Is the CX-9 going to get Skyactiv 4 cylinder engine for 2013 ?

I have seen a guy who turbo-boosted his old Supra (3L engine) to 1000hp.
Don't recall what the psi was. Can you imagine how reliable that engine is gonna be?
I doubt it will last very long.

The only thing that worries me about the I4+turbo-replacing-V6 trend is reliability. Some people said
new material (such as ceramic) advancement makes it more reliable, but it still
won't be as reliable as NA engines.
 
Turbo setups have more parts and complexity, so I think they are inherently less reliable than a non-turbo setup. With that said, they can still have an acceptable level of reliability. Cars are full of compromises.
 
Mazda better come up with a more powerful engine if they stop using the current V6. Even with the Sky-D, 170hp, torque or no torque, will be extremely gutless, IMHO. No more zoom-zoom
 
Agree. Assuming that Mazda can cut 15% weight off the current 4500lbs, the next CX9 still will weigh in at 3900lbs.
You need at least 240hp to move and tow with it. And, 280hp to zoom-zoom.
A highly turbo-ed 2.xL still will be torque-less at low rpms before the turbo spools up.
I would prefer a V6 3L DI-turbo, but it looks to me that Mazda will not go for V6 any longer.
A 2.4L turbo is most likely, with non-turbo as base model (much like the old Highlanders).
 
Subaru gets 230-300hp out of 2.5L 4 cylinder turbo engines with plenty of low end power. And they're not even using DI on the turbo engines yet. I'd have to look at dyno charts to get precise, but I think an NA motor of similar peak output will probably have better torque until 2000-3000rpms and then the turbo will be making more torque. I don't know automatic transmissions very well, but isn't the stall speed usually in that 2k-3k range?
 
It is weird knowing that the next gen won`t have a V6, but at the same time, ain`t a surprise, given how DI turbocharged engines are taking over.

Now, I hope they do it right, having at least the same acceleration numbers we have today, but much better fuel efficiency, real world fuel efficiency.

It better be refined and smooth, and please, can it sound a little good too? Thou I reckon this V6 doesn`t sound inspiring when you punch it. Kinda boring indeed, but heck, I understand, it is just a 7 passenger family hauler.
 
100$ GUY said:
It is weird knowing that the next gen won`t have a V6, but at the same time, ain`t a surprise, given how DI turbocharged engines are taking over.

Now, I hope they do it right, having at least the same acceleration numbers we have today, but much better fuel efficiency, real world fuel efficiency.

It better be refined and smooth, and please, can it sound a little good too? Thou I reckon this V6 doesn`t sound inspiring when you punch it. Kinda boring indeed, but heck, I understand, it is just a 7 passenger family hauler.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty big leap of faith, being the 1st cross over in this class to completely dump the V6--I don't see it.
 
ceric said:
Torque is one thing, horsepower is quite another.
H = T * RPM.
H = T at 5252 rpm (horsepower vs ft-lb).

Big torque is good for overtaking (50-70mph) and hauling heavy load.
Acceleration is still dictated by horsepower.

Mazda's investment in Skyactiv is the right move.
It puts Mazda ahead of Honda/Toyota in small engine powertrain.
Click to expand...

I drive a VW Touareg TDI and wifey drives a 2011 CX-9. The VW weighs 600 lbs more than the CX-9 but is still faster from a standstill and passing at 60mph. 240 hp, 410 ft.lbs. torque is nothing to sneeze at. Has a towing capacity of 8000 lbs. Bear in mind its a full time 4WD made for heavy duty off-roading. 60%rear/40%front bias drive. I consistently get 27 mpg in town and 35 mpg highway at 75 mph. Towing a 5000 lb enclosed trailer full of dirt bikes, I get 22mpg on the highway. I passed my buddy with a 2012 GMC HD diesel on a 4% grade uphill on I40 in NC like he was standing still. He had 2 dirt bikes in the truck bed and I was towing the said enclosed trailer. 8 speed auto trans in the VW is the bomb. You guys need to read the test on this vehicle. 0 - 60 times in 6.5 - 6.7 sec. Also read Car and drivers test of the Passat TDI vs Passat V6. They like the diesel better. Performance numbers were almost the same.

Guys, if you have a chance, you need to test drive the Audi Q7 TDI, VW Touareg TDI or the new Cayenne TDI. This ain't your father's diesel. The Audi R12 that won Lemans last year used the same basic 3.0 liter V6 TDI. The Touareg that has won the Dakar rally 3 years in a row uses a 5 cylinder TDI. Fast and a fuel mizer.
 
Last edited:
tex2670 said:
Everyone has just adopted the naming convention of Euro makes, which have used letters/numbers for as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...

VW still uses names. Passat, Jetta, Touareg, Beetle, Golf, etc. Don't get me wrong, my family has always had both Mazda and VW in the garage since wifey and I got married 22 years ago. I ended up with finishing her car payments on her POS 626. I had a VW Scirocco. She's on her 2nd CX-9. I'm on my 3rd Touareg.
 
Has anyone here entertained the idea that they are just going to kill this beast? As in, "let's focus on the smaller, efficient crossovers and establish some "21st century" design wins?"

They may be writing the CX-9 eulogy now.

Hey, that Touareg TDI looks like fun...
 
Last edited:
No way. I hope.
With Tribeca and Veracruz rumored to be discontinued in 2013,
the competitors for 3-row 7-seater CUV will get fewer.

From what I have read, it will continue, but CX7 will be gone.
The engine choices will be
- boosted Skyactiv-G 2.0L - >240hp/270ft-lb (~8sec, 0-60)
- 2.2 Diesel (172hp/310ft-lb) - (~10sec, 0-60)
Weight will be reduced by 15% to 3900lb (AWD) with
- extensive use of ultra/high tensile steels. On CX5, the body sheel weight was reduced by 8%.
- lighter engine (from V6 to I4 - saved 100-200lbs)
- extensive use of alu components in suspension, hatch, hood, etc.
EPA should be around 19/25 for AWD, 20/26 for FWD for Skyactiv-G.
Size will probably remain the same.
Available late 2013.

My prediction, anyway. Don't ask how I come up with them....
 
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/04/2014-mazda-cx-9-to-bow-in-late-2013.html

"It appears the Japanese automaker will take a lot of what its learned from the CX-5 development to introduce a next-generation CX-9 to the market by late 2013. The all-new CX-9 will be built from the ground up using Mazda’s new SkyActiv technologies, just like the new CX-5 model and every other new vehicle it’s releasing save the scarcely-used rotary engine.

The seven-seater SUV will feature a lightweight chassis and American buyers will probably see a turbocharged four-cylinder of some sort underneath the hood. The Japanese automaker has confirmed that it isn’t working on a new SkyActiv six-cylinder, which makes it doubtful that we’ll see another 3.7-liter V6 in the CX-9.

In the UK, the new CX-9 will be powered by a 2.2-liter four-cylinder diesel, and there’s a possibility that Mazda may introduce that powerplant in the U.S. with the redesigned CX-9. By shaving off some weight, the 173 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque 2.2-liter could be more than enough to blend performance, fuel efficiency, and affordability for the American market, should it cross the pond."
 
helbigtw said:
You and me and lots and LOTS of other people too.
Click to expand...

I see your points really.
However, today's V6 is yesterday's V8.
So is the trend. Boosted-I4 is the future for many automakers.
Even Lexus GS is considering an I4 alternative.

From business perspective, it does not make sense for Mazda to make a V6 engine
just for CX9. The current engines can handle Mazda3/5/6, CX5, and next MX-5.
However, no one is ruling out the possibility of outsourcing a V6 from Ford or Toyota
as an optional engine for CX9 (yes, for people like you and probably me).
 
Why is there so much opposition to a 4 cylinder? Are you assuming the performance numbers (0-60, etc) will be worse? Don't want anything with a turbo? Just curious...
 
For me, what worry me are
1) vibrations/noises from engine
2) reliability from turbo (see CX7 vs CX9 - significant difference in ConsumersReport survey)
3) turbo lag and whistling.... I am not sure how bad it will be.... we will see.

0-60 time is one thing that owners rarely do.
Some are more concerned about overtaking at highway speed. Big engines have big torque
on tap any time (no lag, no proper gear required).
That is why people love V8 and/or diesel engines.
 
CX-7 has a turbo? Didn't know dat.

A turbo is fun for the highway and passing, but totally not what you need to haul a heavy vehicle around from stop light to stop light. Or to haul kids, or a trailer/load. Or possibly for an AWD.

Reliability issues aside, it seems really misplaced on a semi truck like the CX-9. Maybe a turbo diesel though?

Not that I don't have a soft spot for turbos. My old 626 5-door Touring GT turbo was one of the quickest 0-60 cars on the road. That thing was a wolf, dressed like a lamb!
 
Last edited:
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Is the CX-9 4 cylinder engine enough?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
roundle1979
R
C
Confused about IIHS Headlight rating for CX-9
Replies
12
Views
6K
Corvetteboy
C
C
2017 Wards 10 Best Engines
Replies
14
Views
3K
JPL
J

Latest posts

Back