Well this time, looks like its for real guys

7eregrine said:

I missed that "well since Honda is using Turbos now, that must mean they are reliable". Wtf. Drink Honda Kool aid much? That made me throw up in my mouth a little.
Turbo charging has been around since the 60s. Porsche was making RELIABLE turbos in the 70s. Saab has been using reliable Turbos since the 80s.
Is this what the Asian enthusiasts are like? Almost makes me sad that I left the Europeans. Sorry, but Honda sucks. Someone had to say it.
Honda is LATE to the turbo party. Very very late. Toyota used turbos in the 90s and then got away from them.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Turbo Party? What LOL.

Pretty sure Porsche and Saab were making reliable turbos....but were they making small 1.5L displacement turbo cars at entry level pricing for mass production? Okay Saab has...But Porsche and Saab are/were in a different Turbo party. Like I said VW has been mass producing turbo cars all over the world for decades now. Pretty sure Honda came in decades later after VW to produce small displacement turbo entry cars ONLY after meeting certain criteria. Production costs and meeting some type of reliability testing metrics are part of that criteria.

In terms of mass produced small displacement turbo entry cars available on multiple platforms who aside from VW is attending this party comprised of base cars? One can make a case for Saab but Saab doesn't have the industry pull of a Honda. So all those early accomplishments...the general public is unaware of it. How many people can/could've afforded a Porsche or owned a Saab in the US? Saab never became a household brand in the US. Does Saab even make cars anymore?

It's not like Honda invented the Turbo or anything like that but you do have to agree that with Honda mass producing turbo cars in North America for non luxury non sport cars such as a Civic or CRV its changed not only the industry but also public perception of the Turbo. More positive public perception is a good thing for Turbo fans. Wrong or right you can't deny that Honda has brought forth the turbo's popularity in the US to greater heights. The number #1 selling car in the US is likely the turbo CRV. That's a good thing, whats to fret about? It merely means other companies like Mazda should come out with more turbo cars too!!!

In the US, 30 years ago, in the year 1987... Mazda had 4 Turbo Cars...

Rx-7 Turbo 1.3L wankel
323 Turbo 1.6L 4cyl
626 Turbo 2.2L 4cyl
Mx-6 Turbo 2.2L 4cyl

and by the time 1996 came, they were all gone...

Here's a question - I have a diesel Ford Super Duty (F250), and instead of the typical 5 - 6 quarts of oil required for a gasoline engine, my truck takes 13 (yes, that is THIRTEEN) quarts of oil each oil change. And of course it has DEF - the tank holds five gallons - which I typically get refilled at each oil change. So my routine, basic maintenance done every 7000 miles at the dealership, runs over $100. Then, if it's time to replace the fuel filters (it has two), that price goes up over $300.

Now, I know I could save some money doing it myself, but the urea is nasty and I want my maintenance documented with Ford. So i choose to pay a little more and have them deal with it.

So there is some inherent extra expense with owning a diesel truck over a gasoline one. But the first time that turbo kicks in and your 8000lb truck takes off like a race car - it doesn't really matter.

So how does my diesel truck owning experience match up with others with cars instead - say, the VW's or whichever have been out for a while?

CX-5um said:

Turbo Party? What LOL.

Click to expand...

BMW? Audi? VW? Ford? That's a party right there.

Pretty sure Porsche and Saab were making reliable turbos....

Click to expand...

And Mitsubishi, and BMW, Audo, VW.... My ONLY point was that they have been safe and reliable for decades. They are not fragile and in most cases do NOT cost $5000 to replace.

The number #1 selling car in the US is likely the turbo CRV. That's a good thing, whats to fret about? It merely means other companies like Mazda should come out with more turbo cars too!!!

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm all for it! Just don't tell me Honda has finally figured out how to do it right. PLENTY of companies have been doing it right.

Actually Honda is indeed late to the turbo "party". By party I mean having turbo engines in their production cars. They've been focused on their NA engines with VTEC that they've neglected adding a turbo to their engines for a long time. Part of that is because they made some pretty good NA engines which were fuel efficient on their lightweight cars. Time has passed though and fuel efficiency has become a big priority these days, which is I think the main reason they started turbocharging their engines. Whether or not they are reliable, only time will tell. Mazda is actually more experienced with turbocharging than Honda is. If I'm not mistaken, when Mazda introduced the turbocharged engine in the Mazdaspeed6/Gen1 Mazdaspeed3, it was one of the first turbocharged engines with direct injection. They've also had turbocharged engines way before as mentioned by mazdadude. This one of the reasons I am not really concerned with the turbocharged SkyActiv diesel engine.

As far as who made turbo engines popular on mainstream cars, I will say Ford with their ecoboost engines. They've been marketing them hard for awhile now, to the point that the current generation Mustang has one.

I'd have to give Ford some credit for the public perception of turbos as well, due to the EcoBoost engines. Not that I have any interest in one, nor am I really talking about the small displacement four cylinder engines, but how much kicking and screaming did you notice when they first started dropping twin turbo V6s into their F150s? People were so conditioned to V8s on full size trucks that the idea of a turbo 6 was almost heresy.

Disclaimer- not counting all of the big turbo diesels in the heavy duty series.... just referring to regular gasoline engines.

finch204 said:

Actually Honda is indeed late to the turbo "party". By party I mean having turbo engines in their production cars. They've been focused on their NA engines with VTEC that they've neglected adding a turbo to their engines for a long time. Part of that is because they made some pretty good NA engines which were fuel efficient on their lightweight cars. Time has passed though and fuel efficiency has become a big priority these days, which is I think the main reason they started turbocharging their engines. Whether or not they are reliable, only time will tell. Mazda is actually more experienced with turbocharging than Honda is. If I'm not mistaken, when Mazda introduced the turbocharged engine in the Mazdaspeed6/Gen1 Mazdaspeed3, it was one of the first turbocharged engines with direct injection. They've also had turbocharged engines way before as mentioned by mazdadude. This one of the reasons I am not really concerned with the turbocharged SkyActiv diesel engine.

As far as who made turbo engines popular on mainstream cars, I will say Ford with their ecoboost engines. They've been marketing them hard for awhile now, to the point that the current generation Mustang has one.

Click to expand...

Also don't forget that they were one of the first TURBO suv/CUV's with the CX-7...it had the same engine as the Speed6 and speed3.

As far as diesels, if I recall correctly, the previous US Mazda diesel engines were Izuzu sourced, and available 1983-1985 in the 626, and B2000.

7eregrine said:

BMW? Audi? VW? Ford? That's a party right there.

Hey, I'm all for it! Just don't tell me Honda has finally figured out how to do it right. PLENTY of companies have been doing it right.

Click to expand...

I think your're missing my point.

Again different parties. You mentioned Porcshe now BMW. Do they make mid 20k turbo cars? Nope VW and Ford does. Honda/VW/Ford are in the party. Not BMW or Porsche. You mentioned Saab. They left the party. I'm talking about large companies using turbos in their most mainstream models moving units party.

How many companies propelled a turbo car to be the #1 selling car in the US again? Its one thing "doing it right" and developing a successful turbo car that has evolved and lasted through decades like VW has and another to being the #1 seller. BMW is a luxury car which most of the general public can't afford. Same with Audi. Ford may be close.

I can drop names of makes all day long too. Makes no difference. Again which company propelled a turbo car to overtake the Accord and Camry in the US? See doing it right and selling cars are two different things. If Honda did it right it would've been a 2.0 Turbo with an 8 speed available 12 years ago. They're not into doing it right. They're into SALES. Moving units.

If there was a car that provided a good at a reasonable price point it would be the EVO. As successful of a car that was it no longer exists. A GTR or a 911 Turbo. Who can afford those turbo cars that are "doing it right"?

Sorry, I didn't mean to use the term "right" to derail the conversation. Getting back to my the comment I made. Right meaning reliable. No, I do not believe for 1 second a Honda turbo will be more RELIABLE. BECAUSE Honda has figured out how to do Turbos right? No. I never meant SALES.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

7eregrine said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to use the term "right" to derail the conversation. Getting back to my the comment I made. Right meaning reliable. No, I do not believe for 1 second a Honda turbo will be more RELIABLE. BECAUSE Honda has figured out how to do Turbos right? No. I never meant SALES.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No probs man. Ah forget about it. We're just car guys talkin' cars.

2horses said:

Here's a question - I have a diesel Ford Super Duty (F250), and instead of the typical 5 - 6 quarts of oil required for a gasoline engine, my truck takes 13 (yes, that is THIRTEEN) quarts of oil each oil change. And of course it has DEF - the tank holds five gallons - which I typically get refilled at each oil change. So my routine, basic maintenance done every 7000 miles at the dealership, runs over $100. Then, if it's time to replace the fuel filters (it has two), that price goes up over $300.

Now, I know I could save some money doing it myself, but the urea is nasty and I want my maintenance documented with Ford. So i choose to pay a little more and have them deal with it.

So there is some inherent extra expense with owning a diesel truck over a gasoline one. But the first time that turbo kicks in and your 8000lb truck takes off like a race car - it doesn't really matter.

So how does my diesel truck owning experience match up with others with cars instead - say, the VW's or whichever have been out for a while?

Click to expand...

Fair question.

Ive had CX5 diesels since 2013. Currently a 2016 MY. They were introduced here in 2012 with the first CX5.

But you cant really compare a heavy truck engine with its design roots probably back in the 1970's with a modern, light, hi tec car engine designed in the 2000's and first introduced into a car in about 2010.

The Mazda diesel is far quieter, more fuel efficient and less clattery than the Ford diesel you have. People who have been passengers in my car have been surprised to learn they are riding in a diesel engined vehicle. (Here and in the UK, Japan and Europe the same engine is also used in Mazda 6)

Fact 1: oil capacity
The Mazda CX5 diesel takes the same amount of oil as the gas engine, or very close. Mine takes 5.3 litres including a filter change, 4.7 without a filter. Same number of fuel filters as the gas engine. You must however use the specified full syn diesel oil that meets JASO DL-1 criteria, or equivalent. But despite this my oil changes at the dealer still cost the same as a petrol engine model.

Fact 2: servicing costs
As we have already established, by those of us who have actually owned them for several years, the service and miantenance costs are very little different to the petrol engine. Some swings and roundabouts. You can check this if you like simply by going onto the Mazda Australia website and on the service page input a CX5 and select diesel or petrol engine and it tells you the service cost - same. The DPF on the 2016 MY and later models was redesigned and repositioned to be closer to the engine so it burns off soot when in regen mode more effectively, dealer's service manager says he has not seen any DPF issues since this was introduced.

The main practical difference with the US version's diesel is the inclusion of the urea injection system. To date we have not seen this here on the CX5 as our emissions standards are more aligned to Europe and the engine meets them without it.

But, it is highly unlikely to use anywhere near as much adblue as your truck, simply because the engine is a third of the capacity and is a far cleaner running beast to start with. As someone said earlier, if you get it serviced at the dealer they will top it up every 10,000miles and the cost is almost negligible, $A1 per litre.

As to the torque, yes, it is still a very nice experience when it kicks in!!

This will give you an idea of the CX5 diesel fuel economy on a trip. Although its from a 2016 Au model, it nevertheless gives you an indication of what is possible.

I went today from my home near Brisbane (Au) to the Sunshine coast. The trip is about 122 kms each way. I filled up wth diesel shortly after I left home at the garage just down the road.

The trip details are as follows, to give you an idea of what was involved. 3 POB.

- The first 20 minutes of the trip are spent on suburban roads to get to the motorway. So 60km/hr mostly (35mph). Traffic lights and the usual snarls.

- There is a lot of roadworks happening this end of the motorway so the first 25 minutes was spent at 80 kmh (about 50mph).

- Then after the roadwork zone the next 45 minutes are at 100-110kmh (60-65mph).

- The last 5-10 minutes to the destination again are on suburban roads traffic lights etc.

Traffic was good, though reasonably solid most of the time. No significant hold ups.

All of the 80kmh and higher speed zones on the motorway were spent in cruise control, using MRCC. Its so easy using the radar cruise control when there is a bit of traffic, it adjusts almost seamlessly. I use it all the time. Love it.

The fuel economy shown includes one diesel regen cycle. Which does knock the average down a noticeable amount when it happens due to the extra diesel being injected to heat up the DPF and burn off the soot. Before the regen started it was sitting on 5.2 l/100kms.

With the new US diesel running urea injection, probably doesnt suffer this resultant fuel economy loss.

Here is a photo of my dash when I got home.

You will see the round trip was 244 kms. Average economy 5.5 litres/100 kms. Equals 42.75 mpg (US gal).

A 25-30 knot headwind had sprung up around midday, so we were into that on the way home.

Moonlighter said:

This will give you an idea of the CX5 diesel fuel economy on a trip. Although its from a 2016 Au model, it nevertheless gives you an indication of what is possible.

I went today from my home near Brisbane (Au) to the Sunshine coast. The trip is about 122 kms each way. I filled up wth diesel shortly after I left home at the garage just down the road.

Thentrip details are as follows, to give you an idea of what was involved.

- The first 20 minutes of the trip are spent on suburban roads to get to the motorway. So 60km/hr mostly (35mph). Traffic lights and the usual snarls.

- There is a lot of roadworks happening this end of the motorway so the first 25 minutes was spent at 80 kmh (about 50mph).

- Then after the roadwork zone the next 45 minutes are at 100-110kmh (60-65mph).

- The last 5-10 minutes to the destination again are on suburban roads traffic lights etc.

Traffic was good, though reasonably solid most of the time. No significant hold ups.

All of the 80kmh and higher speed zones on the motorway were spent in cruise control, using MRCC. Its so easy using the radar cruise control when there is a bit of traffic, it adjusts almost seamlessly. I use it all the time. Love it.

The fuel economy shown includes one diesel regen cycle. Which does knock the average down a noticeable amount when it happens due to the extra diesel being injected to heat up the DPF and burn off the soot. Before the regen started it was sitting on 5.2 l/100kms.

With the new US diesel running urea injection, probably doesnt suffer this resultant fuel economy loss.

Here is a photo of my dash when I got home.

You will see the round trip was 244 kms. Average economy 5.5 litres/100 kms. Equals 42.75 mpg (US gal).

A 25-30 knot headwind had sprung up around midday, so we were into that on the way home.

Click to expand...

You are below the official combined figure of 5.7l/100km which is good.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

I'm basically averaging 40 mpUSg short and long journeys combined.

That's awesome ML..and that's on the low or high output version? I'm getting excited..waited a long time for an AWD diesel not named VAG or astronomically priced for a dd.

Monterra said:

That's awesome ML..and that's on the low or high output version? I'm getting excited..waited a long time for an AWD diesel not named VAG or astronomically priced for a dd.

Click to expand...

We only get one version here, the high.

Moonlighter said:

⋯ With the new US diesel running urea injection, probably doesnt suffer this resultant fuel economy loss.

Click to expand...

I thought we still get DPF Regeneration system even if we added DEF injection?

Thanks for posting your real-life fuel consumption data on CX-5 diesel!

Similar to VW TDI's, I'm sure that used CX-5 Diesels will have good resale value. TDI golfs at least in my region historically didn't last long in the used car market.

yrwei52 said:

I thought we still get DPF Regeneration system even if we added DEF injection?

Click to expand...

We do. The DPF filters out particulates (soot). DEF injection reduces NOx. The process is called Selective Catalytic Reduction. Urea is the reductant used to convert nitrogen oxides (NOx) into nitrogen, water, and CO2. It is injected into the exhaust stream after the DPF, at the input to the SCR catalyst. So the addition of DEF injection should have no bearing on the DPF cleaning cycle.

Ziggity said:

I'm basically averaging 40 mpUSg short and long journeys combined.

Click to expand...

If this is average, that's encouraging! ALl the reviews I read were below average and was the #1 complaint.