US Diesel's big splash introduction

+1. Except I don't care if they see it. Truth can hurt sometimes.

And I don't mind seeing it. Even though I have 20 tillable acres and the increase in corn prices raised my land value and rent revenue, corn subsidies are stupid.
 
Iv'e read several posts here from people stating their local deals have plenty of CX-5s that have been sitting on lots, so lets not pretend like Mazda's problem is they can't produce enough vehicles. How exactly does their lack of dealer network/production capacity have anything to do with the fact that their retention rate among existing Mazda owners in at the bottom of the list? It has nothing to do with dealer network/production capacity, and everything to do with brand perception, pricing, and practicality of their vehicles. They are not Honda/Toyota, they can't beat Nissan/Ford/GM on pricing(even though MSRP is similar, these brands offer substantial discounts off MSRP), and they don't offer any practicality type features like class leading cargo space, fuel economy, power, etc...which is why people avoid them. They're nice looking vehicles, they drive well but when it comes time to write that check people will go with the proven brands. And lets not pretend like Mazda wouldn't want to have Honda/Toyota type success. They want to sell as many cars as possible just like everyone else.

If the problem is what you say it is, why not increase dealer network/production capacity? Doesn't every company do this when their products are selling well? They're not selling well, which is why they don't have the money to increase dealer/production capacity/develop new engines, etc...in fact they haven't had 2% market share in over 20 years in this country, but yet the problem is a 'dealer network' or 'production capacity'. Uhh no, there cars just don't sell that well.

McDonalds vs Per Se vs a privately owned, local fine dining establishment.


Mazda isn't trying to compete with McDonalds for global superiority or a Per Se for the rarefied air in high end market. They're aware, they're small of who they are and who their (niche) customer is and what kind of 'food' they like.

Would they like to branch out to a few new locations? Sure. And in time may do so. But they're perfectly content making good money by preparing good quality meals for their local patrons.
 
Ethanol is a boon for performance car enthusiasts, but yes it does decrease gas mileage because you need more of it to produce the same amount of energy that gasoline provides.

I remember watching a Top Gear episode years back, where they planted something that was then transformed to diesel fuel, which they used to fuel a race car that they drove at the Silverstone circuit. This is what lead me to ask if diesel is a renewable fuel source. Just some quick research on the web and it looks like corn won't help with producing diesel at all.

It seems like there is no convincing the skeptics on the diesel engine option for the CX-5. I for one am still very much looking forward to test driving one. I just cannot see how 310 lb-ft of torque with better fuel economy is not something to be interested in.
 
Ethanol is a boon for performance car enthusiasts, but yes it does decrease gas mileage because you need more of it to produce the same amount of energy that gasoline provides.

I remember watching a Top Gear episode years back, where they planted something that was then transformed to diesel fuel, which they used to fuel a race car that they drove at the Silverstone circuit. This is what lead me to ask if diesel is a renewable fuel source. Just some quick research on the web and it looks like corn won't help with producing diesel at all.

It seems like there is no convincing the skeptics on the diesel engine option for the CX-5. I for one am still very much looking forward to test driving one. I just cannot see how 310 lb-ft of torque with better fuel economy is not something to be interested in.

Topgear grew the unfortunately named rapeseed, oil is extracted from the seed same as any other vegetable oil such as canola.

Vegetable oil can be relatively easily converted to bio-diesel. Some hardcore 4WD enthusiasts collect used cooking oil from fish and chip shops, filter it and use it to make bio-diesel to run in the Landcruisers and Patrols.

Corn not being an oil producing grain wont work AFAIK.
 
It being a diesel does means something. It might offer better torque and fuel economy, but in the perception of many people in this country diesel is dirty, loud, and associated with the VW-scandal. Not to mention the fact that Mazda has zero presence in this country, and the fact that hardly any Japanese companies produce diesels for this market, it's doomed to fail. In this category, there is little incentive to buy a diesel over Hybrid when there are many other hybrid available.

Are there any other hybrids available in this market segment besides the RAV4?

We can debate all the technical details of gas vs details all we want, but in the end Mazda's job is to sell cars and selling a diesel option over a hybrid isn't going to work out well for them. The sales numbers show people buy these CUV/SUVs due to brand perception and practicality. Look at the new CX-9 for example. Great car, best in class IMO but yet it sits in 15th place in vehicles sold vs it's competitors. Why is that? Probably because it's a 'Mazda' and not a Toyota/Honda/Nissan/Ford...I don't see how offering a diesel is going to help practicality or their brand.

We really wanted to buy the CX-9 a couple months ago. It's a great car, but it didn't have enough room to be our family car. Talking to my dealer, he gave three reasons why the CX-9 isn't selling as well as it could: not enough space behind the second row, no V6, and a shortage of the popular trims and colors. Apparently, the Signature trim is what most people want, and Mazda didn't anticipate that and didn't make enough. My dealer seemed stuck with a bunch of Touring models that wouldn't sell. Also, red CX-9s are scarce in any trim. Apparently Mazda didn't make enough of those either, which seems a bizarre to me considering it's one of their signature colors and it's in all the marketing material.

And the 1.5T engine is not new, it is used in the Civic/CRV and likely the upcoming Accord. But most importantly it's not a diesel. Think of it this way, if Honda offered a diesel in their CRV, who would buy it? Why would they buy it? There is no point. If potential CRV buyers wanted more power/torque, they would look at another vehicle and if they wanted better fuel economy, they would by a hybrid or wait for a CRV Hybrid(it's coming). Most Honda buyers wouldn't even think of buying a diesel.

If potential CR-V buyers want more power/torque, what other vehicle are they going to look at? Escape, Forester? IMO, the biggest weakness with this class of vehicle is that most of the offerings come with engines that are better suited to pushing around a small passenger car than a tall boxy SUV. I would consider a CR-V with a diesel. I'm not a fan of the instrument cluster or all the chrome, but I suppose I could get over it.

A somewhat related question, is diesel fuel renewable? Can we use the existing corn agriculture here in North America to produce diesel in the future? I know it is being used to make ethanol fuel, but I don't know about diesel. If diesel fuel is renewable, then that is a plus. Gasoline prices won't stay this low and in the future we will run out of oil in the middle east. Okay it probably won't run out in the next 5 years, but just looking ahead. The future for cars is going to be electric and possibly some alternative fuels.

Yes, there are biodiesel crops, primarily rapeseed (canola) and soybeans. But corn ethanol and biodiesel crops are not really "green" because of all the energy that goes into their production. Not to mention the draining of aquifers to irrigate them, and the byproducts of fertilizer, insecticide, weed killer, etc. It's basically a giant welfare program for farm states IMO.
 
Would they like to branch out to a few new locations? Sure. And in time may do so. But they're perfectly content making good money by preparing good quality meals for their local patrons.


Too bad the majority of their 'patrons' abandon the brand altogether and go for something else once it's time for a new vehicle. You would think for a company that 'prepares good quality meals for their patrons' their patrons would keep coming back for more, when the statistics show the opposite. Offering a diesel engine isn't going to change that.
 
Last edited:
Topgear grew the unfortunately named rapeseed, oil is extracted from the seed same as any other vegetable oil such as canola.
I believe rapeseed IS canola. Canola is a newer name, applied to the same crop for the reason noted above.

My .02$ (worth even less (worthless?) in USDs) on diesel/hybrid is very strongly for diesel. Batteries perform less optimally at lower temperatures. So come February in Canada your hybrid's gasoline engine will be just pulling around the weight of the hybrid technology and struggling against the elements while running the heater and assorted defrosters. Further south there may be issues running AC but I can't write directly to them. For the "family hauler" in The Great White North I don't believe hybrid makes sense. I have read that these environmental conditions have also been noted in some American states during Canada's winter season, but cannot write directly to that as in my only actual experience (Florida - nice place, and Arizona - WOW what a country!!) I didn't see any Canadian-like winter weather. I assume that in those few places where something like a northern winter does appear that my observations would also hold true.

Costs. Let's get over that and never write to it again. Depending on where you live, diesel is cheaper - the case in much of Canada but not ALL. Despite the variance in price, the increase in efficiency will make diesel fuel cheaper to buy over distance when compared even to 87. Individual cost of ownership MAY be recoverable over the vehicle's lifetime by many, but not ALL buyers; depending in part on distance driven (truly high milers WILL win) and the eventual retained resale value of the vehicle (when new you paid more for diesel technology so when you eventually sell you will get more) So your actual cost will calculate as: (technology price + increased maintenance) - (fuel savings + increased resale value). This will allow many of the NOT high milers to recoup much, if not all of their original outlay.

The planet. A general thumb-rule is if you burn less oil per unit distance you pollute less and a non-renewable resource will last longer. Where lifestyle and environment allow, drive electric. Where lifestyle doesn't allow drive hybrid. Where neither allow drive fossil. I drive fossil. I make it a point to always purchase a replacement vehicle more fuel efficient that the one I have now, even when that meant waiting an additional 3.5 years for the industry to offer one here - and when I bought my AWD 2.0 CX-5 in 2012 it was the most fuel efficient fossil burning CUV available. To burn less fuel, to spend less money on fuel over distance, to get a large chunk of my diesel investment back (and MAYBE all of it) while gaining better vehicle range and the driveability advantages of increase torque makes sense to me, but not to everyone depending on where and how you live (see electric and hybrid above).

Disclosure. The AWD with 2.0 engine is a noisy, but fuel efficient slug. I am EAGER to try the diesel version of the CX-5 when available. If I get a better driving experience with the diesel engine and add to that a much quieter cabin and a memory for the driver's seat that the '17 CX-5 appears to offer, then my current CX-5 will be the first vehicle in 35 years that I kept for only 5.

As I re-read the above it seems to have a hint of stridency about it. That wasn't the intent. The facts are sound and the conclusion seem reasonable.

Brian
 
Yup, capitalizing on existing tech they already paid to develop for elsewhere in the world while boosting their CAFE scores and also giving a performance option to customers in N.A. Time to develop next gen motors and EV tech too.

Win, win, win.

Couldn't agree more. IMO, this was just smart on Mazda's part.
Also, I'm sure that their (N.A.) market research provides more ammunition for this strategy.
I think some posters are going to be "surprised" when these diesels start moving off the lot.
Though their constant barrage of criticism makes me chuckle.
IMO, they're not convincing anybody but themselves.
 
I think Diesel is a risk - but its worth taking a risk. Same as providing manuals now a days. People think its silly but there are few who will only get a manual.
Interesting to see how CX-5 diesel works out.

These are the hybrids in CUV segment:
Rogue
Rav4
Niro - smaller and does 50 mpg? Not sure if it competes with CX-5 in any way or shape.
 
I believe rapeseed IS canola. Canola is a newer name, applied to the same crop for the reason noted above.

My .02$ (worth even less (worthless?) in USDs) on diesel/hybrid is very strongly for diesel. Batteries perform less optimally at lower temperatures. So come February in Canada your hybrid's gasoline engine will be just pulling around the weight of the hybrid technology and struggling against the elements while running the heater and assorted defrosters. Further south there may be issues running AC but I can't write directly to them. For the "family hauler" in The Great White North I don't believe hybrid makes sense. I have read that these environmental conditions have also been noted in some American states during Canada's winter season, but cannot write directly to that as in my only actual experience (Florida - nice place, and Arizona - WOW what a country!!) I didn't see any Canadian-like winter weather. I assume that in those few places where something like a northern winter does appear that my observations would also hold true.

Costs. Let's get over that and never write to it again. Depending on where you live, diesel is cheaper - the case in much of Canada but not ALL. Despite the variance in price, the increase in efficiency will make diesel fuel cheaper to buy over distance when compared even to 87. Individual cost of ownership MAY be recoverable over the vehicle's lifetime by many, but not ALL buyers; depending in part on distance driven (truly high milers WILL win) and the eventual retained resale value of the vehicle (when new you paid more for diesel technology so when you eventually sell you will get more) So your actual cost will calculate as: (technology price + increased maintenance) - (fuel savings + increased resale value). This will allow many of the NOT high milers to recoup much, if not all of their original outlay.

The planet. A general thumb-rule is if you burn less oil per unit distance you pollute less and a non-renewable resource will last longer. Where lifestyle and environment allow, drive electric. Where lifestyle doesn't allow drive hybrid. Where neither allow drive fossil. I drive fossil. I make it a point to always purchase a replacement vehicle more fuel efficient that the one I have now, even when that meant waiting an additional 3.5 years for the industry to offer one here - and when I bought my AWD 2.0 CX-5 in 2012 it was the most fuel efficient fossil burning CUV available. To burn less fuel, to spend less money on fuel over distance, to get a large chunk of my diesel investment back (and MAYBE all of it) while gaining better vehicle range and the driveability advantages of increase torque makes sense to me, but not to everyone depending on where and how you live (see electric and hybrid above).

Disclosure. The AWD with 2.0 engine is a noisy, but fuel efficient slug. I am EAGER to try the diesel version of the CX-5 when available. If I get a better driving experience with the diesel engine and add to that a much quieter cabin and a memory for the driver's seat that the '17 CX-5 appears to offer, then my current CX-5 will be the first vehicle in 35 years that I kept for only 5.

As I re-read the above it seems to have a hint of stridency about it. That wasn't the intent. The facts are sound and the conclusion seem reasonable.

Brian

Strident? Are you kidding. You make some great points.
 
I believe rapeseed IS canola. Canola is a newer name, applied to the same crop for the reason noted above.

My .02$ (worth even less (worthless?) in USDs) on diesel/hybrid is very strongly for diesel. Batteries perform less optimally at lower temperatures. So come February in Canada your hybrid's gasoline engine will be just pulling around the weight of the hybrid technology and struggling against the elements while running the heater and assorted defrosters. Further south there may be issues running AC but I can't write directly to them. For the "family hauler" in The Great White North I don't believe hybrid makes sense. I have read that these environmental conditions have also been noted in some American states during Canada's winter season, but cannot write directly to that as in my only actual experience (Florida - nice place, and Arizona - WOW what a country!!) I didn't see any Canadian-like winter weather. I assume that in those few places where something like a northern winter does appear that my observations would also hold true.

Costs. Let's get over that and never write to it again. Depending on where you live, diesel is cheaper - the case in much of Canada but not ALL. Despite the variance in price, the increase in efficiency will make diesel fuel cheaper to buy over distance when compared even to 87. Individual cost of ownership MAY be recoverable over the vehicle's lifetime by many, but not ALL buyers; depending in part on distance driven (truly high milers WILL win) and the eventual retained resale value of the vehicle (when new you paid more for diesel technology so when you eventually sell you will get more) So your actual cost will calculate as: (technology price + increased maintenance) - (fuel savings + increased resale value). This will allow many of the NOT high milers to recoup much, if not all of their original outlay.

The planet. A general thumb-rule is if you burn less oil per unit distance you pollute less and a non-renewable resource will last longer. Where lifestyle and environment allow, drive electric. Where lifestyle doesn't allow drive hybrid. Where neither allow drive fossil. I drive fossil. I make it a point to always purchase a replacement vehicle more fuel efficient that the one I have now, even when that meant waiting an additional 3.5 years for the industry to offer one here - and when I bought my AWD 2.0 CX-5 in 2012 it was the most fuel efficient fossil burning CUV available. To burn less fuel, to spend less money on fuel over distance, to get a large chunk of my diesel investment back (and MAYBE all of it) while gaining better vehicle range and the driveability advantages of increase torque makes sense to me, but not to everyone depending on where and how you live (see electric and hybrid above).

Disclosure. The AWD with 2.0 engine is a noisy, but fuel efficient slug. I am EAGER to try the diesel version of the CX-5 when available. If I get a better driving experience with the diesel engine and add to that a much quieter cabin and a memory for the driver's seat that the '17 CX-5 appears to offer, then my current CX-5 will be the first vehicle in 35 years that I kept for only 5.

As I re-read the above it seems to have a hint of stridency about it. That wasn't the intent. The facts are sound and the conclusion seem reasonable.

Brian

Tribology is an interest of mine. Canola is Rapeseed oil, whereupon the plants were bred to remove glucosinolates and erucic acid from their product. So no, not exactly the same, much like Gasoline and Diesel are not the same.

That said, I am in no way willing to T*E the first gen US Diesel for Mazda.
 
It's funny how this forum's sentiment is exactly the opposite from the Subaru Forester forum, where many have been vying for the diesel to be brought from Europe to the US.

For me it is strange to hear people that paid extra for the GT trim and fully load it to suddenly pinch their pennies when it comes to significantly better torque and drivability. Yes, it is not clear how economical it would be, but there was nothing economical in a fully loaded vehicle either ... you got it because you wanted it for its benefits and the same is for the diesel, only that for the diesel it might actually be more economical for some owners.

Diesel is somewhat risky, I agree and I can't tell if it will succeed. The American public buys a lot of turds and things that don't make any sense to me. In contrast, the European car market makes much more sense to me and I'd love to get some of the things they have there.
Sure it matters how many dealers you have. My sister skipped on a Mazda because there was only a single dealership in their area which they did not like. Even here, I am not very happy with the Mazda dealership I am using now and the other 2 are farther away, especially if I need to get there during commute hours.

I think it's required to place the 2.2D as the power + fuel-economy option for the CX-5 as a way to justify the additional up-front cost. I am sure the 2.2D is awesome to drive. I am sure also that it can actually get amazing MPG.
 
It's funny how this forum's sentiment is exactly the opposite from the Subaru Forester forum, where many have been vying for the diesel to be brought from Europe to the US.

For me it is strange to hear people that paid extra for the GT trim and fully load it to suddenly pinch their pennies when it comes to significantly better torque and drivability. Yes, it is not clear how economical it would be, but there was nothing economical in a fully loaded vehicle either ... you got it because you wanted it for its benefits and the same is for the diesel, only that for the diesel it might actually be more economical for some owners.

Diesel is somewhat risky, I agree and I can't tell if it will succeed. The American public buys a lot of turds and things that don't make any sense to me. In contrast, the European car market makes much more sense to me and I'd love to get some of the things they have there.
Sure it matters how many dealers you have. My sister skipped on a Mazda because there was only a single dealership in their area which they did not like. Even here, I am not very happy with the Mazda dealership I am using now and the other 2 are farther away, especially if I need to get there during commute hours.

I think it's required to place the 2.2D as the power + fuel-economy option for the CX-5 as a way to justify the additional up-front cost. I am sure the 2.2D is awesome to drive. I am sure also that it can actually get amazing MPG.

I live in a state were diesel is almost the same price, if not cheeper, than regular gas. Crazy. As I have to drive 3 hours north almost every weekend, a substantially quieter CX-5 with 300 lb of torque and 35-40 MPG is looking really good to me. The only worry I would have is the maintenance of diesel. How well are the local dealers trained in these engines?
 
I live in a state were diesel is almost the same price, if not cheeper, than regular gas. Crazy. As I have to drive 3 hours north almost every weekend, a substantially quieter CX-5 with 300 lb of torque and 35-40 MPG is looking really good to me. The only worry I would have is the maintenance of diesel. How well are the local dealers trained in these engines?

Good question...

I wonder if they're receiving any type of training ahead of the cars showing up here, or if they plan to hire diesel gear heads to add to staff because most diesel mechanics are a rare breed, and vice versa, they only wanna mess with gas or diesel, not both (not saying a mechanic can't).
 
I live in a state were diesel is almost the same price, if not cheeper, than regular gas. Crazy. As I have to drive 3 hours north almost every weekend, a substantially quieter CX-5 with 300 lb of torque and 35-40 MPG is looking really good to me. The only worry I would have is the maintenance of diesel. How well are the local dealers trained in these engines?
Mazda dealer service centres/departments will get the proper training to deal with this engine. We've had this diesel engine for going on 5 years across 3 different models and have not heard or read anything about dealers service departments having any issues on a major scale performing maintenance etc.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
 
It's funny how this forum's sentiment is exactly the opposite from the Subaru Forester forum, where many have been vying for the diesel to be brought from Europe to the US.

For me it is strange to hear people that paid extra for the GT trim and fully load it to suddenly pinch their pennies when it comes to significantly better torque and drivability. Yes, it is not clear how economical it would be, but there was nothing economical in a fully loaded vehicle either ... you got it because you wanted it for its benefits and the same is for the diesel, only that for the diesel it might actually be more economical for some owners.

Diesel is somewhat risky, I agree and I can't tell if it will succeed. The American public buys a lot of turds and things that don't make any sense to me. In contrast, the European car market makes much more sense to me and I'd love to get some of the things they have there.
Sure it matters how many dealers you have. My sister skipped on a Mazda because there was only a single dealership in their area which they did not like. Even here, I am not very happy with the Mazda dealership I am using now and the other 2 are farther away, especially if I need to get there during commute hours.

I think it's required to place the 2.2D as the power + fuel-economy option for the CX-5 as a way to justify the additional up-front cost. I am sure the 2.2D is awesome to drive. I am sure also that it can actually get amazing MPG.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think this forum is anti-diesel. It's just the anti-diesel folks on this forum tend to be the LOUDEST (and, sometimes, the rudest).
If you want validation for the diesel, you can do what I did. I scoured the web for reviews and actually communicated with current diesel owners in far off lands. I even spoke to someone in N.A. operations at Mazda who is in the know (granted, not that they would necessarily be objective) and a pro reviewer in the U.K. Overall, I'm encountered very few complaints and a hell of a lot of praise. Of course, YMMV and this is a tiny sample.
But, as far as I'm concerned, I would ignore the naysayers who have yet to drive/test this model. What's the sense of that when you can talk to current owners and get the truth (or, their version of it) from the only reviewers who truly matter.

By the way, the order books for the diesel are open. (nervous)
I can order one today and expect delivery in late October or early November. Please contact me via offline if you want to discuss pricing. I would assume that this applies to dealers nationwide. But, no other national announcement on this that I can see, so maybe it's dealer specific?
 
Back