So...the 2017 2.5 DID get some engine changes...

Must goes to show that Mazda has low budget by virtue of scale that they would make a poorly designed piston to begin with in this day and age, imo.

Side loading issues? Hotspots? This isn't 1997...
 
Last edited:
Must goes to show that Mazda has low budget by virtue of scale that they would make a poorly designed piston to begin with in this day and age, imo.

Side loading issues? Hotspots? This isn't 1997...
What engines were running 13:1 or 14:1 compression in 1997?

Isn't it a GOOD idea that they are interested in fine tuning the design after over 4 years of data?
 
Last edited:
Would you like me to list them, or do you just want to Google "diesel engines in production, 1997"?

It's a piston. It doesn't matter what the CR is, or gas vs. diesel. Sideloading is a geometry issue that has to do with stroke length, and several other factors such as wrist pin position, etc. In addition to dynamic compression. This should have been computer modeled, and never been an issue to begin with. Same for the hot spot.

***This is the same behavior that killed GM and led to the .gov bail out in the early 2000s. Skimping on R&D in the lab, and letting the customer figure it out in the real world.
 
Would you like me to list them, or do you just want to Google "diesel engines in production, 1997"?

It's a piston. It doesn't matter what the CR is, or gas vs. diesel. Sideloading is a geometry issue that has to do with stroke length, and several other factors such as wrist pin position, etc. In addition to dynamic compression. This should have been computer modeled, and never been an issue to begin with. Same for the hot spot.

***This is the same behavior that killed GM and led to the .gov bail out in the early 2000s. Skimping on R&D in the lab, and letting the customer figure it out in the real world.

I have to disagree... A piston is not a piston, and diesels are not the same as gas engines.

I do not have a picture yet of the 2017 Piston design changes.

Here are some pictures to help...
2.0 OLD engine series (nonskyactiv) vs 2.0L SKYACTIV
P1030865-L.jpg


2.2 Diesel vs 2.2 SKYACTIV diesel

P1030875-L.jpg

IMG_4908.jpg

SKYACTIV-D-Mazda6-Mule-5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Funny that it took some people so long to listen to what was quite well publicised information aout the upgrades to the petrol engines at the time of the release of the 2017 CX5. This is not new information by any stretch.

Just because outright power and torque figures might not change much or at all, does not tell the full story. As well as physical upgrades to some componentry, there were also improvements made to ecu mapping, all of which contributes to improved driveability.
 
ECU mapping is whatever, the mechanical changes are more significant. Unless they made a big change to bore/stroke those minor changes are mostly ECU.. along with an increase in reliability and probably reduction is carbon buildup from the new hardware..
 
What engines were running 13:1 or 14:1 compression in 1997?

Isn't it a GOOD idea that they are interested in fine tuning the design after over 4 years of data?
+1. They did a good job to begin with in designing this engine years ago. There're virtually no complaints of any kind of engine failure or major problems on this forum or anywhere else that I could find, with the exception of fuel mileage for some. So they found a few areas to improve upon, good for them. Running high compression on 87 octane and having good reliability is quite an accomplishment in itself.
 
Yep, they're simply improving on their original design. Not necessarily fixing a fault. I like what they've done with it, the engine / transmission tuning in the CX does seem more responsive than my 3, even if the 3 weighs less and is actually a bit faster. Real world the CX-5's enhancements are a joy.
 
Yep, they're simply improving on their original design. Not necessarily fixing a fault. I like what they've done with it, the engine / transmission tuning in the CX does seem more responsive than my 3, even if the 3 weighs less and is actually a bit faster. Real world the CX-5's enhancements are a joy.

+1
 
What I was wondering is why the torque peaks at a higher RPM on the '17 for AWD.

As mentioned in the other thread, over here torque figures for AWD are the same from previous model to this one.

My guess is has something to do with AWD because the FWD peaks at 3200rpm regardless of what vehicle the engine is in (Mazda3, Mazda6, CX-5)
 
Yep, they're simply improving on their original design. Not necessarily fixing a fault. I like what they've done with it, the engine / transmission tuning in the CX does seem more responsive than my 3, even if the 3 weighs less and is actually a bit faster. Real world the CX-5's enhancements are a joy.

Agreed, fine tuning a design is not necessarily fixing a fault. Car makers fine tune details all the time even from year to year. Some people just want to complain all the time.
 
Agreed, fine tuning a design is not necessarily fixing a fault. Car makers fine tune details all the time even from year to year. Some people just want to complain all the time.

Mazda identified the throttle response as something where they could improve it and that's what they did
 
As mentioned in the other thread, over here torque figures for AWD are the same from previous model to this one.

My guess is has something to do with AWD because the FWD peaks at 3200rpm regardless of what vehicle the engine is in (Mazda3, Mazda6, CX-5)

For US on the '16.5 IIRC torque was the same for AWD and FWD. It's possible that was a spec error and it was still at a different peak before. My guess is maybe it has something to do with final drive? But usually those specs are at the crank not the wheels. Just me speculating.
 
For US on the '16.5 IIRC torque was the same for AWD and FWD. It's possible that was a spec error and it was still at a different peak before. My guess is maybe it has something to do with final drive? But usually those specs are at the crank not the wheels. Just me speculating.

Fair points there and yes you are indeed correct about being 3250rpm (just found one online). Ours has always been 4000rpm

Maybe there was something different with your previous version or maybe indeed a typo. Hmmm (uhm)
 
I found some car mags showing different peaks for AWD vs FWD so I think it's actually just an omission/error on the Mazda USA specs page.
 
Back