche, even a performance designed from the start Porsche SUV!

Ford supercharged Lightning is a good example of a factory designed performance oriented truck but of course the compromise was its hauling/towing capabilities were compromised, which is what a truck is supposed to be used for anyway.

Want to talk ultimate performance than how about a Tesla Model S P90D with 691 all electric horsepower and a 0-60 time of just 2.8 seconds. In a 0-30 test on CR it annihilated the Dodge Charger Hellcat with a 0-30 time of 1.3 seconds compared to 2.3 for the Hellcat. It pulls over 1 G in acceleration compared to the Hellcats .83 G, which is just truly insane.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Are there any non Mazda brands of oil filter for the newer CX-5 with turbo?
Replies
5
Views
2K
jeffmsp
J
acidbug
    • Like
CX-5 Turbo: 87 vs 91 vs 93
Replies
5
Views
1K
N7turbo
N7turbo
H
    • Like
Mazda interview discussing inline-6
Replies
6
Views
3K
roundle1979
R

Latest posts

Back