Question about 2018 CX-9 2.5L "Turbo" Skyactiv engine reliability

drive

Member
:
2018 Mazda CX9
Hi, new member here. I live and work in Taiwan but from I'm US. Lots of valuable info on this site. You can skip to end about my anxiety about the new Mazda turbo engine. But first, I want to share of my experience shopping for new SUV since Jan of 2018.

I have looked at all the options of 7-seaters and semi-7 seaters as well most 5 seater SUV avail here in my budget:

*Tiguan All Space.
*Skoda Kodiak
*Hyundai Sante Fe
*Peugeot 5008
*Kia Sorrento
*Mazda CX-9
*Mitsubishi Outlander

And also a few 5-seaters just in case I find the 2 extra small seats not worth the extra cost

*Lexus NX 2.0L NA non-turbo version (yes there is such a thing).
*Honda CRV
*Toyota Rav4/Hybrid
*Subaru Outback
*Mazda CX-5
*Nissan X-Trail (Rogue)
*Audi Q2
*Peugeot 3008
*Infiniti Q30
*Ford Kuga

I kept flip-flopping between 5 and 7 seater, my thinking was, why buy a 7 seater when some of them are so cramped and with a sharp mark-up. There are others of course in my region; Audi, Volvo, Benz, BMW, Porsche, Range Rover, etc. But they were all out of my price range. Different Asian market have different luxury tax for different models. For example, cheapest Audi, Q2, cost 45K USD poverty model here - small as CX-3 but cost 10-15K more. Q7 cost around 80K to 90K USD. But my budget was 50K USD. I know you can buy Benz, Audis, Acuras, etc for that price in States, but not around here. Most 5 seaters were between 25K to 40K USD. Most 7 seater I tested around 40 to 50K usd.

I liked the 5 seater Honda CRV at first, as it is the most popular here, also US. Sunroof, AWD, all the tech you can ask for. Honda reliability. Top trim for 40K out the door. But the interior was not so upscale, my 10 yo Nissan feels more comfortable for some reason. But a friend told me that the new turbo is untested. So that kind of made me hedge.

Then I tested drove the VW All Space; nice car. Modern tech. Spiritedly diesel turbo engine. Love the top trim; all-electronic display. Apple Car/Android Auto. Only missing in our region are lane departure warning and lane assist.. but other than that, splendid SUV overall. Interior was clean, well-designed and spacious except the 3rd row, very banal and cramped. Looks like the 2 seats were an afterthought.

Then Skoda, little bro of VW. I liked the exterior of the Kodiaq better than VW even if they share mostly same parts. Skodia salesman tells me, "We are not made in Mexico, like the All Space here". Their top model comes with panorama moon roof and all the bells and whistle of All-Space except for the all-electronic cockpit. I liked how it drove and all in cost about 52K USD, about 1 or 2 K less than ALL Space but with a moon roof It cost 2K extra to add that option on the VW. At first, I adored the VW's all-electronic Odometer. Then I'm thinking, what happens few years down the line if the electronic goes bad? The car would be worthless! So Between VW or Skoda, Skoda offers top trim with split electronic and analog odometer. I liked the Skoda better for the value even they are almost same car. But both of the 3rd row is dysfunctional, barely fit children and look like someone just stuff two cheapo chairs in the back. Tho Skoda looks a little nicer.

I drove the Lexus NX. This has the nicest interior of all the SUV I've looked at. CX-9 would be very close 2nd. The exterior of NX is hit or miss. My friends love it; most think it looks the best out of all. Maybe the Peugeot 5008 get as many compliment of its handsome exterior. At first, I fell in love with the edgy, space-ship design. But the more I look at the Darth-Vadar grill, the more I hated it. Man its butt-ugly now to think about it. That wasn't the killer for me tho. All the standard safety options are avail in the lowest trim. But it doesn't have blind spot warning (don't ask me why) and cost $600 extra to add. Lane departure, assist, cruise control, auto-stop,etc, are included. Also has no ACP and AA. Was quoted 3K usd extra for their NAV. Pass! But the dealer said they will install Miracast for free - a reasonable work around. Its only FWD for the cheapest model. If I had my checkbook, I may have bought it as the total package (48K USD) was too good to pass up given whats avail around here. Its probably the most prestigious brand except for the Audi, but that Audi looks smaller and not as upscale as the NX. Until I test drove the NA engine. Man it was pretty weak. They make a turbo version here, but it cost 75K USD. It has all the excitement of my 2.0L 10 year old Nissan sedan. Bleh. Even the "Sports" mode, all I feel is the engine revving and as if I'm supposed to close my eyes? No acceleration and it is as flat and boring as the RaV I test drove. Speaking of which, they are the exact same engine. Tho the suspension is better on the NX, the performance was almost the same. I asked if salesman if that's the RaV engine. He explains to me "Why not say Rav4 got OUR ENGINE". Huh? Right... I asked him what car he drives. He tells me Mazda 6. Another Lexus salesperson tells me he drives a BMW. So.... I almost went for the look (if you ignore the grill) and the interior and the 'status' symbol of Lexus.

I also test drove the Toyota. They only offer RaV here, so no Highlander or others to compare to. I love the Toyota reliability and after market cheap parts. They are the most prevalent cars here. But like I said, the interior was a generation behind even the Koreans. I dunno what happened. Toyota used to have the best quality interior/exterior. I guess they don't want to position their Rav4 too close to Lexus. But then they are hurting themselves against their traditional competitors. Today, I would take a Santa Fe over RaV4, that would never happen 5 or 10 years ago. That's how far the Korean auto makers have come. Like I said, tho Rav 4 was cheaper, around 35K for the base to 40K for their hybrid, the ride just didn't feel as spirited and others. Tiguan, Kodiak, CX-9 all offered better rides. And its interior is what killed it for me. I told my friend, why buy the Lexus NX for 15K more? Just by the Rav4!! Feels almost exactly the same if you close your eyes. Would you pay 15K for a nicer interior?? I don't think so. At least not me.

The Peugeot had similar things I like and also I don't like. It has handsome exterior. Inside is as nice as any. Esp its iCockpit. Almost noone has that car here (My friends tell me cuz nobody wants to buy that piece of junk!). Haha, well, you know. I don't have any prejudices, I just want the best car for my money. I would have bought this car too as it cost around 50K for their middle trim. 4 cylinder diesel banger. I tested drove the 3008, 5 seater and felt the engine was very weak, despite having a turbo and has great gas mileage. The other thing that bothered me is the all electronic cock-pit. I'm already taking a chance that Peugeot has turned its reliability around. But I know nothing about its electronics. I read a few articles on the net. It was named the SUV of the year in one Euro publication. But then that same magazine had a Long-term report (or another similar one), and a new Peugeot 5008 electronic failed after few months. And the car couldn't be driven!! I'm thinking, electrical failure is as bad as engine failure if your car relies on the software and electronic to start. And given spare non-iCockpit sparts are hard to come by already for Peugeot due to very limited market here, they have like 1-2% of the market, what will happen 3 or 4 years down the line when the electronic fail?? It would take 2 or 3 months for the spare parts to come and $$$$$. I think it was the combo of the uninspiring engine and the all-electronic iCockpit that deterred me in the end. I mean if it was uninspiring on the 3008, the heavier 5008 uses same engine!?! Also, the ride was a bit stiff for me.

The Outlander was the cheapest. I may have bought this if I'm on a budget. Cuz it offers 7 seater option. It cost around 30K base. Alot cheaper than the Korean SUV and all the others. The exterior and interior was not the best but not too bad either. Middle of the ground.

I looked at the Kia and Santa Fe. SF cost 45K usd top trim. Kia 50K. Kia had no car and a waiting list. They do have 2017 model, but I'm looking for 2018 model. At first I didn't like the Kia's look, I guess taste is subjective. Reminds me of a toy. I dunno, maybe I'm still biased against Korean cars. But I made an effort to like it. The Sante Fe was nice tho. The interior was probably nicer than average. I like the exterior better than Sorrento. Tho Sorrento has a nicer interior. At any case, too many around here have SF, but that's not the reason I didn't pick it, if it offered a better car, I didn't care what others drive, I want the best driving experience for me. It was hard too, many magazines name SF/Sorrento as CotY or SUV of the year. They get top marks for their warranty and reliability. 7 years, etc. that's twice what most are offering here. But is that the reason to pick a SUV? Many tell me they need to offer that to attract customers. Toyota is 3 years here, even tho they are the most reliable car maker the world over. Tho, warranty matters, if given the choice, it shouldn't be the deciding factor. Of course, if two cars are similar overall, better warranty should take the win. I just don't think SF and Sorrento was the best car overall. Value wise, they are as expensive as VW and Skoda here. Sure it is still a little cheaper, but maybe 2 to 3K difference. I dunno, if I didn't have such bad perception of Kia and Hyundai when I was growing up in the states, where they are often the butt of jokes, like Fiats and Pintos, I may have went with the SF as it is cheaper and looks better than Kia. It has all the tech I ever want. Even the CX-9 doesn't come with all the features at its top trim here.

The Subaru was nice. 45K all-in for their top trim with EyeSight. Very spacious and I'm sure the best 4x4 here. You will never get stuck in the wild. Except there isn't much wilderness here. Lots of mountain climbing but I do that once a year tops. And most of the SUVs should handle mountains. Probably, it is as reliable as the Lexus/Toyota, Honda. It handles great and fun to drive and a lot of space! But its a 5 seater. Would have been my choice for 5 seater - I prefer it to Rav4, NX (too expensive) and even CX-5. But alas, in the end, I wanted a 7 seater because the price and 5 and 7 seater isn't too much, often 3K to 5K usd difference, but you usually get a bigger car with better standard options. If they sold a Subaru 7 seater here, I think I would have bought that instead. Subaru has been making great 4x4 since anyone can remember. I don't think the Koreans can match it, despite all the progress lately.

Audi Q2, Infiniti Q30, etc, just too small for my needs. If I were to buy a compact SUV, it would be Q2 I think. But just too expensive for a compact when CX-3, Ford Kuga cost much less (yes I looked at it - for about 5 min - and didn't even want a test drive (looks funny and interior is bland, this would be last 2 SUV I will consider, next to Luxgen).

Then there is X-Trail. Again 5 seater. Just nothing really stands out inside/outside except for the price. Given other options, I didn't really spend more than 20 min in the showroom, looking over the SUV and discussing all the options and price. In my mind, I had at least 4 or 5 SUV I would consider before this car. But value wise, it is pretty good, cheaper than SF but not as cheap as Outlander.

Finally CX-9. I actually test drove this SUV 3 times. Only 1 at most for all the other SUVs. The exterior was top 3 in looks, def better than All-Space; but sometimes I like the elegance alot, other times I can see its grill is a bit too Darth Vadar, tho not as bad a NX, for my taste. But I was immediately impressed by the luxurious interior. At least in the price range I was looking at. Only Lexus NX can match and edge it if you pay attention to finer NX details. Peugeot offers only cloth seating at the price I was willing to pay. So as nice as it was, leather is leather, tho I do like the space-age ambiance in the Peugeot 5008. So interior was between NX, CX-9 and maybe you can even argue Kodiaq and All-Space has that functional, modern interior, rather than the posh luxury style which may work for some and not others. Subaru and SF, Sorrento are very nice too with their leather trim. But I just don't find it as nice as the Mazda and NX. There are no bad interiors at the top trim, it may come down to preference. But I have to say, it was the interior of CX9 that attracted me first. The 2nd and foremost, is the way it drives and handles. Zoom-Zoom is right. If you love driving, this car is the most fun to drive out of all I've tested. It handles great, noise level is very low; maybe one of the lowest. NX is low also. If NX had a nicer engine, I may not have went back to CX9. I had to test the car one more time because you know, many friends here tell me Mazda is unreliable, don't buy Mazda. But in US, I have also many car enthusiasts swear by their Mazdas. Its not like Fiat, Hyundai, Ford, where it is almost universally hated, lol. So it was 50/50. Some days I read bad turbo on CX-7 (Ford-Mazda) era, and it made me put CX9 in the back burner. Then I found out it doesn't offer ACP/AA or even anyway to mirror your smartphone without spending $$$ on aftermarket 3rd party and voiding the warranty. So I almost cross out CX9 - the unknown turbo reliability of Mazda (its last one was a disaster - so I heard), and these out-dated infotainment system. Even my 10 year old sedan has a way for me to mirror my smartphone. And they are asking $48K for the base model. And 57K for their top trim without AWD - that will cost 5K usd more. But their base model comes with almost all standard safety features others lack. Lane departure/Lane assist; Cruise control; adaptive cruising, emergency stop; blind spot; front/rear parking sensor. But their rear camera parking is dinosaur, compared to what VW offers. But their 3rd row is most comfortable of all the ones I've tested. Yes, 100% true. I'm 5'11, 200 lbs, and I have no problem sitting back there. I'm sure other bigger SUV offers more space, but they don't offer those SUV here. Pilot/Highlander/GMCs, nope. But I don't get all the complaints about 3rd row. Have they sat in the 3rd row of All-Space? Kodiak and others? They are small in comparison to CX9. Tho, inside, CX9 feels smaller than other 3rd row SUV, maybe not as wide or as much ceiling space, but for sitting, it was the most comfortable SUV out of all the one I've sat in. The driving/performance is the best one. Followed by Kodiaq and ALL-Space (turbo diesel). But the dealer said they will throw in NAV for free. And I tried the bluetooth for an hour and it works seemlessly with my smartphone. It suppose to read your SMS and text also. You can also use your voice to navigate the infotainment. I know its no AA or ACP, but 99% of the time, I use it only for map and listening to music. It is very dangerous to watch movies and being distracted by chatting when driving. So I kind of understand why they did that. Tho the NAV system they gave was not as good as Google Map, I guess you can't have everything. I needed at least a functioning map so I don't always have to hook up my smartphone. Sometimes low bat and it takes time to hook up the AA. If I really need Google Map, I will use my smartphone as a backup to my Mazda Nav, 2 system is better than one, I suppose. I really wish tho, Mazda would put in AA and ACP, as I do want to watch movies on the 8" when I'm parked in my car. The Bose speaker was nice, but as many have said, the bass can be overbearing, but its nicer than most stereo system offered in this price range. I can't complain.

In the end I still have uncertainty about the Turbo in the 2.5L Skyactiv; I know the NA version is well tested and very reliable, but is a gamble. If you went by their last turbo, you would be scared to take a chance on the new Japanese only Mazda. But I know the last turbo was technically a Ford. Still, does anyone know how this turbo may do? Any educated guess? What is typical turbo engine reliability if you take care of it? How do they compare to non-turbos? Do they make the engine stronger for turbo? My non-turbo Nissan sedan has 250K miles and replaced generator once, radiator another time (that my fault because I kept driving it for another 100 miles when engine light was on) but all in all it was a good engine/transmission and caused me very few problems. Never had to repair or rebuilt neither. I'm thinking given Mazda have been making performance cars for a long time and they do have some pedigree, for better or worse, I decided to go with my heart and put a deposit on the CX9. They still have to make it, but it will be delivered May. The deposit is 1500 usd, so I still don't have to buy it. They only offer 3 trims here. I opted for the 57K "Grand Touring" or maybe its the Signature model without Napa leather and AWD. Its probably more than what I wanted to pay as I'm thinking you can almost buy 2 Tucsons or Kugas here for that price. But given other 7 seater options, not a lot is avail around 50K to 55K range with the options I want. In the end, I'm getting some tax credit back from my company and they will give me allowance to pay part of it. So, price isn't as important for me as for others. If it 100% came out of my pocket, I may not have purchased the CX9 unless I really need a 7 seater. But if I have 50K to 60K USD to spend on a car, I would say CX9 would be my top 3, if not top car in this region. Not sure what I would choose out of the list of 7 seater if I decided not to get CX9. Maybe the Kodiak or SF. Now if you give me 80 to 100K budget, of course I probably wouldn't choose CX9. But then I never looked at all the more expensive ones as I can't afford them anyways.
 
Last edited:
I think you'll find that most people chose the CX-9 for many of the reasons you listed - some luxury, some sportiness, some utility, and some tech all rolled into a nice looking package that is priced pretty well. I think it beats out the competition in handling for sure, but there is some give and take when it comes to comparing what is available in the competition. For me, the CX-9 was the clear winner when comparing to other models.

With the engine and turbo configuration researched, designed and tested by Mazda, I think it will fare better than the turbo from the Ford-Mazda era. The engine in the CX-9 is just a turbocharged SkyActiv-G 2.5 engine, which has been used in the Mazda 6 and the CX-5 since 2013, and in the Mazda 3 since 2014. IMO, I think their engines will only get better.
 
Why is it that every time there is a problem with a Mazda engine, it was Ford's fault? This meme is ridiculous. If I were to believe what I read on this forum, Mazda designed every 4 cylinder engine used by Ford/Mazda, and maybe even the V6's, and Ford just slapped their name on them. Is Ford's supposed ineptitude so great that they caused Mazda's engineers to screw up just by being under the same corporate umbrella? Unreal....

Anyway, the CX-9's engine has been out for 2 full model years now and is now into the third, and there haven't been any big threads on this forum about engines exploding, so initial signs are good. The new Mazda engines don't share much of anything with the previous MZR (fortunately). Plus, I think it is pretty clear where the weak points were on that engine, so Mazda knew what to fix...

However, it took a few years for the weak points of the 3.5/3.7L V6 in the previous generation to become clear. Similarly, the turbo MZR didn't start showing issues until people got some miles on them.
 
I put 202,000 miles on my '96 Volvo 850 turbo. It was running strong when I sold it. No engine problems ever.

I expect the Mazda turbocharged engine to be good. The auto makers have learned a lot about turbochargers since they began using them. If you have any concerns, use synthetic oil. It's not required, but it might extend the turbocharger's life, and might also help you sleep at night without this concern.
 
I Agree with Jal142. People don't want to accept the fact that it was a mazda designed engine. It's like when they build a house. The architect designs it and the builder constructs it based on the architects design. The builder doesn't know if it is a good design that will last or a piece of garbage that will need repairs in the future. Mazda designed it and ford just builds them based on that design. I love my mazda just not the problems with the transfer case and water pump. I would like to ask a question to any 2nd gen owner here. Why is the repair estimate for the water pump replacement the same as with the first gen if it supposedly has an external water pump? Has anyone dug down that deep yet to see if it really is external? I would like to see some pictures of this. That engine bay still looks as crammed as the first gen.
 
Why is it that every time there is a problem with a Mazda engine, it was Ford's fault? This meme is ridiculous. If I were to believe what I read on this forum, Mazda designed every 4 cylinder engine used by Ford/Mazda, and maybe even the V6's, and Ford just slapped their name on them. Is Ford's supposed ineptitude so great that they caused Mazda's engineers to screw up just by being under the same corporate umbrella? Unreal....

My mistake, I was under the impression that because Ford had a controlling interest in Mazda, they had some hand in the design/manufacturing of Mazda's vehicles. I know now that this is not the case.

I Agree with Jal142. People don't want to accept the fact that it was a mazda designed engine. It's like when they build a house. The architect designs it and the builder constructs it based on the architects design. The builder doesn't know if it is a good design that will last or a piece of garbage that will need repairs in the future. Mazda designed it and ford just builds them based on that design. I love my mazda just not the problems with the transfer case and water pump. I would like to ask a question to any 2nd gen owner here. Why is the repair estimate for the water pump replacement the same as with the first gen if it supposedly has an external water pump? Has anyone dug down that deep yet to see if it really is external? I would like to see some pictures of this. That engine bay still looks as crammed as the first gen.

You make a good point, but it can also go the other way. IE the architect has a perfect design and the builder doesn't execute it properly. The architect doesn't know if they builders constructed it to their specs or cut corners.

Why would a CX-9 owner know anything about why Mazda prices out a service repair at the cost that they do? Shouldn't that be a question for a Mazda service tech, or even a Mazda parts rep? (uhm)
 
Well that estimate is for the non dealer who works on the car. If you go to the dealer trust me it will be a lot more. They call all of their services skyactiv service. So even if you have a first or second gen cx-9 you will be billed according to their new skyactiv prices. Example a skyactiv brake flush is now 200 where I used to pay the dealer only 89.
 
I think you'll find that most people chose the CX-9 for many of the reasons you listed - some luxury, some sportiness, some utility, and some tech all rolled into a nice looking package that is priced pretty well. I think it beats out the competition in handling for sure, but there is some give and take when it comes to comparing what is available in the competition. For me, the CX-9 was the clear winner when comparing to other models.

With the engine and turbo configuration researched, designed and tested by Mazda, I think it will fare better than the turbo from the Ford-Mazda era. The engine in the CX-9 is just a turbocharged SkyActiv-G 2.5 engine, which has been used in the Mazda 6 and the CX-5 since 2013, and in the Mazda 3 since 2014. IMO, I think their engines will only get better.

If its same exact engine and they did not built extra strength into the relevant parts to accommodate the new turbo, then it may not last as long as the NA 2.5. Anyways, I'm pretty sure I will go thru with the purchase as there aren't many better choices until 2019 and above all, I would lose my $1500 deposit.

Right now, I would have gone for the Subaru Outback or Rav4 Hybrid (but too dated design) if I was looking for 5 seater. Lexus NX cost 50 grand and it is just a glorified Rav4 (costing 15 grand less), sharing same NA engine. I would not have considered the Mazda CX-5 cuz too much competition at the 5 seater segment. But the 7 seater is what I wanted because of the extra room it offers. I do need it for my work sometimes, driving workers and clients around. It really comes in handy. We don't have Highlander; 4Runner; No Pilot; No GMC, No Chrysler SUVs to compare to. Only Toyota we have is the Rav4 5 seater. Then the 2 Korean brands Hyundai and Kia. No Acura. Only Ford is toy-like Kuga. VW only has All Space Tiguan and Skoda has the Kodiaq. I wish there was Atlas to compare to. Only Nissan are Rogue (XTrail) and Murano but Murano cost almost $70 grand here and thats base model! Only Honda SUV we have here is CR-V 5 seater. Lexus, Volvo, BMW, Benz, Porsche, Audi, Range Rover all offer 7 seaters but all cost 80 to 120+ grand. Unbelievable prices here.

So out of that 7-seater pool of 35-50K USD SUVs (VW All Space; Kodiaq; Outlander; Sante Fe; Peugeot 5008; Sorento) , CX-9 was the most expensive at base trim, so naturally, it should look the best and it does. Almost all the other SUV top TRIM final price is similar to CX-9's starting base price; so if my company wasn't helping me cover the difference and I had to pay for it 100%, I would not have bought the CX-9 because value wise, it was not the best deal out of these choices. If 100% came out of my pocket and I was looking for 7 seater, it would have been Sante Fe or Kodiaq as these two offer middle trims that I can live with at savings of about 5K to 10K less than the base model of CX-9 which starts around $49 grand.

Maybe I'm just overly concern, I didn't buy the car yet, so still playing devils advocate. Silver lining is that I heard they are suppose to offer ACP and AA later this year as an add on or mod for the Mazda Connect. I know my 2018 CX-9model doesn't get it until 2019. But I will probably hang a tablet next to the 8" screen if its not too cumbersome.
 
Last edited:
Why is it that every time there is a problem with a Mazda engine, it was Ford's fault? This meme is ridiculous. If I were to believe what I read on this forum, Mazda designed every 4 cylinder engine used by Ford/Mazda, and maybe even the V6's, and Ford just slapped their name on them. Is Ford's supposed ineptitude so great that they caused Mazda's engineers to screw up just by being under the same corporate umbrella? Unreal....

Anyway, the CX-9's engine has been out for 2 full model years now and is now into the third, and there haven't been any big threads on this forum about engines exploding, so initial signs are good. The new Mazda engines don't share much of anything with the previous MZR (fortunately). Plus, I think it is pretty clear where the weak points were on that engine, so Mazda knew what to fix...

However, it took a few years for the weak points of the 3.5/3.7L V6 in the previous generation to become clear. Similarly, the turbo MZR didn't start showing issues until people got some miles on them.

Yea, that's what I don't get. I'm sure Ford bought into Mazda for their Japanese powertrain reliability, not for their design, so it would make sense they would want them to design the engine and powertrain. Like I said in another thread, Mazda would have taken credit for it if the CX-7 turbo was a success, so sounds like run-around excuses. But hopefully, they did learn something from it and improved on the weak spots. I have friends who swears by Mazda (rotary engine especially); the Mazda CX-3 is one of most reliable cars that I've heard of; it is just there are bad years and bad models that Mazda make and that's why it doesn't have the reliability reputation of Honda, Toyota and Lexus. So this CX 9 can go either way, or somewhere in middle of pack. WHo knows, its not same feeling as I had when considering buying a Lexus NX or Rav4 or even Honda. It's just a question mark. A gamble and hopefully, all turbos nowadays should last long time as it has come a long way.
 
I put 202,000 miles on my '96 Volvo 850 turbo. It was running strong when I sold it. No engine problems ever.

I expect the Mazda turbocharged engine to be good. The auto makers have learned a lot about turbochargers since they began using them. If you have any concerns, use synthetic oil. It's not required, but it might extend the turbocharger's life, and might also help you sleep at night without this concern.

That's good to hear; I've heard Volvo had some bad model years, even their turbos. But that's all I ask for, about 200K worry free engine/powertrain miles... Hopefully, the good Mazda engineering shows up in this iteration of CX-9.
 
Well that estimate is for the non dealer who works on the car. If you go to the dealer trust me it will be a lot more. They call all of their services skyactiv service. So even if you have a first or second gen cx-9 you will be billed according to their new skyactiv prices. Example a skyactiv brake flush is now 200 where I used to pay the dealer only 89.

Well, in that case, as soon as the warranty expires here (3 years), I'm NOT going to Mazda dealership for any services. When I bought my Nissan, I never once went to their service center as I paid cash for it. I did most of oil change myself and the local auto shops usually cost 30 to 40% less for same service than Nissan. The CX9 is on finance, so....
 
Well that estimate is for the non dealer who works on the car. If you go to the dealer trust me it will be a lot more. They call all of their services skyactiv service. So even if you have a first or second gen cx-9 you will be billed according to their new skyactiv prices. Example a skyactiv brake flush is now 200 where I used to pay the dealer only 89.

This is my first Mazda, so I have no idea what the costs used to be and what they are now. I guess I'll find out when/if the time comes. I haven't had to pay for a major service since I started driving, but this may be one car that I keep long enough to perform a major scheduled service on.
 
The engine in the CX-9 is just a turbocharged SkyActiv-G 2.5 engine, which has been used in the Mazda 6 and the CX-5 since 2013, and in the Mazda 3 since 2014.

Does anyone know at what RPM the turbo begins to engage and spool? As I have read thru various threads here and have not found any discussion about that. (Back when the original CX-7s came out, it seemed to be a commonly known fact that the turbo only started to kick in at 2,500 RPM. I have always maintained awareness of that over the past 12 years when staying mindful of controlling gas mileage.)
 
One would need a turbo boost gauge that shows both vacuum and pressure to know what the turbocharger is doing at any time (my Volvo had one). Our engines are tuned for a very smooth application of power, so there isn't the surge that older turbo engines exhibited. There isn't any "engage and spool." It is just the gas turbine section spinning the air compressor section smoothly faster & faster to supply more air to the engine. That is controllable as part of the design process. The turbo rotor is always free spinning. Nothing controls how it spins except the volume & heat of the hot exhaust gas and the resistance of the compressor pumping air into the engine.
 
Does anyone know at what RPM the turbo begins to engage and spool? As I have read thru various threads here and have not found any discussion about that. (Back when the original CX-7s came out, it seemed to be a commonly known fact that the turbo only started to kick in at 2,500 RPM. I have always maintained awareness of that over the past 12 years when staying mindful of controlling gas mileage.)

Here's a pretty good explanation from CorkSport:

https://corksport.com/blog/mazdas-dynamic-pressure-turbo-a-closer-look/

I paraphrased some of the article here:

"Basically, there is a "vane" that rotates (or open/closes) depending on engine RPM to control the exhaust gas velocity entering the turbine housing. The vane itself is controlled by an actuator.

The vane does not open until approximately 1600rpm, but the engine could not run if no exhaust gas can flow out of the engine. To resolve this, Mazda has designed the dynamic pressure system with two exhaust gas paths. When the vane is closed, exhaust gases pass through the smaller path. This is the sub-1600rpm exhaust gas path.

By reducing the area of the exhaust gas path (i.e. forcing gases through the smaller opening, like putting your thumb over the outlet of a garden hose), the exhaust is forced to accelerate through the dynamic pressure system and into the turbine wheel. This effectively reduces turbo lag, improving the vehicle*s response at low engine RPM. Once the engine revs past 1600rpm, the vane opens, allowing the larger path to be used."


It's just like PTguy said. The difference between this turbo and a conventional one are that the exhaust gases are forced into the turbo at a "faster" pace. This means that pretty much as soon as you apply throttle, the turbo begins to spin, which is why you don't really feel it "kick in" like other turbocharged cars.
 
Our engines are tuned for a very smooth application of power, so there isn't the surge that older turbo engines exhibited. There isn't any "engage and spool." It is just the gas turbine section spinning the air compressor section smoothly faster & faster to supply more air to the engine...



Thanks for great responses, and terrific link too.
 
Back