I hope Mazda did some real good stuff for 2017...

Why anyone is anti turbo I'll never understand.

Sent from my LG V10

I've owned two turbo cars. They are very hard on the oil, and towing with them puts a lot more stress on an engine, in my opinion. Even with intercoolers, the intake air is a lot hotter. Piston rings run hotter, and are under more pressure for longer thru the power stroke. And there's a lot more underhood temperature.

They are fun to drive, in that the torque output builds more thru the rev range (at least with my two cars), much like a two-stroke bike 'coming on the pipe'.
 
Toshiaki Mikoshiba, the new president and CEO of American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is finally steering Honda to the right direction for its car designs sold in the US. New 2017 Honda CR-V used BMW X3 as their benchmark (sorry, not Mazda CX-5) and has made big improvement to every area. 2017 CR-V got chosen by Car and Driver 10Best Award and the Best compact CUV on the market!

Comparing to new 2017 2nd-gen CX-5, 2017 5th-gen Honda CR-V has the following advantages:

  1. More LED lighting applications including harder-to-mod LED turn signals.
    BUT YOU HAVE TO STEP UP TO HIGHER TRIMS TO GET LED HEADLIGHTS AND LED FOGS ARE UNAVAILABLE AT ANY PRICE.
  2. Foot activated power liftgate.
  3. Remote start included in the factory key fob.
  4. More sophisticated keyless entry system! Locking doors by a finger sensor with no push-bottom mechanical switch; unlocking and opening the door with a nature single-action touch-and-pull to the door handle, no need to push a button like CX-5!
  5. Left dead pedal has a protective pad.
  6. 12-way power adjustable driver's seat including 4-way power lumbar support like my BMW 528i!

    UNLIKE CX-5 PASSENGER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENTS ARE UNAVAILABLE. LET'S NOT FORGET NO REAR HEATED SEATS ON CR-V. THE CX-5 WILL HAVE THEM AND HEATED STEERING WHEEL TOO!
  7. 8" infotainment screen is integrated into the center stack not like an afterthought.

    CRV's IS MOUNTED TOO LOW AND THERE'S NO HUD AVAILABLE AT ANY PRICE.
  8. Front center vents mount high.
  9. Engine coolant temperature gauge.
    IT'S IN THE NEW CONFIGURABLE RIGHT HAND DISPLAY - ALONG WITH A COMPASS THAT DOES NOT LOOK CHEAP.
  10. Full-color high-tech looking TFT display for dash instruments.

    THE BUTTONS FOR CHANGING SCREENS ARE RIDICULOUSLY TINY. THEY ARE A SAFETY HAZARD LIKE THE MANY SMALL TOUCH CONTROLS STILL FOUND IN THE NEW CRV.
  11. Available gray color interior perfect for my preferred silver exterior which makes cabin looks brighter.
  12. Highly criticized missing volume knob is back. Looks like Honda is listening!
    IT FEELS CHEAP COMPARED WITH THE CURRENT CX-5 VOLUME KNOB.
  13. Infotainment system supports both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto!

    IT'S HALF BAKED. PUT IT BACK IN THE OVEN!
  14. Garmin based Nav system supports live traffic!
    I'D RATHER HAVE TRAFFIC SIGN RECOGNITION LIKE THE NEW CX-5 HAS.
  15. Better backup camera with 3 different views including top-down view when you're pulling a trailer.
  16. Much better designed center console arm rest which can slide forward.
    IT FEELS CHEAP EVEN COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE CURRENT CX-5.
  17. Both front windows are one-touch up-down power windows with illuminated power window switch on all 4 corners.
  18. Didn't see any smoke coming out during initial start up and revved the engine in the video like that Japanese CX-5 diesel did! ;)
    G-VECTORING CONTROL- AN INNOVATION LIKE OLD HONDA USED TO PUT OUT. NEW HONDA IS NOT INNOVATIVE!
However, I may still choose new 2017 CX-5 over 2017 CR-V simply because the CR-V uses turbo and CVT! :)
We agree on one thing. There's hope!!
 
Even with all the con's with turbo engines, the day Mazda takes the next gen CX-5 and puts the CX-9s 2.5 Turbo in it I will be at the dealer with my checkbook open.....
 
Owned 3 turbo Saabs. Was a moderator at Saabcentral for a lot of years. Know quite a bit about turbos (Saabs at least). Sure, people had Turbo issues but they weren't any more common then, say carburetor issues. LOL. Saabs did use some quality turbos though and were pioneers in the field. Littler known fact: Saab came up with the idea of the wastegate.

Sent from my LG V10
 
Owned 3 turbo Saabs. Was a moderator at Saabcentral for a lot of years. Know quite a bit about turbos (Saabs at least). Sure, people had Turbo issues but they weren't any more common then, say carburetor issues. LOL. Saabs did use some quality turbos though and were pioneers in the field. Littler known fact: Saab came up with the idea of the wastegate.
Saab does have good reputation on turbo. If I really want a turbo back to old days, Saab would be my only choice. I almost got a used Saab 900 but my conscious suggested me otherwise. I wonder if you keep your motor running for a while to let turbo cool down, or you just shut the turbo engine off immediately after you stopped the car?
 
Last edited:
On a hot day after a long drive I would consciously drive the last few miles with out making the turbo work hard, but generally no special care.

Sent from my LG V10
 
Last edited:
I used to run my old '80's Mitsubishi (G62 Engine & Garrett TC06 turbo) for a few minutes after hard runs. This was straight "oil" cooled. Perhaps water-cooled doesn't require cool down? Whether it was necessary or not it was stated in the owners manual so I always did it.
 
I used to run my old '80's Mitsubishi (G62 Engine & Garrett TC06 turbo) for a few minutes after hard runs. This was straight "oil" cooled. Perhaps water-cooled doesn't require cool down? Whether it was necessary or not it was stated in the owners manual so I always did it.

Asked a friend with a 2017 wrx. He skipped the details, but told me no, no real need to idle it unless you ha e truly beat the hell out of it just a second ago.
 
Don't want to sidetrack this too much but I did just remember that the Turbo in my 99 9-3 was on its way out when I traded it in. That car started life as a rental though. I took a risk buying that.

Sent from my LG V10
 
Why anyone is anti turbo I'll never understand.

Sent from my LG V10

I've owned a small capacity turbo (1.4 turbo) and I really liked it, but I like the 2.0 NA in my CX-3 more, they had a similar power output (120hp and 204-206 NM), the turbo at 1k rpm lower than the NA.
The 2.0 NA has a more linear acceleration, it feels more relaxed and I get better mpg and is closer to factory mpg than the turbo.
When reading on different forums, reading different tests in magazines and looking at sites like spritmonitor.de the small turbo engines are generally further away from the promised mpg than the Mazda NA.
And it's not because the 1.4 turbo I had had any failures, I drove 130,000 km in it without any issues.
 
I've owned a small capacity turbo (1.4 turbo) and I really liked it, but I like the 2.0 NA in my CX-3 more, they had a similar power output (120hp and 204-206 NM), the turbo at 1k rpm lower than the NA.
The 2.0 NA has a more linear acceleration, it feels more relaxed and I get better mpg and is closer to factory mpg than the turbo.
When reading on different forums, reading different tests in magazines and looking at sites like spritmonitor.de the small turbo engines are generally further away from the promised mpg than the Mazda NA.
And it's not because the 1.4 turbo I had had any failures, I drove 130,000 km in it without any issues.

Honda seems to have fixed the issue.
 
Why anyone is anti turbo I'll never understand.

Sent from my LG V10

'Cause it requires premium gas. in our area it's always 30 to 40 cents more per gallon. I calculated yearly cost its whopping. I frankly dont see the value add for the premium I'll pay.
 
Turbo

I used to run my old '80's Mitsubishi (G62 Engine & Garrett TC06 turbo) for a few minutes after hard runs. This was straight "oil" cooled. Perhaps water-cooled doesn't require cool down? Whether it was necessary or not it was stated in the owners manual so I always did it.
That's how I remembered that all owner's manual mentioned this annoying step to shut the turbo engine off. I'd imagine owner's manual won't say anything about this precautionary step for a turbo engine nowadays?
 
Turbo

The water cooled turbo setups are made to keep fluid moving after shut down through thermal siphoning https://turbobygarrett.com/turbobyg...iles/Garrett_White_Paper_01_Water_Cooling.pdf
Nice article! So all modern turbo systems from factory, including Mazda's SkyActiv-G 2.5L Turbo and SkyActiv-D 2.2L diesel, will have water-cooled turbo charger? I know even those 1.8T of 2.0T VW turbos used up to 2008 (?) were not water cooled, hence oil sludge class-action lawsuit been filed.
 
Premium was recommended, but never required in a Saab.

Sent from my LG V10
 
I've owned a small capacity turbo (1.4 turbo) and I really liked it, but I like the 2.0 NA in my CX-3 more, they had a similar power output (120hp and 204-206 NM), the turbo at 1k rpm lower than the NA.
The 2.0 NA has a more linear acceleration, it feels more relaxed and I get better mpg and is closer to factory mpg than the turbo.
When reading on different forums, reading different tests in magazines and looking at sites like spritmonitor.de the small turbo engines are generally further away from the promised mpg than the Mazda NA.
And it's not because the 1.4 turbo I had had any failures, I drove 130,000 km in it without any issues.
I agree with all of your observations between a naturally aspirated gasoline engine and a turbo gasoline engine with similar horsepower. I still believe there's no replacement for displacement. Turbo lag has been a problem for turbo engines even on new Mazda SA-G 2.5L Turbo featuring Dynamic Pressure Turbo Technology based on some of the reviews I've read. Hence you feel more linear and relaxed acceleration on CX-3's NA SA-G 2.0L than your previous 1.4L turbo. Turbo engines generally getting worse MPG than promised (EPA ratings) is also understandable. Testing fuel economy with a turbo in a pre-determined test cycles can be programmed to make the turbo not prone to spinning, hence the vehicle acts like having a NA 1.4L with great gas mileage. But once you drive a turbo in the real world environment, you'll have to do hard accerelation many times to spin up the turbo charger for more horse power, hence more fuel to get consumed! Yeah, power is not free from a turbo engine, you have to feed more fuel to get more power!

I know each trip could be shorter in Europe, but 80,778 trouble-free miles (13,000 km) here in the US won't be considered as very reliable. At least 100,000 miles, or even 200,000 miles with no major issues then we say this car is reliable! :)
 
Turbo

Why anyone is anti turbo I'll never understand.
'Cause it requires premium gas. in our area it's always 30 to 40 cents more per gallon. I calculated yearly cost its whopping. I frankly dont see the value add for the premium I'll pay.
This is only applicable to some turbos. Obveriously our SkyActiv-G 2.5L Turbo can use regular gas but maximum horsepower suffers. On the other hand Lexus NX 235hp 2.0L turbo "requires" premium gas but you're still allowed to use regular gas in "emergency". ;)
 
I'll wait and see real-life input from drivers during 2017, when Honda introduces the 1.5 turbo and 1.0 turbo in Europe, to see how good mpg is.

Yes, because in general the real world mileage has been poor. It will be interesting to see what people get in the real world.
 
Back