CX-9 Owners - What Are The Optimal Shift Points?

GJ-Molestor

Banned
:
2011 BMW 528i, 2015 Mazda 6, 1995 Nissan Maxima Manual
Very interested in the 2.5L Turbo engine and trying to get a better idea of its power delivery just in time for it's introduction in the Mazda 6 engine. Mazda has spent quite a lot of time studying how the average person driver their vehicle, and made an engine centered around that which makes lots of torque from a lower, more usable RPM. this not only lets the car get up and go faster, but vehicle efficiency increases as well because you simply don't have to rev the car as hard in order to get up to speed. The CX-9 makes max torque at 2000rpm so I think this is the lowest engine speed you should be at during any given time.

Turbo engines behave, respond and deliver the power much differently than the NA motors that most of us are used to. with a few simple tweaks to your driving style, you can note a huge increase in performance and fuel economy. for one, you should never put the pedal all the way down to the floor, even if you are trying to go as fast as possible. when increasing throttle position, you want to gradually open up the pedal in one linear motion. even if you are racing, you will still go faster if you use about half throttle off the line and then start to ease into the pedal. you will feel the turbo responding much more linearly and quicker this way. think of a turbo engine like this - when you try to go fast, and just stomp the pedal, the turbo will fall flat on it's face because you must build pressure within the engine itself first before the turbo can start to spool, so rushing the engine with too much throttle initially will make the car feel slower. another very important thing to note about turbo engines, especially like ones in the CX-9 which are designed to make the most torque at a lower RPM, is that you should never rev the engine to redline, or even anywhere near it. I know that the claimed redline is 6000RPM, but max HP is only at 5000RPM and you will feel a huge drop in power once you go past 5000. again, even if you are racing or trying to go fast, you will still go faster by shifting at 5000RPM. this helps keep the engine nice and happy in it's meaty powerband. turbo engines run rich (increase the amount of fuel in the mixture, decreasing performance and efficiency) at high RPM's in order to protect the engine from the high stress and heat of the turbo, so there is absolutely no point to go all the way to redline.

so, CX-9 owners. What RPM do you typically shift at that offers the best balance between performance and efficiency? it's a heavy car, so 3000RPM? looking forward to seeing this engine in the smaller and lighter Mazda 6.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t been paying much attention to the RPMs really, since this motor makes so much torque it’s easier to respond to the torque curve. Maybe I’ll go for a run up Glendora Mtn and video the tach.

I would guess my shift points are consistently below 5k though. I usually short shift from 1-2 and get a pretty good torque bump. I have a theory that hp/tq is artificially limited in 1st (just going from feel). Speed comes on very quickly just by going through the gears at moderately low rpm.

On most tight mountain roads, I tend to not need much above 3rd gear.
 
I haven’t been paying much attention to the RPMs really, since this motor makes so much torque it’s easier to respond to the torque curve. Maybe I’ll go for a run up Glendora Mtn and video the tach.

I would guess my shift points are consistently below 5k though. I usually short shift from 1-2 and get a pretty good torque bump. I have a theory that hp/tq is artificially limited in 1st (just going from feel). Speed comes on very quickly just by going through the gears at moderately low rpm.

On most tight mountain roads, I tend to not need much above 3rd gear.

Nice, good response and very interesting response... Ive noticed the same thing with my BMW. With any engine that likes to make good torque, you want to upshift into third until you really give it the beans...

With your turbo 2.5, try shifting at 5000rpm, and feel all the torque once you get into the next gear... it will be awesome. If someone could post some POV driving videos that would be great - Im curious to see the shift schedule with this new engine.
 
When the transmission automatically shifts.

Unless you put it in manual mode...

Lol exactly. Driving in manual mode is a good way to determine what are the optimal shift points. After daily driving my manual Nissan all this time, hopping back into my BMW or the Mazda; the first thing I do is put it into manual mode.
 
In general city driving without manual shifting, the transmission always tends to shift at or around 3k. With Sport mode on, it wants to rev a little higher before shifting (I wanna say 3.7 to 4k?). Car is AWD.

I'm averaging about 20mpg during my commutes to and from work in -15c to -20c temps (with Sport off, of course).
 
I've tried Manual Shifting in the Canyons. I can't even come close to Mazda's algo. I switch back to Automatic and suddenly RPMs are held precisely where I need them to negotiate corners that need my full attention. I can hear and feel the shifts, but I'm rarely paying that much attention to them going into a turn where I can't see the exit. I need to focus on the entry line, apex and the final push to the high side before exiting. One of the things missing from the HUD is a Tach. Had that in my old C5 - so getting familiar with the best shift points was easier when romping in that.

Mazda Engineers have done (IMO) an outstanding job on this little 4 banging 2.5L turbo. At over 4,000lbs, I always laugh when I'm typing "4 cylinder 2.5L turbo" into any sentence regarding the CX-9. The algo holds RPM depending on throttle position sensor and a number of other finely tuned inputs that come through the ECM. It is not a simple proposition and it involves real algorithmic engineering and design work - I'm fairly impressed. Although, over the years and having a core background in aeronautical engineering, I've been increasingly more impressed with the Automotive Industry's advancements and its ability to get more out of less (mostly driven by federal/national regulatory requirements).

This is a very flexible engine mated to an AWD automatic transmission and as such there really is no fixed optimal shift point. It will depend on what the vehicle needs at the time the shift is required. I got a chance to talk with Dave Coleman, at an international auto show about the dynamic power output of this particular engine (this was back in 2016) and how Mazda, had sought to create an "intelligent" powertrain - connecting engine and transmission in a more fluid way, so as to produce "optimal power on demand" as smoothly as possible. That means variability in shift points conditioned upon EPR, Torque, ES, TPS, MAS, etc., etc., etc.. Turns out that's not an easy assignment, but they did a really good job of taking the guesswork out.

You have to also remember the importance that vehicle weight will have. The CX-9 is 4,300lbs. The 6 will be in the area of 3,179lbs. That an over 1,000lb difference. So, expect a much snappier driving dynamic from the same engine mounting in the 6, no doubt. As the sprung weight comes down, Weight-Over-Torque (the way I like to think about it) goes from 13.87 to 10.25. A 3.615 drop in ratio. By my calculations (if this were as close to a stock engine drop from the CX-9 into the 6 as possible), you can expect a near 73.9% increase in 'felt' Torque - even though the actual Torque output remains the same.

So, the launch off the line in your 6 should push you back in your seat 73.9% more (felt) than the CX-9 does right now (all relevant things being equal) - just on weight reduction alone. I don't know how Mazda plans to get the power to the wheels in the 6, but I would prefer (if I were a Mazda 6 buyer) a mechanical strategy that included an AWD option or the variable FWD/AWD option the CX-9 has right now where it vectors torque to the rear when needed. I think that would be a slick option for the 6 and its new engine.
 
I've tried Manual Shifting in the Canyons. I can't even come close to Mazda's algo. I switch back to Automatic and suddenly RPMs are held precisely where I need them to negotiate corners that need my full attention. I can hear and feel the shifts, but I'm rarely paying that much attention to them going into a turn where I can't see the exit. I need to focus on the entry line, apex and the final push to the high side before exiting. One of the things missing from the HUD is a Tach. Had that in my old C5 - so getting familiar with the best shift points was easier when romping in that.

Mazda Engineers have done (IMO) an outstanding job on this little 4 banging 2.5L turbo. At over 4,000lbs, I always laugh when I'm typing "4 cylinder 2.5L turbo" into any sentence regarding the CX-9. The algo holds RPM depending on throttle position sensor and a number of other finely tuned inputs that come through the ECM. It is not a simple proposition and it involves real algorithmic engineering and design work - I'm fairly impressed. Although, over the years and having a core background in aeronautical engineering, I've been increasingly more impressed with the Automotive Industry's advancements and its ability to get more out of less (mostly driven by federal/national regulatory requirements).

This is a very flexible engine mated to an AWD automatic transmission and as such there really is no fixed optimal shift point. It will depend on what the vehicle needs at the time the shift is required. I got a chance to talk with Dave Coleman, at an international auto show about the dynamic power output of this particular engine (this was back in 2016) and how Mazda, had sought to create an "intelligent" powertrain - connecting engine and transmission in a more fluid way, so as to produce "optimal power on demand" as smoothly as possible. That means variability in shift points conditioned upon EPR, Torque, ES, TPS, MAS, etc., etc., etc.. Turns out that's not an easy assignment, but they did a really good job of taking the guesswork out.

You have to also remember the importance that vehicle weight will have. The CX-9 is 4,300lbs. The 6 will be in the area of 3,179lbs. That an over 1,000lb difference. So, expect a much snappier driving dynamic from the same engine mounting in the 6, no doubt. As the sprung weight comes down, Weight-Over-Torque (the way I like to think about it) goes from 13.87 to 10.25. A 3.615 drop in ratio. By my calculations (if this were as close to a stock engine drop from the CX-9 into the 6 as possible), you can expect a near 73.9% increase in 'felt' Torque - even though the actual Torque output remains the same.

So, the launch off the line in your 6 should push you back in your seat 73.9% more (felt) than the CX-9 does right now (all relevant things being equal) - just on weight reduction alone. I don't know how Mazda plans to get the power to the wheels in the 6, but I would prefer (if I were a Mazda 6 buyer) a mechanical strategy that included an AWD option or the variable FWD/AWD option the CX-9 has right now where it vectors torque to the rear when needed. I think that would be a slick option for the 6 and its new engine.

Excellent post - thank you for sharing. I feel like the characteristics of the 2.5 NA in the Mazda 6 is very similar to the 2.5 turbo in the heavier cx9. Mazda does indeed do a very good job of creating engines with a very usuable powerband and a well tuned transmission to take advantage of what’s available. Can’t wait to see this engine in the 6!

Anyone else have any other input?
 
I haven’t been paying much attention to the RPMs really, since this motor makes so much torque it’s easier to respond to the torque curve. Maybe I’ll go for a run up Glendora Mtn and video the tach.

I would guess my shift points are consistently below 5k though. I usually short shift from 1-2 and get a pretty good torque bump. I have a theory that hp/tq is artificially limited in 1st (just going from feel). Speed comes on very quickly just by going through the gears at moderately low rpm.

On most tight mountain roads, I tend to not need much above 3rd gear.

since I have the cx9 (8 months now) I have learnt how to drive it , its so much different than from other engines, normally aspirated and turbo engines even. the sweet spot of the engine for me is between 2.2krpm and 3.8krpm. once you manage to get the cx9 going in this range you will notice how fast and effortless speed is achieved, its even better in the highway where my wife will never notice at what speed are we because the engine feels effortless. I can remember my last suv once o were over 95 miles per hour u had to go up in the rpms to achieve speed, here its like silk and totally unnoticed .
so that's the way I use it, if driving like an old lady . 1.8krpm to 3k rpm , if driving spirited 2.2krpm to 3.8 and if hammering it never go over 5krpm its useless.

I suddenly noticed that for some reason if you select sport and then use the manual mode it even crispier. nice !
 
since I have the cx9 (8 months now) I have learnt how to drive it , its so much different than from other engines, normally aspirated and turbo engines even. the sweet spot of the engine for me is between 2.2krpm and 3.8krpm. once you manage to get the cx9 going in this range you will notice how fast and effortless speed is achieved, its even better in the highway where my wife will never notice at what speed are we because the engine feels effortless. I can remember my last suv once o were over 95 miles per hour u had to go up in the rpms to achieve speed, here its like silk and totally unnoticed .
so that's the way I use it, if driving like an old lady . 1.8krpm to 3k rpm , if driving spirited 2.2krpm to 3.8 and if hammering it never go over 5krpm its useless.

I suddenly noticed that for some reason if you select sport and then use the manual mode it even crispier. nice !

Agreed. Unless you got a single 68mm precision turbo under the hood revving past 5000rpm is a complete waste. Even if you are racing, youre still gonna go faster by short shifting. Youll feel the torque really build in the next gear.
 
Back