SKYACTIV II with HCCI to debut within weeks

Hybrids are great if you do all city driving. If most of your driving is on the highway, they suck. The RAV4 hybrid is rated at 30 MPG highway. The CX-5 is rated at 31 (FWD) or 29 (AWD). If SkyActiv-X lives up to the hype, that would mean close to 40 MPG highway. I suppose 35+ is more realistic, but that would still be a big jump.

Regarding the Camry, it looks good on the spec sheet. But I don't like the styling, especially the L/LE/XLE models. Recent Hondas and Toyotas look like they fell from the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. When Toyota introduced a new design language in the Lexus models a few years ago, they looked OK. I even kind of liked the IS. But their adaptation of it to the Toyota brand has been all wrong. Look at the front end of the Prius v. Somebody should be fired for that. The big question is will it be fun to drive? Previous Camrys have been dull as hell.

If this HCCI engine pans out, I'd buy it over a hybrid or electric any day of the week. So I am happy to see it there.

Couldn't care less about hybrids personally. The first thing to pop into my mind when I hear "hybrid" is a Prius. No one is excited over a Prius lol.
 
Last edited:
^^As Alexa says alot when i play jeopardy..yes that's it. Camry styling is overdone to be nice and 300hp is great but when you send all of it at the front wheels its a fail..always and forever...was at redmc re hybrids not so bueno on hwy
 
Last edited:
That would be smart. Maybe they can use Toyota's NAV system and other items. I am seriously amused/let down/wtf over the 2017 CX5 not having a legit remote start, traffic on the NAV, or any of the things my now 7 year old Jeep came with, since like 2005. Then to hear them joking about "going upscale" ORLY? No. They have firmly landed in no-man's-land. Noone who likes luxury would seriously consider one, and people who want economy/cheap are looking pretty hard at the Nissan Rogue. I will admit, if I had not lucked into my CX5 used for $22k, no way in hell I'd buy one new. They lack many features I consider "standard", and cost just as much as the vehicles that are properly equipped. They are not proving any more reliable than proven performers, and their owner retention is bad for a reason.

I drive my CX5 because it makes financial sense, and it made GREAT SENSE to buy it (killer trade value as the dealer offered me $3k more than any other dealer had, and the cx5 was cheap, too, at PP retail pricing. Financially solid call on my part to do the deal, like the car or not).

I've simply become less and less a fan of it as the years go by, and I note how many ways it "let me down" vs. the advertisements for it (mpg, etc.)

If Mazda wants to play:


-Get a real infotainment/NAV/Satellite radio available in ALL TRIM LEVELS except "SPORT".
-Remote start on the fob like everyone else did 15 years ago.
-225hp/32mpg highway minimum

The AWD system is fine, the handling is good, and from what I hear, noise isolation is finally on par, but the above 3 would boost it to "competitive" status instead of "Buy this, because see how it handles? You can give your 2 kids and dog a concussion in the corners, Dad! Isn't that what you want a CUV for? Racing? Because that's the only thing this one does worth a damn (please ignore the slowness though, it has sport-mode so you can delude yourself, like "TOW" mode on your truck, but we don't call it that...), but hey, it's for drivers, zoom zoom!"

The things you complain about are choices Mazda, like many car companies, made. For example, our 2015 Honda Odyssey with all the bells as whistles does not have remote start or traffic in the navigation (It has a fricken vacuum cleaner but not a remote start!). They would be nice but they are not necessary. I bet Mazda has decided that most of their buyers don't feel those are important. I have remote start on my CX-5 and never use it. Thought I would but never do.

Many people get 29-34 MPG on the highway already with the current CX-5. The reason you don't is actually you. Your mileage is grossly out of whack of everyone else - not the other way around (which you believe).
 
Many people get 29-34 MPG on the highway already with the current CX-5. The reason you don't is actually you. Your mileage is grossly out of whack of everyone else - not the other way around (which you believe).
There was a guy who managed 46 mpg on his 2.0 manual. But had some aero mods that didn't look pretty. I think he posted here as well.

For me - i can hit 29 on a gas tank in city. My Camry hits about 1 mpg less.
Very impressed.
I feel peak mpg for CX5 is about 40. Even if you hybridize it. You can't wrestle more out of it unless you modify and reduce drag.
 
If Mazda wants to play:

-Get a real infotainment/NAV/Satellite radio available in ALL TRIM LEVELS except "SPORT".
-Remote start on the fob like everyone else did 15 years ago.
-225hp/32mpg highway minimum

Good luck finding that among the competition. And you also don't want to pay more than $25k for a CUV? Dream on.
 
Hybrids are great if you do all city driving. If most of your driving is on the highway, they suck. The RAV4 hybrid is rated at 30 MPG highway. The CX-5 is rated at 31 (FWD) or 29 (AWD). If SkyActiv-X lives up to the hype, that would mean close to 40 MPG highway. I suppose 35+ is more realistic, but that would still be a big jump.

The hybrid crossover numbers aren't very impressive. We only have 2 that I know of, at least in this price segment, and both are barely better than their gas only brothers and sisters. In the sedans you see some pretty impressive jumps. I don't know how much of that is because they drop weight in the car, change the engine, etc., and how how much is due to the hybrid.
 
Believe me no one will be copying this. They're only doing this because they don't have the financial resources to develop a decent hybrid or electric vehicle, not because it actually make sense.
They have hybrid mazda2 in japan though.
 
The hybrid crossover numbers aren't very impressive. We only have 2 that I know of, at least in this price segment, and both are barely better than their gas only brothers and sisters. In the sedans you see some pretty impressive jumps. I don't know how much of that is because they drop weight in the car, change the engine, etc., and how how much is due to the hybrid.

Yeah, I don't know. Perhaps the poorer aerodynamics of a CUV, or drivetrain losses due to AWD. Also, I think a lot of the hybrid cars have low rolling resistance tires.
 
If this HCCI engine pans out, I'd buy it over a hybrid or electric any day of the week. So I am happy to see it there.

Couldn't care less about hybrids personally. The first thing to pop into my mind when I hear "hybrid" is a Prius. No one is excited over a Prius lol.

Agreed. I am not a fan of anything that contains a massive lithium battery. I've been into flashlights and WML's for a long time, and lithium battery explosions/loss of integrity (cars get in wrecks you know...) are BAD! I cannot imagine it with an 80#+ battery!
 
Well since I saw it quoted...

Mango, I don't get it. First you complain loudly in many threads that the CX-5 uses a 4 year old engine. Mazda has figured out and developed a new engine and all you do is poopoo it. Many other car manufacturers have tried and failed on HCCI.

If that's not innovation, I don't know what is?

As for hybrids, why else would they partner with Toyota? And let's not forget, I believe they already have hybrid Mazdas in Japan.

No reason you can't have both.


I complain because this engine is intended to increase fuel economy, that's it. If people are looking for fuel economy, the first thing they think about is Honda/Toyota not Mazda. My advice to Mazda:

-Ditch this gimmicky engine technology.
-Use Toyota's hybrid technology for now to help them get thru emissions.
-Work with Toyota and developing a full electric vehicle in the future.
-Start giving your customer some more power and torque in their vehicles NOW. This is an enthusiast company after all is it not? Drop the 2.5T in the CX-5/Mazda3/Mazda6 and call it a day.
-Add remote start to the key fob and ditch this poorly implemented they have now that relies on an outdated app and a monthly fee
-Add CarPlay/AA


These cars would be so much better if they had more power. How is it possible the new Accord has more power than anything in Mazda's entire lineup? Even the hamster mobile Kia Soul has more power. 35k for a fully loaded Mazda6 with 184HP? They're smoking crack.

Is this technology innovative? Sure but will it improve the driving experience? That remains to be seen but judging by these articles there is a heavy emphasis on fuel economy. I just never pictured MPG to be that important to a typical Mazda customer.
 
I complain because this engine is intended to increase fuel economy, that's it. If people are looking for fuel economy, the first thing they think about is Honda/Toyota not Mazda. My advice to Mazda:

-Ditch this gimmicky engine technology.
-Use Toyota's hybrid technology for now to help them get thru emissions.
-Work with Toyota and developing a full electric vehicle in the future.
-Start giving your customer some more power and torque in their vehicles NOW. This is an enthusiast company after all is it not? Drop the 2.5T in the CX-5/Mazda3/Mazda6 and call it a day.
-Add remote start to the key fob and ditch this poorly implemented they have now that relies on an outdated app and a monthly fee
-Add CarPlay/AA


These cars would be so much better if they had more power. How is it possible the new Accord has more power than anything in Mazda's entire lineup? Even the hamster mobile Kia Soul has more power. 35k for a fully loaded Mazda6 with 184HP? They're smoking crack.

Is this technology innovative? Sure but will it improve the driving experience? That remains to be seen but judging by these articles there is a heavy emphasis on fuel economy. I just never pictured MPG to be that important to a typical Mazda customer.

Assuming it is scalable, improving efficiency is nearly equivalent to improving torque/power from an engine development perspective. Likely Mazda could choose to apportion some of the efficiency gain to performance by increasing engine displacement.
 
I don' know who else got 46mpg, But I did as well. I have no mods on my car. I drove from Galveston to Houston and drove conservative to see what mileage my car could achieve. By the time I parked my car at home it read 46mpg. One thing different about the CX-5 and my old 626 is, the 626 mileage was very consistent under all conditions. It did not matter about the weather, the fuel blends from summer to winter or the speed.
The CX-5 all conditions pretty much have to be perfect. Winter fuel blends affect my mileage, and speed definitely affects it.

But at least I have always beat the MPG rating for my car. Too bad Mazda does not offer this configuration anymore. The car is not fast, but engine always feels willing and is very fun to drive, and gets great gas milage. I have no desire for a faster car with a bigger engine. I think mazda got this one right for me.
 
Last edited:
I complain because this engine is intended to increase fuel economy, that's it. If people are looking for fuel economy, the first thing they think about is Honda/Toyota not Mazda. My advice to Mazda:

-Ditch this gimmicky engine technology.
-Use Toyota's hybrid technology for now to help them get thru emissions.
-Work with Toyota and developing a full electric vehicle in the future.
-Start giving your customer some more power and torque in their vehicles NOW. This is an enthusiast company after all is it not? Drop the 2.5T in the

I believe the intention is to eventually use both the 'gimicky technology' you want them to drop (??!) AND Toyota's hybrid tech in the future. If the gas engine in the hybrid is 30% more efficient than competitors.... I think you can figure out the math there, no?

According to the articles the 'X' engines also have more power and torque.
 
I complain because this engine is intended to increase fuel economy, that's it. If people are looking for fuel economy, the first thing they think about is Honda/Toyota not Mazda. My advice to Mazda:

-Ditch this gimmicky engine technology.
-Use Toyota's hybrid technology for now to help them get thru emissions.
-Work with Toyota and developing a full electric vehicle in the future.
-Start giving your customer some more power and torque in their vehicles NOW. This is an enthusiast company after all is it not? Drop the 2.5T in the CX-5/Mazda3/Mazda6 and call it a day.
-Add remote start to the key fob and ditch this poorly implemented they have now that relies on an outdated app and a monthly fee
-Add CarPlay/AA


These cars would be so much better if they had more power. How is it possible the new Accord has more power than anything in Mazda's entire lineup? Even the hamster mobile Kia Soul has more power. 35k for a fully loaded Mazda6 with 184HP? They're smoking crack.


Oh lord, where do I even start with this? You are literally spewing s*** out of your ass*hole right now.

Gimmicky technology? What gimmicky technology? You don't even own one. You do not know what sort of benefits the "gimmicky technology" provides for the mid range torque, so why are you speaking On it? 185hp may seem low, but you're forgetting that this car makes 185 ft/lb of torque at 3250rpm which is perfectly adequate for aggressive daily driving. Again, you have an old Mazda, meaning you have no experience with the newer tech so you're just spewing s*it all over this thread right now. The technology is meant to improve torque delivery which makes the car not only more efficient, but more peppy and fun to drive as well.

I do agree with you that Mazda needs a 2.5T, and they are bringing that engine. So whatever awful points you've brought to the table are all useless.

Mazda does not have the money to start making hybrid technology yet, which is why they are teaming up with Toyota and working to do this in the future while emphasizing on their excellent engine technology in the meantime. Your marketing logic is horrible.
 
Read up a bit more about the legend of 2.0L with Manual. There was a review on CleanMPG touting 70 mpg / with 41 mph average. Ofcourse things were extreme - 44 psi in tires and some good techniques but - that number is still impeccable.
The same guy did a test later on:


50 mph 47.7 46.2
55 mph 45.9 44.5
60 mph 43.5 42.1
65 mph 40.2 38.9
70 mph 37.8 36.6
mph mpg displayed Actual (mpgUS)

CX5 pretty much shat on CRV / Rav4 in 2013 and 2014. More power / more handling / 25% more mpg than the pig CRV got in 13 and 14, even 20% more than CRV with CVT. This was a legend.
Unob must look at this 2.0 with a stick. He wont be hitting any numbers like these - but atleast will hit 32 or so.

There are some legendary comments on that thread like this one:
The CR-V was designed by a one-legged engineer, because the e-brake pedal is placed so close to the left of the brake pedal that you have to contort so it doesn't rub up against your shin as you drive.

Read it - its fun...

http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/43832/page-2
 
Read up a bit more about the legend of 2.0L with Manual. There was a review on CleanMPG touting 70 mpg / with 41 mph average. Ofcourse things were extreme - 44 psi in tires and some good techniques but - that number is still impeccable.
The same guy did a test later on:


50 mph 47.7 46.2
55 mph 45.9 44.5
60 mph 43.5 42.1
65 mph 40.2 38.9
70 mph 37.8 36.6
mph mpg displayed Actual (mpgUS)

CX5 pretty much shat on CRV / Rav4 in 2013 and 2014. More power / more handling / 25% more mpg than the pig CRV got in 13 and 14, even 20% more than CRV with CVT. This was a legend.
Unob must look at this 2.0 with a stick. He wont be hitting any numbers like these - but atleast will hit 32 or so.

There are some legendary comments on that thread like this one:


Read it - its fun...

http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/43832/page-2

No, Unob will still get 12 MPG and complain the car has no acceleration at 90 MPH!

In all seriousness, the 2.0 in the Mazda 3 is acceptable but feels really slow in the automatic CX-5. What is amazing now is how the industry has done something people said was impossible. Many CUVs are getting 30 MPG on the highway and routinely get 25-28 in normal everyday driving and with good performance.
 
Last edited:
I don' know who else got 46mpg, But I did as well. I have no mods on my car. I drove from Galveston to Houston and drove conservative to see what mileage my car could achieve. By the time I parked my car at home it read 46mpg. One thing different about the CX-5 and my old 626 is, the 626 mileage was very consistent under all conditions. It did not matter about the weather, the fuel blends from summer to winter or the speed.
The CX-5 all conditions pretty much have to be perfect. Winter fuel blends affect my mileage, and speed definitely affects it.

But at least I have always beat the MPG rating for my car. Too bad Mazda does not offer this configuration anymore. The car is not fast, but engine always feels willing and is very fun to drive, and gets great gas milage. I have no desire for a faster car with a bigger engine. I think mazda got this one right for me.

In an optimized drivetrain external factors begin to have a more noticeable effect. In the past, the inefficiencies were greater within engine and transmission.
 
Back