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

[Evan78]

1 - Is there any reason to think there will be increased vibration? I'm not aware of turbo engines having any more vibration than non-turbo.

2 - All things being equal, I would expect turbo reliability to be slightly worse overall due to adding additional points of potential failure.

3 - Lag will depend on turbo size, but DI turbo engines seem to generate better low end than port injection turbo engines.

My general observation is that turbo engines usually have a broader power band than a larger, non-turbo setup of similar peak power, but I'm not familiar with current Mazda stuff. It would be interesting to compare dyno charts of the engine candidates for the next CX9. Know any good sources for that info?

 

[jrtouareg]

Make sure you like your VW Service Advisor. You will be in the service department on a regular basis and watch his children grow up by the pictures on his desk.

I've been buying VWs for 30 yrs and although they went through a rough stretch during the days of them assembling cars in Pa., the new ones have been good. But all German cars get a bad rap for reliability because folks who buy them think you maintain them like a Honda. Well, they're all pretty much high performance cars compared to others and require a little more TLC. I had a 1992 Jetta diesel with 328,000 miles on it, then sold it to a friend who has since put 30,000 miles on it. Only big items replaced were alternator (twice), new clutch at 145,000 miles and the timing chain at 200,000 miles. I was still getting over 50 mpg highway at 300,000 miles. Regular maintenance is the key to any vehicle.

BTW, VW/Audi has been using their 1.8 - 2.0 liter turbo for 20 years now. This engine is standard in most of their cars and small SUVs. All other manufacturers are just now getting the efficiency of a turbo 4. My best Mazda to date was my 1994 RX-7 turbo. Turbo engines, correctly designed are just as reliable as non-turbo engines. Have any of you driven a turbo engine of late? The BMW turbo 4 is just as smooth as their 6 cylinder. The wifey's car before her CX-9s was a 2002 Passat with a 1.8 liter turbo. 80,000 miles and no problems, I changed the oil every 5000 miles. Turbo lag was/is non-existant on my wife'sPassat or daughter's VW Tiguan. Don't even know its a turbo or not until you romp on the gas pedal and get pushed back against the seat. BTW, she gets about 24mpg city and low 30's highway. I towed a 16' Bayliner (about 3300 lbs) with her 4 cylinder turbo on a 160 mile trip to sell my boat and it towed just fine. Passing was no problem at 60 mph.

 

[jk240sx]

I've had 4 VWs since '96, last one was a babied '07 VW Passat Wolfsburg with only 20K on the clock. In that time it had 6 warranty extension issues fixed under warranty and 3 clocksprings replaced at my expense. My buddy has a '10 Passat and a '10 Toureg TDI and he has had more trips in the shop than I. I won't own another one. I love the Toureg styling and even considered one, but the reliability concerns left me flat.

 

[Evan78]

Here's a case study, the current F-150.

5.0L V8 - 360hp, 380lb/ft, 10,000lb towing
3.5L V6 turbo - 365hp, 420lb/ft, 11,300lb towing

Reviews of the turbo are positive.

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2012/?sub=regular-cab
http://news.consumerreports.org/car...0---to-ecoboost-or-not-ecoboost-v6-vs-v8.html

Certainly not identical situation to what we're discussing, but one example of a turbo setup matching or outperforming a larger non-turbo in all performance areas including fuel economy. This doesn't address reliability, noise, or vibration that you mentioned though.

 

[ceric]

1 - Is there any reason to think there will be increased vibration? I'm not aware of turbo engines having any more vibration than non-turbo.

2 - All things being equal, I would expect turbo reliability to be slightly worse overall due to adding additional points of potential failure.

3 - Lag will depend on turbo size, but DI turbo engines seem to generate better low end than port injection turbo engines.

My general observation is that turbo engines usually have a broader power band than a larger, non-turbo setup of similar peak power, but I'm not familiar with current Mazda stuff. It would be interesting to compare dyno charts of the engine candidates for the next CX9. Know any good sources for that info?

Turbo does not cause more vibrations, but I4 does than V6.
With turbo, there are not only more parts, but more parts under high temp operation.
BMW alleviates the pag issue with twin smaller turbos to spool up faster. However, the cost is higher. Not a problem on a BMW.

 

[Evan78]

Ah yes, I didn't think about natural tendencies of V6 being more balanced than I4. I find every configuration acceptable in today's cars as long as there's no worn out mounts or bushings.

I've owned 2 turbo Subarus in the past and currently own 1, so I'm comfortable with owning a turbo vehicle. Of course, heat can play a role in failures, but I don't see it as a major factor in the grand scheme of things. Yes, turbo engines are generally more complex and are developing more power per liter than non-turbo engines, so their is potential for higher rates of failure. But that doesn't mean you'll go from an invincible non-turbo engine to a turbo engine that is in the shop all the time. Time will tell with this one and I'm sure some manufacturers deal with it better than others. The F-150 will be an interesting one since they sell so many of them and it is bound to get a lot of scrutiny since the full size truck crowd is traditionally into diesels and "bigger is better" V8's.

You don't necessarily need two small turbos like BMW, just 1 of the appropriate size will provide good performance.

 

[ceric]

Besides the engines, all the rest of Skyactiv technologies are also
very interesting.
I recommend the following channels on youtube if you are interested.
mazdaofficialweb (Japanese)
mazdausa (English)

I won't be surprised if the next Mazda3 can hit 45mpg on highways.
(it is 40mpg now - with only Skyactiv-G)

 

[Evan78]

Thanks for the youtube tips, the mazdaofficialweb account seems to have more tech stuff that I'm interested in. The couple vids I clicked are in english or have english subtitles.

 

[jabba]

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's been my experience that small turbo cars that are tuned for high HP don't get fantastic fuel economy. I think they run pig rich, so maybe that's the reason. My Mazdaspeed 3 (265 HP) barely gets 24-25 mpg in mixed driving, and I hear that the CX-7 (245 HP?), with the same engine, has very poor mileage as well.

So with that example in mind, seems to me you'll have to really get the boost up on those turbos in a small 4-cylinder engine to produce enough torque and HP to make our CX-9 peel out. And if you do tune the engine to max HP, then won't mpg suffer? Maybe that skyactive engine has some magic that will give us both the HP and mpg we crave...

 

[HOLOHOLO]

Doesn't seem likely, does it?

Regarding reliability of Mazda turbos, I never had problems with my 626 GT (other than clutches and rack & pinion) but it's charmed life was tragically cut short when it was totaled by a rear end hit. :-(

At the time my factory bumper to bumper warranty did NOT include turbo components under the longer drivetrain coverage. I negotiated to have it included.

Something to look out for with any turbo purchase.

Anyone know what Mazdas current turbo coverage is? Any exclusions?

 

[ceric]

It is interesting, isn't it?
Turbo parts not included in powertrain warranty, I mean.
That shows that automaker has no confidence themselves in the reliability of them.
Good to know that about turbo's warranty.

 

[Evan78]

I only get 19mpg in my Subaru in mixed driving and low to mid 20's on a highway trip.

I don't know the secret to getting good fuel economy with a turbo engine, but some manufacturers seem to be able to do it. The Ford V-6 ecoboost seems to be a good example of what can be accomplished, better performance with better fuel economy. MSRP is $1000 higher than the v8 on the F-150. Not sure on maintenance over the long term. Slightly more complex but 2 fewer cylinders.

It looks like turbos are covered under emissions warranty in at least some states. I'm just 1 guy, but my WRX was purchased new and the original turbo was still fine when I sold it at 130k miles. My Legacy is on the original turbo at 135k miles.

I discovered a slightly better comparison - the 2012 Ford Edge (edmunds link). It's available with a 3.5 V6 or 2.0 I4 turbo.

3.5 V6: 285hp, 253tq, 19/27/22mpg (city/hwy/combined)
2.0 I4: 240hp, 270tq, 21/30/24mpg

 

[ceric]

It seems like you're right about those states that adopted CA emission standards.
Turbo assembly is covered under 8yr/100K emission warranty, much better than powertrain one.
That is good news and remember to keep your receipts of oil changes.

 

[jabba]

Anyone know what Mazdas current turbo coverage is? Any exclusions?

Mazda's current turbo coverage is included in the powertrain warranty.

The Speed 3 and CX-7 (and I think the Speed 6 as well) had some turbo issues early on, I think some kind of seal was allowing oil to pass through, which became known as the "smoking turbo". Mazda made several revisions, and as well has recently issued an extended coverage on the turbos for certain model years which now covers them up to 70K miles. Mazda will also reimburse owners who had to pay out of pocket to get the turbo replaced.

I've had my Speed 3 since September 2008 and have not had any issues with the turbo. Same thing with the Audi S4 I had since 2001 until 2008, twin turbos and never an issue.

 

[ceric]

Mazda got to be very happy with their investment in Skyactiv technologies.
The new Mazda3, though with only the Skyactiv-G, easily won this comparison test
among all sedans that deliver 40mpg.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison.html?page=3

Mazda spent too much resources on rotary engines, trying to make it work.
In the end, the MPG simply prevents it from becoming mainstream.
Now, these guys are on the right track. I am a fan of any company trying to
innovate new technologies.

Now, give me a Skyactiv V6 (3.0-3.5L) in next CX9, then, I will be super happy.

 

[jrtouareg]

Was watching the 24HRS of Lemans this morning. During the race, they interviewed the racing directors of several teams, one of which was the head of Mazda. Since Audi diesels have won this race like the last 10 yrs.(this year the top 4 places with the top 2 on diesel hybrids), the Mazda head said they will be racing a 2.2 liter turbo diesel in the USA this coming year on the Patrick Dempsey racing team and for the 2013 Lemans. He said this engine will be based on the upcoming 2.2 liter turbo diesel that will be on a Mazda USA production car. He didn't say which one but did mention it will have 190hp in the production car but close to 400hp in the race car. If they put this engine in a CX-9, I'm all over it. The wife will a have a Mazda diesel to go along with my Touareg diesel.

 

[ceric]

The Skyactiv-D 2.2L is rated at 173hp and 310ft-lb. (depending on regions and SAE/BHP, the numbers might vary).

 

[100$ GUY]

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.

The TDI Touareg is faster to 60, 6.9s but, if you go by a more real world number, the 5-60 is just 7.7s.
The big advantage of the CX-9 is that the 0-60 is almost the same as the 5-60 number, 7.8 vs 7.9s, meaning in the real world, you get great acceleration without brake torquing, etc.

But, the TDI loses steam as it rolls, that is why the 1/4 mile is 15.9 vs 16.0 of the CX-9. See how that huge advantage disappeared? Yes, because the TDI only traps at 85 mph, while the CX-9 traps at 88 mph.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-volkswagen-touareg-tdi-test-reviews
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2010-mazda-cx-9-awd-quick-test

The thing is, with Motor Trend testing, it is even quicker, and the gap becomes even bigger, with a trap speed of 89.6 mph.
Evidently, you can come behind a Touareg and you can pass it easily, because you pull harder and harder the more speed you reach.
And now via this testing, 0-60 is just 7.3s , and the 1/4 mile in just 15.6. Faster 1/4 mile.

http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtests/suvs/1103_2011_mazda_cx_9_video/

Of course, that is you like the sound and the behaviour and the aural pleasure of driving a diesel, which of course for me it doesn`t.

Why? Because is just too darn boring. Reving to only 4k rpms gets me to peak horsepower, and then what? Is that all you got? And that sound? And what about the sound coming out of the exhaust? Naaah.

I like what new diesels bring to the table, because they keep getting better, just as gasoline engines, but the inherent caracteristics of the diesel engine are still there, and you either like them, or you don`t.

 

[100$ GUY]

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.

Pretty big leap of faith in terms of what exactly?

 

[100$ GUY]

Mazda got to be very happy with their investment in Skyactiv technologies.
The new Mazda3, though with only the Skyactiv-G, easily won this comparison test
among all sedans that deliver 40mpg.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison.html?page=3

Mazda spent too much resources on rotary engines, trying to make it work.
In the end, the MPG simply prevents it from becoming mainstream.
Now, these guys are on the right track. I am a fan of any company trying to
innovate new technologies.

Now, give me a Skyactiv V6 (3.0-3.5L) in next CX9, then, I will be super happy.

The good thing is that the next cx-9 will have all the skyactiv tech from scratch.

Meaning, lighter weight, stiffer chassis, more rigid body, more fuel efficient and probably a better handler and even faster.

I agree, I would have liked some sort of skyactiv V6 instead of a turbo 4, but heck, that ain`t happening. Mazda already said it, no skyactiv V6 is in the works.