All about CX-5 longevity

[bxpretzel]

I also use exclusively Mazda Moly oil. Never put anything else in. Zero oil consumption. Only at 15 months and 12k miles though.

I'll never understand why dealers do what OP described. The service manager at the dealer I bought my car from back in Alexandria, VA (Brown's Alexandria Mazda) tried to get me to put conventional oil in it when I brought in a free oil change coupon. When I asked him why he would put conventional in a car who's manual calls for a synthetic weight oil, he could not answer me. I left.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

I also use exclusively Mazda Moly oil. Never put anything else in. Zero oil consumption. Only at 15 months and 12k miles though.

I'll never understand why dealers do what OP described. The service manager at the dealer I bought my car from back in Alexandria, VA (Brown's Alexandria Mazda) tried to get me to put conventional oil in it when I brought in a free oil change coupon. When I asked him why he would put conventional in a car who's manual calls for a synthetic weight oil, he could not answer me. I left.

I guess we will know in the years ahead if the Moly was worth it. I'm willing to take the risk as I plan to keep the CX-5 for at least 10 years. The Moly is actually a savings for me as the Amsoil products I intended to use were going to cost more.

 

[madar]

I'd like to clear up a few things here. There's far too much fuzzy thinking going on and we are not even dealing with difficult concepts.



Not at all. Whistle-blowing is great for bringing things out in the open. I think everyone here probably agrees with that.

The issue I raised was surprise that an employee would publicly admit that his employer, an authorized Mazda dealer;
1) regularly used non-synthetic oil in a North American 2013 CX-5.
2) "accidentally" filled the same vehicle with a non-approved oil (5W-30) and decided to leave it in for 3,000 miles.

There is no non-synthetic oil that meets the required GF-5 specification, synthetic blend, yes, non-synthetic, no. And the synthetic blends tend to cost almost as much as the full synthetics. To be clear, if there was a non-synthetic oil that meets the GF-5 spec, I'll retract my statement on that limited issue. It's still not an excuse for a Mazda dealership to use a non-approved viscosity like 5W-30.

Whistle-blowing is fine as long as you don't care for your job. But if I had over a million dollars invested in this particular Mazda dealership, I probably wouldn't be too big of a fan of my employees deciding they are whistle-blowers.



More fuzzy thinking. Because it's a very big deal if a Mazda dealer uses motor oil that does not meet the minimum required specs. Forget about European Skyactiv specs because we are talking about a 2013 North American CX-5 2.0L engine. The owners manual tells you which oils are acceptable. To maintain warranty coverage the oil must meet Mazda's specification and Mazda dealers are required to adhere to this. It doesn't need to be Mazda branded oil but it does need to meet the specs. From the 2.0L NA CX-5 manual (USA and Canada):



There is nothing nebulous about that. Sure, 5W-30 is the approved oil for Mexico, that is irrelevant to Calgary.



From Mazda's perspective and warranty coverage it doesn't matter what brand it is, as long as it meets the viscosity and API/ILSAC GF-5 specifications, it's fine. It makes no sense for you to be brand picky on one hand and then, on the other hand say it's not going to hurt anything to use 5W-30 which doesn't meet Mazda's required specs.

Pennzoil conventional beats the GF-5 spec. Used to use it all the time...
http://www.pennzoil.com/motor-oil/pennzoil-conventional/#Specifications
As well as Mobile 1 conventional...
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-super/mobil-super
Interestingly enough, the owners manual does not specify a GF-5 rating, simply calls out an ILSAC stamp, which can be anything from GF-1 to the up coming GF-6, though I would not recommend anything lower than GF-5, if such a lower rating even exists anymore, especially for a 0w-20 oil.

 

[MikeM.]

Pennzoil conventional beats the GF-5 spec. Used to use it all the time...
http://www.pennzoil.com/motor-oil/pennzoil-conventional/#Specifications

Madar, why are you wasting our time with complete nonsense?
Look at my post above. It contains all the relevant info about the oil requirements for the motor in question. The oil Must Be 0W-20 and the Pennzoil conventional does not come in an approved grade. This is according to my Owner's Manual (I own the same make/model) and it says the exact same thing in the online OM for this vehicle.

As well as Mobile 1 conventional...
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-super/mobil-super

Same story, Mobil 1 conventional are not available in an approved grade. You should read the thread more carefully before wasting our time. What is it that you don't understand about this simple concept?

Interestingly enough, the owners manual does not specify a GF-5 rating, simply calls out an ILSAC stamp, which can be anything from GF-1 to the up coming GF-6, though I would not recommend anything lower than GF-5, if such a lower rating even exists anymore, especially for a 0w-20 oil.

False. Read my earlier post. Oil that meets Mazda's minimum acceptable spec for this engine must be labled ILSAC GF-5.

No wonder I see so many idiots driving around in late model cars leaving a trail of oil burning smoke. Apparently it's quite a challenge to pour the correct oil in the filler hole. I always wondered about that.

 

[madar]

Madar, why are you wasting our time with complete nonsense?
Look at my post above. It contains all the relevant info about the oil requirements for the motor in question. The oil Must Be 0W-20 and the Pennzoil conventional does not come in an approved grade. This is according to my Owner's Manual (I own the same make/model) and it says the exact same thing in the online OM for this vehicle.



Same story, Mobil 1 conventional are not available in an approved grade. You should read the thread more carefully before wasting our time. What is it that you don't understand about this simple concept?



False. Read my earlier post. Oil that meets Mazda's minimum acceptable spec for this engine must be labled ILSAC GF-5.

No wonder I see so many idiots driving around in late model cars leaving a trail of oil burning smoke. Apparently it's quite a challenge to pour the correct oil in the filler hole. I always wondered about that.

Just trying to help clear up the fuzzy thinking. You said there is NO GF-5 non-synthetic, which is in itself complete nonsense, some people ARE using the 5w-30. 0W-20 is specified for the USA.
This forum is NOT exclusive to the USA.
What's false about my statement about the GF-5 not being in the manual? It's not in there dude. Just making an observation. Read the post through before you fire off a reply. Has nothing to do with the labeling!

 

[MikeM.]

Just trying to help clear up the fuzzy thinking. You said there is NO GF-5 non-synthetic, which is in itself complete nonsense, some people ARE using the 5w-30. 0W-20 is specified for the USA.
This forum is NOT exclusive to the USA.

My comments were specific to the car in question which is a North American (Canadian) model. There is no non-synthetic 0W-20 that meets the GF-5 spec. Mazda requires 0W-20 oil that meets the GF-5 spec. Nothing fuzzy about that.

What's false about my statement about the GF-5 not being in the manual? It's not in there dude.

If you have a North American 2013 CX-5 2.0L it is there. It's the manufacturers requirement. I'm not going to waste my time checking other markets and other engine models because they are irrelevant to the vehicle under discussion.

 

[pt00323i]

3yrs 50k check in here

-no issues no oil consumption
-oem yoko geo tires still got tread
-self installed leather seats holding up well
-brakes pads still good
-fuelie average 32...
-all this on h&r springs and light wheels

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

3yrs 50k check in here

-no issues no oil consumption
-oem yoko geo tires still got tread
-self installed leather seats holding up well
-brakes pads still good
-fuelie average 32...
-all this on h&r springs and light wheels

Ready for a tune?

 

[xtrailman]

Its only a car, if it does use some oil so what.
I've had engines that burn oil and some that don't, provided they don't use too much, or break down what's the problem.

I'd be interested in the state of the exhaust pipe on the OP's car myself, mine and others in the UK have commented on the large amount of surface rust on our cars, much more than on previous modern cars.

 

[MikeM.]

Its only a car, if it does use some oil so what.
I've had engines that burn oil and some that don't, provided they don't use too much, or break down what's the problem.

I agree that a bit of oil consumption is not a big deal. However, what would concern me in this case is the increase of oil consumption at such a modest mileage figure (it only has 60,000 miles). This kind of accelerated wear could be indicative of the type of oil used coupled with the commercial duty service it's been in. Delivery and shuttle work requires a lot of starting/stopping as well as idling. A fully synthetic oil with fast flow at startup and good cling properties might have avoided the wear that the extra oil consumption is indicative of.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

I can mentally deal with a small amount of consumption at 100K miles but I would be uncomfortable dealing with it at 60K miles.

In the years ahead we will see if the moly was worth it. Like I said in another thread...cheaper than my Amsoil so not seeing cons in my little world.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

I'm curious how well the moly will perform when run through a turbo.

 

[MikeM.]

I'm curious how well the moly will perform when run through a turbo.

Molybdenum has high thermal conductivity and is good at dealing with extreme heat so that's a benefit, not a problem. All GF-4 and GF-5 oils have passed extreme temperature tests so any of them should be fine. I would be more worried about the engineering design of the interface between the CX-5 motor and turbo. The oiling system of the CX-5 is very advanced and non-traditional. Anyone who taps into it to feed a turbo had better know exactly what they are doing.

I don't see the risks of a turbo as being worth the potential benefits (unless you are just the type of person who likes unexpected expenditures and issues in their life). In fact, that the CX-5 achieved it's performance without a turbo was a major plus in my purchase decision.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Molybdenum has high thermal conductivity and is good at dealing with extreme heat so that's a benefit, not a problem. All GF-4 and GF-5 oils have passed extreme temperature tests so any of them should be fine. I would be more worried about the engineering design of the interface between the CX-5 motor and turbo. The oiling system of the CX-5 is very advanced and non-traditional. Anyone who taps into it to feed a turbo had better know exactly what they are doing.

I don't see the risks of a turbo as being worth the potential benefits (unless you are just the type of person who likes unexpected expenditures and issues in their life). In fact, that the CX-5 achieved it's performance without a turbo was a major plus in my purchase decision.

I wouldn't call any issue that pops up with an aftermarket project (especially boost) unexpected; unless you just paid someone else to do it and have no interested in maintaining it yourself. You already know whatever happens will be out of pocket, which is part of the incentive to make sure the system is well maintained. What's unexpected is when you have issues with your stock vehicle/parts that end up costing you out of pocket. And then you see someone posting how x went out just after the warranty expired, or this part wore out and I only have xxxx miles and I have to replace it already. Most owners don't do their own maintenance and expect the car to run well and do so even after the warranty is out (which is typically the case). So of course anything otherwise is an issue. A turbo in itself isn't a big risk when it's properly plumbed and tuned; boost levels appropriate for the motor, properly set wastegate and bov, fuel management (boost tune and/or injectors) and of course a turbo found to be in good working condition and fully oiled/cooled so it won't lose a part into the air stream.. Skimping on those points are the common reasons people end up with damage from boosted applications. Little crap like a boost leak or exhaust leak is more of an annoyance than a potential damage.

 

[buyingconstant7]

Okay let's clear something up here.

You bet your there is such thing as 0W20 non-synthetic oil! And you can bet your ass it is Mazda certified! We don't use cheap oil since we get constant shipments of oil drums to our dealer specifically for Skyactiv cars. It's not like we call up AutoValue(AutoZone in US?) and ask for the cheapest crap on their shelf...And we use this for all our 2.0L and 2.5L Skyactiv cars, unless requested otherwise by the customer(the 5,000mile/8,000km interval doesn't change either way). I verified with all of our techs, 4 of which are master techs, who've worked at Mazda for at least a decade, that this is the correct oil and is NOT synthetic and is the right type, though I did look like an idiot asking.

I sure as hell value my job and love being a service writer but pity the fool who thinks my job is at risk by posting this. My service manager tells customers about common dealer screw ups and even show examples of how our particular dealer has made a mistake. What I'm saying is, he's not afraid of telling people the truth, and I am doing the same. I am telling the Mazda forum of how our shuttle has held up. I know theres a lot of people who want to know how these cars really held up, so I decided to take to the forums, which now I'm regretting. Who knows? Maybe the 2.0L we have is a lemon, because it is quite radical how much oil it consumes. Customer cars do burn oil, but not nearly as much as ours, I should've added, or the 2.3 turbos of course.

And why are you throwing s*** at the fan at the fact that our new lube guy put the wrong oil in?(If I recall correctly, it is 5W-30 and it was for CX-9's with the 3.7's). Honest to all that's holy! As soon as he put the shuttle back on the road, he came up to me and told me what he did. I told one of the techs and they recommended putting it on a short interval, and that's what we did. No harm was done. That was at 30,000km.

I try to get this CX-5 maintained like a customer car(trust me, it's not easy). My service manager, though a very honest man, is a penny pincher when it comes to his service vehicles. I did say before, we do air filters every 30k or so. I looked at the records and apparently it's only gotten 2 air filters in it's lifetime, even though I have requested it every recommended interval, so I was mistaken at that. It's coming up on another oil change on Tuesday, and it's getting a very big inspection, so maybe the oil burning isn't happening, maybe its a leak, but it hasn't been caught before but I'll see Tuesday.

And judging by how you and other people have responded, I'm fairly glad I don't own a Mazda. Owning my Volkswagen has made me appreciate the people on the forums, and come to think of it, I've never had an issue with anyone, even in a controversial topic, which this should not be!

 

[buyingconstant7]

First: Get that thing tuned
Second: I drive my (tuned since 500mi, now 31000) 2.5 to redline/rev limiter (which is higher for me), wot shifting, whipping around corners, not really hard on the brakes, but plenty of high speed braking and the occasional e brake tap, change my own oil every 7-10000 mi aftermarket intake and exhaust; no issues with it so I wouldn't be worried about the mechanical with regular maintenance. I use the OEM mazda oil.

I don't think tuning our customer shuttle would go over very well with corporate or the store owners. But hey, maybe we can do that to our manager demo units!

 

[buyingconstant7]

My thoughts exactly. If there is such a thing, it's not on the shelves of typical retailers.

Toyota and Honda are the same. I called them back in June as we were going to do a few oil changes for some of our used cars, and they said they use 0W20 non-synthetic. Maybe it's only available to dealers? I don't know. I just know there is such a thing as we definitely use it!

 

[buyingconstant7]

(trolls)

All to often it's the new forum member that comes on here and within the first five posts they are claiming something about the CX5 that just doesn't fit the mold that is the norm here.

Now if you are legitimate than you have already admitted that the dealer that you work for (and are throwing under the bus) has screwed up the oil type and has not serviced this vehicle correctly. With this being admitted by you it tells me that this particular CX5 is likely burning oil because your service dept incorrectly services it.

This is when it's great to have forum members like MikeM almost moderating this forum because they very easily point out your inconsistency in your story and expose you and so I conclude that you have failed to prove yourself or your story as nothing more than to likely be a lie

Oh excuse me....

I don't need to provide any evidence to you that I'm "legitimate" and that I actually do work for Mazda. And by the way, did you not see the pictures I attached? I guess if I was some random customer walking into a Mazda dealer, they'd let me into their shop, take a picture of their shuttle vehicle and start it up? Right.....

And how am I not fitting "the mold"? I guess being slightly critical for the Mazda brand doesn't go over well here to all the brands butt kissers...

How am I throwing my dealer under the bus? By being honest that we made a simple mistake and rectified it? Alright then...

We try to service it correctly, I am the one in charge of making requests for when it needs to be serviced. But those requests go through my service manager who always disaproves of some services on it, and then just gets a cheap oil change completed instead of the brake inspection, air filter, and tire rotation I asked for.

And my story is in no way inconsistent. I am merely telling how reliable our vehicle has been to us. If I didn't like the brand/didn't work for the brand, I would just point out the faults instead of the pluses then, wouldn't I have?

 

[buyingconstant7]

How can you accuse the dealership OP works for "has screwed up the oil type and has not serviced this vehicle correctly" by using non-synthetic 0W-20 oil? Our manual doesn't say synthetic oil is required. And even 5W-30 oil is recommended all over other regions. Any people knows a bit of oils will tell you using non-synthetic 0W-20 oil, or 5W-30 oil instead of 0W-20, would not cause oil burning as long as you change the oil at recommended interval. I don't see any "inconsistency" from his posts, hence I do feel his posts with picture is creditable.

This is not news that dealers are using wrong type of oil to service the cars. VW dealers were using non-synthetic 5W-30 oils all the time several years ago to service their 1.8T and 2.0T whereas 5W-40 (only available in synthetic form) was recommended. The end result, is class-action lawsuit for oil sludge on those turbo engines against VW of America!

It's very funny that the OP actually praised the CX-5 for its good quality in his posts, but been accused trolling and telling a lie!

At least some people have my back. I was starting to think this forum was full of 12 year old Mazda fanboys. Thanks for your insight!

 

[buyingconstant7]

Its only a car, if it does use some oil so what.
I've had engines that burn oil and some that don't, provided they don't use too much, or break down what's the problem.

I'd be interested in the state of the exhaust pipe on the OP's car myself, mine and others in the UK have commented on the large amount of surface rust on our cars, much more than on previous modern cars.

Exhaust pipes aren't too bad. Of course, they are pure black with all the carbon/soot deposits that seems like it will never come off, but no rust at all. I'd think that's in part thanks to it getting washed and stored in a heated shop every night.