A Few Surprises from US 2018 Mazda CX-5

Well Mazda did fail with the rotary engine, even after years of trying updates.

Looking at the issues with their Nav systems since 2013 doens't fill me with confidence that they can do any better with the cylinder deactivation either.
No they didn't. Lots of people bought it, niche market but ultimately not enough to justify the cost of having it.
 
Can anyone explain to me the logic in adding 19' rims on the touring model? I thought the whole point of those wheels was to differentiate the GT model from the lower trim?

Now it is the leather seats from the leatherette seats. This will help move more touring models.
 
Just because there have been historical attempts at cylinder deactivation in the past doesnt automatically mean it will fail on a Mazda now. You can apply this train of thought to all sorts of technologies - hybrids, batteries, even early auto transmissions but its a stubborn attitude with no substance and if it brings another 1% of fuel efficiency its a good thing as far as Im concerned - bring it on.

Oil gets into the combustion chamber. That happens with every engine to some extent, for many reasons: PCV, seepage through valve guides, seepage past rings. It's only a minuscule amount on each cycle, and in normal operation it is harmlessly burned off during the power stroke. But when a cylinder is deactivated, there is no combustion to burn it off, so it accumulates. Depending on the rate of accumulation and how long the cylinder has been inactive, surfaces within the cylinder may have accumulated an oil film thick enough that it doesn't cleanly burn off when the cylinder is activated again, and instead forms deposits. The growth of deposits on the plugs eventually causes misfiring. If deposits form in the ring grooves then the oil ring may not seal effectively and you get increased oil consumption.

All of the cylinder deactivation systems that have been marketed before (Honda, GM, Chrysler) have developed the same two problems over the long term: misfires due to the plugs fouling with oil deposits, and high oil consumption. The problem with misfiring can be avoided with more frequent spark plug replacement. The increase in oil consumption is just something you have to live with. The deposits probably also have an effect on power and fuel economy over the long term, but apparently not enough for people to complain about.
 
Just because there have been historical attempts at cylinder deactivation in the past doesnt automatically mean it will fail on a Mazda now. You can apply this train of thought to all sorts of technologies - hybrids, batteries, even early auto transmissions but its a stubborn attitude with no substance and if it brings another 1% of fuel efficiency its a good thing as far as Im concerned - bring it on.
A good design has to be logical.

A turbo engine is logical by saving fuel with smaller engine displacement as long as the turbo charger is not in action. When you need more power it forces more air into the combustion chamber with turbo spinning. The concerns for most people are the complexity and reliability but with modern technology these 2 drawbacks can be easily overcome.

Cylinder deactivation? On its SA-G 2.5L I4 Mazda disables cylinder #2 and #3 with all valves closed while engine is running. You still need energy doing the compression for these idled cylinders. Thiss the main reason why cylinder deactivation cant be effective on fuel efficiency like a 1.25L engine. Added the thermodynamics among the middle 2 cooled-down cylinders and the outer 2 still-active hot-working cylinders, this creates serious issue on heat imbalance of cylinders and pistons which eventually caused spark plug fouling and oil burning, even premature failing on piston rings.

In all articles released Mazda hasnt addressed these inherent issues by cylinder deactivation, but only mentioned the easiest part, engine vibration, by using a fulcrum inside the SkyActiv-Drive transmission to help seamless transition.

Thats why Im concerned on long-term reliability with cylinder deactivation, especially the end result is only 1 MPG gain on FWD and ZERO MPG gain on AWD!
 
Well Mazda did fail with the rotary engine, even after years of trying updates.

Looking at the issues with their Nav systems since 2013 doens't fill me with confidence that they can do any better with the cylinder deactivation either.
No they didn't. Lots of people bought it, niche market but ultimately not enough to justify the cost of having it.
Rotary engine is excellent in theory but has problems on rotor seals from manufacturing and inherent but unresolvable oil burning issue, like a 2-stroke engine, which simply cant pass current emission standard.

Is the rotary engine a failed product? My Mazda dealer used to have a huge pile of broken rotary engines in its back yard; and most friends and family if theyre old enough all use failed rotary engine as an example questioning the reliability of Mazda and refuse to get another Mazda.
 
2018 CX-5 Touring now comes with 19 GT wheels, along with i-ActivSense package less Mazda Radar Cruise Control standard. But the give-away Touring Preferred Equipment Package now costs $1,200 instead $780.

Can you confirm something for me...are the 2018 Touring seats the same design & materials as the 2017?
I thought I read in press releases that they got rid of the suede inserts in the 2018 Touring.
However, the Mazda website still describes them as "leatherette seats with suede inserts."

Also, could someone confirm the differences between a 2018 Touring with Preferred Package vs. 2018 Grand Touring with no packages?
It looks like the Touring is only missing a few things...
- No LED taillights, fog lights or DRLs
- No "adaptive front lighting system" (whatever that is)
- No heated side mirrors
- 6 way drivers seat (instead of 8 way)
- No 2 position memory drivers seat
- Manual passenger seat (instead of power)
- No real leather seating
- No satellite radio

Am I missing anything?
 
Turbo engines use massive amounts of fuel and oil under boost. A fuel efficient Na motor will get better fuel economy out in the real world than your average turbocharged motor 9 out of 10 times. Turbos are not efficient the way the average driver would use it...

Rotaries are a pretty good design. Very smooth and free revving, I liked the power delivery far better than the Subaru brz I drove. It felt quite fast in the higher rpms.

Rotaries are actually a relatively decent engine, but no one knew how to take care of them coming from a piston engine so they were failing left right and centre. I've seen some last when taken care of properly.

Now, using Mazda's rotary phase to judge the brands reliability as a whole? Ridiculous. They got some of the best piston engine designs coming out of Japan for decades now, even Toyota took notic right after Ford.
 
Well Mazda did fail with the rotary engine, even after years of trying updates.

Looking at the issues with their Nav systems since 2013 doens't fill me with confidence that they can do any better with the cylinder deactivation either.

It doesnt help when you are naturally cynical. Aeroplanes were dodgy at one time.
 
In the UK the older 2L diesel has a dire reputation.
Some engines were failing under 40K miles.

I would have thought the Skyactive engine would have been spot on considering Mazdas poor reputation, but even so my 2013 car was having engine repairs under two years old, not related to the older 2L but still issues which to many only confirm that mazda are to be avoided.


Turbo engines use massive amounts of fuel and oil under boost. A fuel efficient Na motor will get better fuel economy out in the real world than your average turbocharged motor 9 out of 10 times. Turbos are not efficient the way the average driver would use it...

Rotaries are a pretty good design. Very smooth and free revving, I liked the power delivery far better than the Subaru brz I drove. It felt quite fast in the higher rpms.

Rotaries are actually a relatively decent engine, but no one knew how to take care of them coming from a piston engine so they were failing left right and centre. I've seen some last when taken care of properly.

Now, using Mazda's rotary phase to judge the brands reliability as a whole? Ridiculous. They got some of the best piston engine designs coming out of Japan for decades now, even Toyota took notic right after Ford.
 
It doesnt help when you are naturally cynical. Aeroplanes were dodgy at one time.

I suppose at some time EVERY new technology is dodgy until the bugs are ironed out. Actually, I'm looking forward to what the SkyactiveX engine can do in the real world.
 
GM Alex told me MNAO does scan all Internet Mazda forums from time to time and he said these two surprises may have something to do with some of us keep demanding these features. So dont get too upset when Im sometimes getting too critical against Mazda. I really want Mazda doing well, especially on quality and reliability.

Wife and I did visit a Lexus dealer last weekend. But the RX she has been always wanting is simply too ugly, even she couldnt stand the look!

Agreed, Lexus has trashed their brand with transformer, predator mouth styling. WTF were they thinking?
 
great thread OP, thanks!
glad to hear they have auto up / down with illuminated switches.
sometimes, it's the little things in life. :)
 
Agreed, Lexus has trashed their brand with transformer, predator mouth styling. WTF were they thinking?

i'm starting to believe their customers are mostly blind due to their advanced age. i see countless numbers of these things being driven by retirees. these are people who i would think would eschew such bold and aggressive styling cues.
 
i'm starting to believe their customers are mostly blind due to their advanced age. i see countless numbers of these things being driven by retirees. these are people who i would think would eschew such bold and aggressive styling cues.

I think the sales people just keep steering them towards the inside and never let them walk around the front.

But Toyota has been getting more agressive with the front end for a few years. My brother has a 2014 4runner.... i thought it was ugly then and now. The Camry and other toyotas have taken that hourglass grill and extended it down below the bumper like the Lexus. Fugly!

But even the Mazda has forgotten that a bumper is for bumping... I see a $1000 bill if the front end taps anything - IMHO
 
Such customers buy for reliability, not looks or handling. IMO.
 
Agreed, Lexus has trashed their brand with transformer, predator mouth styling. WTF were they thinking?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and those people who like the look need to have their eyes examined!
 
Such customers buy for reliability, not looks or handling. IMO.

We have had 2 RX350 - i found them no more or less reliable then any other car i have owned. The 2007 Lexus shares a leaky steering rack with other Toyota products (highlander), but even replacements leak after a certain time (just past warranty). I can speak to many other parts replaced on both vehicles (different generations) that provided me no incentive to purchase another one.

But yes, I originally bought for reliability and resale value - Math wise, the extra cost didn't make much of a difference in the outcome after 7-10 years.
 
We have had 2 RX350 - i found them no more or less reliable then any other car i have owned. The 2007 Lexus shares a leaky steering rack with other Toyota products (highlander), but even replacements leak after a certain time (just past warranty). I can speak to many other parts replaced on both vehicles (different generations) that provided me no incentive to purchase another one.

But yes, I originally bought for reliability and resale value - Math wise, the extra cost didn't make much of a difference in the outcome after 7-10 years.

My parents recently spent over $2,000 to replace the steering rack on their 2010 RAV4. Then they spent ~$1,600 replacing the charcoal canister. Both went after their CPO warranty had expired. There have been other repairs as well.

This is their first, and last Toyota!
 
Back