(lol)
Well this time, looks like its for real guys
- Thread starter Monterra
- Start date
(lol)
I think the value proposition for the diesel for me is not that it's going to save a tremendous amount of money or get hybrid-level gas mileage, but that it could give a good bit better gas mileage than the N/A while having similar power to the 2.5T.
If the savings in fuel are outweighed by the cost of the urea, or some maintenance thing down the road, whatever.
If the savings in fuel are outweighed by the cost of the urea, or some maintenance thing down the road, whatever.
Fuel figures for the diesel here as follows:
- City: 7.0L/100km (33.00mpg)
- Highway: 5.5L/100km (42.77mpg)
- Combined: 6.0L/100km (39.20mpg)
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
No, the 2017 CX-5 2.2L diesel 0-60 is about 8.7 seconds which is a lot slower than 2016 CX-5 2.5L gas AWD - 7.7 seconds tested by Car and Driver. That 0-100 km/h = 0-62 mph.
Here is the link to the article that lists the times:
https://www.wheelsmag.com.au/review...en-tiguan-v-subaru-forester-comparison-review
Touring weighs 1744kg (3844lbs)
To make it easier, extract of stats for 2.2L Touring Diesel
Last edited:
I'm aware. My primary concerns are whatever additional emissions control are required for the US market are likely to be new for Mazda, and more significantly, supporting this diesel engine will be a new thing in the US. I know when VW released their new TDI engines back in 2009 there were a lot of inexperienced mechanics who made stupid mistakes like putting in the wrong engine oil. I would rather wait out whatever initial learning curve is required before taking these risks.
I don't know how they test diesel in Japan compared to the US but I am skeptical those numbers will drop much if at all. I know in the diesels I've driven it takes some serious effort to drop the MPG significantly during highway driving. I can blast up mountains at 70+ while loaded for camping and it barely drops MPG, you can hardly feel a difference in performance too. It's kind of weird and amazing. It's seriously hard to get mpg below average even when you are pushing it aggressively. It's also hard to get it above average even if you put in the effort, basic hypermiling techniques barely seems to affect it. Compared to gas engines things just work way differently when it comes to mpg, there is way less variation unless you are driving short distances with lots of stop and go. I don't know enough to explain why but it's one of the things I love about diesels. Obviously the Mazda diesel is totally different from what I've experienced, but from the numbers I've seen on it and other similar diesel vehicles in other countries I expect it to get more than 35mpg when it's released here.
Pretty much in the same boat. Here in Vancouver, diesel tends to be 15-20 cents less per liter as well. But my biggest criteria is good highway mileage for commuting and able to tow our small trailer through the rockies with ease.
I've never understood why diesel engines get slower 0-60 times. I think it's because when you're flooring it, you are higher in the RPM range so the diesel engine makes lower horsepower compared to the NA version. However when you're in your daily driving, 310 torque at 2k RPM, means you have more horsepower that low in the RPM range compared to the NA version which makes its horsepower up top at like 5.8k RPM. This explains why everyone says the diesel is peppier/stronger in daily driving.
Anyways, a CX-5 with 310 torque and gets over 35+ MPG would be an awesome road trip vehicle. As it is right now, I would actually take my Mazdaspeed3 for a road trip over the CX-5, unless I really need the extra cargo space and softer ride.
Anyways, a CX-5 with 310 torque and gets over 35+ MPG would be an awesome road trip vehicle. As it is right now, I would actually take my Mazdaspeed3 for a road trip over the CX-5, unless I really need the extra cargo space and softer ride.
Last edited:
I would.
If your estimate turns out to be correct, the price will be in line with the CX-5's competition. Both the Subaru Forester and the Ford Escape top out over $37k with their optional 2.0 turbo engines. The 2017 GMC Terrain tops out around $36k without an optional engine, and the 2018 Terrain Denali with the optional diesel engine is expected to be over $40k. The 2018 Chevy Equinox with the diesel will probably top out in the high 30s. The Ford and GM vehicles are usually heavily discounted, especially GM, so I think the real out the door price is going to be about the same for all of them.
My only reservation at this point is a bit of uncertainty about oil change frequency. I read a lot of complaints about fuel accumulation in the oil sump, but they were mostly from 2012 and 2013. I also read that this is more of a problem in the UK because of the mandated inclusion of biofuel. So I'm hoping this won't be a significant issue with the current engine here.
Yeah pretty sure kaps was just being kaps there man..but it'll be interesting to see what Mazda brings us in terms of output where the actual cost vs. benefits will shake out but I'd say if you don't do a lot of driving- (highway driving) and/or some towing you're just costing yourself $ to not go faster. I think the diesel motor (turned up some) makes more sense in the 9er and the 2.5T as the upgrade in the 5 but these Mazda guys seem pretty smart so let's see! I remain cautiously optimistic.(2thumbs)
Europe gets 2 versions of the diesel. We get one (higher output version) and I suspect USA will get the same as us
Whilst (sorry had to) I'm again cautiously optimistic they're gonna bring more output and/or efficiency. I think they need to if they really want this thing to fly here. haha
The same source (www.wheelsmag.com.au) has a review of the 2017 CX-5 2.L with a 0-100 time of 8.5s, so only a hair faster. It's just an estimate though. Unless the same mag tests both cars on the same track under similar conditions, you can't really know how much difference there is.
I posted some acceleration and top speed videos of the previous generation CX-5, 2.5L and 2.2L, in this thread:
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123859920-2017-test-drive-CX-5-vs-CRV/page3
Watching the speedo needle swing, I can't tell which hits 100 km/h quicker. At lower speeds, they seem pretty close. But the acceleration in the 2.5 seems to taper off sooner than the 2.2. The diesel seems to be pulling stronger at highway speeds and reaches a higher top speed. The latter observation surprised me a little bit given the 2.5 has a small horsepower advantage.
Testing won't be the same conditions.
I believe it comes down to torque
2.5 will taper off sooner as it has less torque (251NM vs 420NM)
Last edited:
Most tests I've seen had the Diesel slower to 60mph by about .5 sec. (from a standstill) The Petrol has the edge on initial throttle response from a standstill but on the move, ie. rolling acceleration, and when fully laden, the Diesel is superior.
Remember you may not need to get a fully loaded GT to get the Diesel. In Australia, the Diesel is available from the base model all the way through to the top spec model.
Remember you may not need to get a fully loaded GT to get the Diesel. In Australia, the Diesel is available from the base model all the way through to the top spec model.
From Maxx Sport upwards, not on Maxx.
You may be right, I'll take your word for it. That's still 4 out 5 variants its available in.