New 2.5L Engine Coming Soon

[rebelins66]

2.2L Diesel has been confirmed for the Mazda6.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...s-skyactiv-diesel-2012-los-angeles-auto-show/

No word on the CX-5...

 

[Calcat]

I doubt it will be that crappy with the 2.5L. My guess is that the 180HP/180TQ will translate to at LEAST a 1.5 second reduction in 0-60, so we're talking about a 7.5-8.0 second 0-60. Also, I highly doubt it would result in a 5mpg hit...that would be way under the "competitive line" compared to the CRV, escape, etc. I would say more like a ~2mpg hit.

According to figures reported by a Japanese paper for the 2014 Mazda 6, the 2.5l engine gets 10% (3 mpg) less fuel economy than the 2.0l engine. The 2.2l-D gets 15% better fuel economy but this is largely offset by the 10% premiem for diesel fuel here in L.A..

I see a new thread starting of pro's and con's of various engine choices.

 

[xtrailman]

Petrol or diesel make good tow cars, provided a turbo is fitted, but I'm talking 4 cylinder cars.

I can't understand why Mazda don't turbo the 2l petrol, just look at the figures from such as the VAG products.

I ran a Audi A4 1.8T Quattro twelve years ago that gave out 180 bhp with 177 pound feet torque.

 

[CX-SV]

I can't understand why Mazda don't turbo the 2l petrol, just look at the figures from such as the VAG products.

I ran a Audi A4 1.8T Quattro twelve years ago that gave out 180 bhp with 177 pound feet torque.

I can understand why Mazda has not turboed the Skyactiv petrol 2.0L, especially with compression ratios of 13:1 to 14:1 (depending on market).

Here in the US, many of the A4 1.8T's have blown head gaskets before they reached 70K miles, not reliable engines or cars.

 

[xtrailman]

While the Vag products generally lag behind the Japanese cars in the UK, in the reliability studies, their reputation is still robust.

I owned mine for the usual 4.5 years with 100% reliability. Along with very good residuals.

But even so i don't see why a high compression engine cant have a turbo, unless there is a technical reason?
Or why the petrol has to be such a high compression in the first place.

Mazda are alone, it seems in taking the HC route, other manufacturers are producing similar outputs or higher with 1.6 engines, here in the UK.

Another advantage of a turbo petrol is the max torque can be available across a very wide rev range, typically 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm on today's engines.

 

[CX-SV]

While the Vag products generally lag behind the Japanese cars in the UK, in the reliability studies, their reputation is still robust.

I owned mine for the usual 4.5 years with 100% reliability. Along with very good residuals.

.

UK products are obviously different. (Although do you have low miles on vehicle?)

Just the opposite in the US for previous gen A4 1.8T, below average reliabilty and low residuals and low resale value. Much better in recent versions.

 

[xtrailman]

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/manufacturer

Bear in mind that VAG engines are fitted to Skoda, VW, Audi, and Seat cars.

 

[pt00323i]

here is the other link

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/show...LA-Auto-Show-CX-5-Engine-Upgrade-Announcement

as for consumption, there are plenty postings out there, 2.5L will get 4-5mpg hit, diesel will improve by 15%.

 

[CX-SV]

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/manufacturer

Bear in mind that VAG engines are fitted to Skoda, VW, Audi, and Seat cars.

Wow, thankfully not fitted in any Mazdas.

 

[Snacks]

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/manufacturer

Bear in mind that VAG engines are fitted to Skoda, VW, Audi, and Seat cars.

WHOA on the VW Touareg......

 

[wxcrawler]

This evening, I received a "You're invited to watch the Mazda6 Reveal‏" email from Mazda. At the bottom of the advertisement, there was this about the 2014 CX-5.....

"Mazda engineers never stop improving. Case in pointthe new 2.5L engine in the Touring and Grand Touring CX-5 models boasts a commanding 184 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque, and still retains a healthy 32 MPG hwy.*".

I didn't see where it explained the asterick. It sounds like the HWY mileage may be the same. I'd be shocked if the CITY mileage is the same. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

 

[rjdee]

^^I just received the same email and came to post the same info on the CX5. I'm expecting it'll be both fwd and awd but only with an auto. In any case, I'm still happy with my "underpowered" manual. If they announce a 6 wagon with a diesel and manual then I'll have a dilemma (highly skeptical this will happen).

 

[ADVWannabe]

According to Fuelly, real CR-V 2012 owners gets 26.9 MPG average compared with 28.5 MPG of real CX-5 owners.
With 15K miles / year @ $4 / gallon that's only $125 / year difference. The CR-V has a 2.4L engine, has more power.
I believe the MPG hit for the 2.5L would not be that much. Lets wait few days and see.

As a real 2013 CRV owner, I am getting excellent mpg. I get 27/28 mpg in my Atlanta commuting and 34 mpg with cruise on 70 mph on the interstate. These numbers come from the trip computer and my double checking it with the calculator. Now I do drive it fairly easy, which is a first for me. (lol2) The 2013 Accord has the 2.4L engine with direct injection and makes more torque than the CRV and much better mileage so I would expect a brand new 2.5L from Mazda to do better than you might think. I have a theory that an engine can be too small and thus work too hard for a vehicle. Throw in a little larger motor that works easier and get the same or better mileage. I would not be surprised that the 2.5L gets about the same MPG as the 2.0L.

 

[Kelme]

If the 2.5 was the only option I would have passed on the CX-5.
The outstanding MPG with the 2.0 is THE REASON I looked at the CX-5 and the ESCAPE and skipped the rest of the other CUV's.

I'm getting just slightly lower MPG than my 8th gen civic got. 30 MPG is outstanding IMO.

Now if the Tundra got 30MPG... I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Mazda should bring back the B series pickup with the 2.2 diesel engine. A small pickup with over 300lbft of torque, a manual and good fuel economy.ahhh dreams. (sleep)

 

[CX-SV]

Mazda should bring back the B series pickup with the 2.2 diesel engine. A small pickup with over 300lbft of torque, a manual and good fuel economy.ahhh dreams. (sleep)

Yes, if only rattling gross polluters were desirable. And the topic being CX-5 2.5 ....

 

[Kelme]

Yes, if only rattling gross polluters were desirable. And the topic being CX-5 2.5 ....

Relax, this is an internet forum. We are discussing cars not international diplomacy. There is no need to take everything seriously.

 

[Aviboy97]

Yes, if only rattling gross polluters were desirable. And the topic being CX-5 2.5 ....

According to everyone who as experience with Mazda's new 2.2L diesel, it is anything but a "rattling gross polluter".

 

[Aviboy97]

This evening, I received a "You're invited to watch the Mazda6 Reveal‏" email from Mazda. At the bottom of the advertisement, there was this about the 2014 CX-5.....

"Mazda engineers never stop improving. Case in point—the new 2.5L engine in the Touring and Grand Touring CX-5 models boasts a commanding 184 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque, and still retains a healthy 32 MPG hwy.*".

I didn't see where it explained the asterick. It sounds like the HWY mileage may be the same. I'd be shocked if the CITY mileage is the same. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

I think the mileage will be well received.

 

[xtrailman]

Yes, if only rattling gross polluters were desirable. And the topic being CX-5 2.5 ....

I find 310 pound feet of torque very desirable, gross polluters ?

http://www.whatcar.com/greenawards/4x4s/index.html

 

[CX-SV]

According to everyone who as experience with Mazda's new 2.2L diesel, it is anything but a "rattling gross polluter".

100% agree, unless he was talking about some old version diesel in old pickup truck.

The old diesel in that B series of pickup trucks was this:

1982–1985 – diesel 2.2 L (2,209 cc) S2 I4 (a ratting gross polluter)

The new 2.2L diesel is clean enough to meet Euro6 standards, about as clean as they come.