How does Mazda CX5 GT 2016 compare with Nissan Rogue 2016 SL?
- Thread starter sra
- Start date
I can guarantee you Mazda will do the same starting 2nd. gen. Consumer perception is based on marketing and mileage needs.
I really don't see that happening.
current CVT's are not efficient transmissions.
They do deceptively well on the EPA tests, and do OK in the real world only because they can keep the engine at its most fuel efficient RPM regardless of speed.
The more efficient way to keep your engine in its optimal RPM is to adapt your speed to your car.
The skyacitv AT, DCT, and all manual transmissions are MUCH more efficient than any CVT on the market.
Case in point:
Eventough the MT in the HRV is not at all geared for efficient highway drivng it still beats the CVT.
Last edited:
I agree with Piotrek.
Mazda spent a lot of time and effort developing the Skyactiv 6AT and the result is a huge asset to the vehicles that use it. They would be crazy to throw that away for a CVT!
At best they might turn it into a 7-8 speed, but you're not going to see a CVT anytime soon.
The electro-hydraulic auto shift implementation and the actual geartrain itself were carefully engineered to be durable and quick shifting with excellent user experience as well as efficiency through low friction. I don't know of a better AT in the industry.
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
Nissan Direct Ignition System, an ignition method ( a marketing tool imo for the regular customer comparing competitors vehicles and seeing "direct injection" listed on some of them; our cars are also direct ignition), vs direct injection, a fuel injection method.
Not something you think about a lot but CX-5 has a stronger roof. These are from IIHS.org reports.
Mike, I agree. There is a video on youtube with Mazda engineers explaining Skyactive technology, in which they state that they looked at all current transmission technology including CVT and dual clutch and none of them met their performance and efficiency requirements so they developed the Skyactive transmission. If I find it I'll post the link.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yeah, I know and had corrected in post #40.
And I should have known Chris_Top_Her wouldn't say something without basis...
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Never say never. When Mazda developed high-compression SkyActiv-G engine, they said no to the trend of using smaller displacement engine with turbo charger due to the added cost on turbo charger. I totally agreed with this concept and that's why I went for a CX-5, our first Mazda. But now they come out with a turbo-charged SA-G 2.5L for new CX-9! It seems defeating the purpose of 13.0:1 or 14.0:1 high compression ratio with a turbo charger which normally requires lower compression ratio. I was hoping Mazda would come out a naturally-aspirated, high-compression SA-G V6 for the need of more powerful engine.
To me, CVT looks good in theory but the reliability will always be an issue. This is my major concern which makes me to avoid it whenever possible.
In powersports applications like ATVs and snowmobiles... CVTs are generally reliable and cheap to fix with a belt less than $100... in those applications fuel economy really isn't part of that equation. For whatever reason... once the HP hits above 40-50HP in these applications they ironically go into CVTs. Even the single track-esque Snowhawk is CVT.
Never is a long time. I believe we were saying CVT wouldn't happen with the 2nd generation of CX-5 due out in the next few years.
Don't worry, a turbo-charger does not defeat the purpose of Skyactiv engine technologies. In fact, these technologies are a perfect match for a turbo. The breakthrough with the Skyactiv engines was not the high compression, it's the careful attention to controlling head/piston/valve temperatures that make possible high compression using low octane fuel. And these are precisely the characteristics needed in a forced induction engine to get maximum boost without detonation. It's a natural marriage.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Cvt is the way of the future. Subaru works great. You may not like the "feel" of it, but then, people didn't like the "feel" of not rowing their own gears...yet the fastest supercars are now paddleshift. Feel is subjective. Acceleration and economy are objective. The fixation on the little jerk of a gearshift is emotional only. Otherwise we would all still be driving 3 speeds. What wonderful gear ratios! Solid jerk on every shift. Very nice with a good 3 speed. But no, now 6 to 9 speeds are the rage, edging ever closer to the infinite ratio of the cvt.
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
How conducive to a turbo is the same valve timing thay keeps the valves at the correct temps to avoid carbon build up is the question though...
Battery electric is the way of the future, not CVT.
IMO CVTs in cars are only good at two things:
making slow cars feel fast
getting inflated EPA ratings.
CVT's have a very hard time achieving their EPA ratings at speed BTW.
Last edited:
Nissan had a well known issue with the reliability of their CVT in previous years, yes. However, Subaru's CVT is rock solid. Honda's CVT in earlier Civic Hybrid models was less than stellar but I believe the current units in their lineup is pretty solid and one of the best units in terms of feel.
Not all CVTs are the same; the unit we had in my wife's Prius (which is not pulley based) was pretty bad as it exhibited all the classic downsides of CVT, except for noise. Honda's CVTs are much more responsive and most owners will not know they are any different.
Last edited:
I agree. Many are biased with what they found CVTs were few years back. Nowadays they are vastly improved. Every company is trying to do their best to increase efficiency. Mazda developed Skyactiv technology - that's relatively new. Similarly others are also tweaking and tuning theirs - CVTs included.
Why I said what I said: the process has already started when folks ask is your transmission the latest: CVT or is it still legacy? Mark the word play here: legacy vs CVTs. When I bought my Mazda a month back that was a pertinent question from many especially like why on Earth would you buy a fixed AT when at the same price you're getting continuous AT? Now, I can spend the next 30 min, shooting out technical jargon and what not but trust me when I say this: it will fall into deaf ears. That being said - now a guy walks into Mazda showroom and likes CX-5 and balks out when he realizes the transmission is legacy STILL. Within the next 2 to 3 years - SIMPLY PUT MAZDA WON"T HAVE ANY OPTION!! That's MY humble opinion. It's marketing might of Honda, Subaru, Toyota, etc., etc.....
The CX-5 transmission is not "legacy". Its a unique hybrid. It has a very small torque converter that works from 0-5mph and then an automatic clutch system takes over. The tiny torque converter prevents rollback at stop lights other dual clutch automatics suffer. No one else has anything like it.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I do notice that the small torque converter makes takeoff a bit delayed and jerky at say, 50 to 60 percent throttle. You get. Nooooothhhiiinng....yank! And you're off. Other than that, I'm a fan.
That said...cvt is the way of the future.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I agree, and they are getting more and more practical every day. I drove a Nissan leaf when my 370z was in the shop as a loaner car. It was creepy doing 70mph and hearing nothing but tires and wind. And yes...it did run the battery down fast, lol! It took 2 hours just to get another 3 miles charge on it. Totally impractical without the 440 volt outlet in your garage, imo...but once the tech matures...I agree. It's awesome. An electric Brz would be cool, and an electric truck would have mad torque from the get go.
That's not even an issue due to a common feature of turbochargers called a wastegate. In other words, boost is 100% controllable. So is valve timing. You greatly underestimate the ability of Mazda to do basic engineering.
<dt>Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value. <dd>- Editorial in the Boston Post (1865)</dd>
