US Diesel's big splash introduction

[Moonlighter]

Exactly. Unfortunately there're many senior citizens in the US are getting CX-5's.

People if they read these procedures like I did, (and thanks for many detailed documents on SA-D) they would definitely have a second thought of getting a SkyActiv-D diesel, such as this Compulsory DPF regeneration in the long mode: (PM = particulate matter)

Ive had CX5 diesels since 2013. Never once have I had a blocked DPF necessitating a forced regen. My brother has one as well and he says the same, even though his car does mainly local running and is now 5 years old.

The DPF was repositioned closer to the engine in the 2015 MY and since then, my local dealer says they have seen no blocked DPF's.

I do note however that here in Aus we have nationally enforced diesel fuel quality standards so there is basically no difference in quality between retail fuel brands. If you use crap fuel then you might get issues.

So dont over dramatise this. Its rarely an issue in practice. Mazda dealers here as a matter of course will ask you about your driving habits and anticipated annual mileage if you ask about a diesel, and will recommend a petrol engine when appropriate.

So no matter how much Mazda has done to prevent the oil dilution (raising) issue, it potential still can happen. That's why the additional "X" mark on the oil dipstick. Unfortunately most US car owners aren't getting used to use "Flexible" oil change interval with oil life monitor, I can see this's going to be a challenge to overcome on oil change practice for diesel owners and Mazda dealers as most of them use fixed OCI!

Similarly, I have never had excessive diesel in the oil issues, in fact I have barely noticed the oil level change at all. I check it maybe monthly. My brother's 2012 CX5 had a few issues early 2012/13 until Mazda released updated the engine management software and added the new dipstick design - since then, no issues. Can it be an issue? Yes, albeit only in a small number of cases.

This right here will be an impossible task for Mazda North American Operations who can mandate a 0W-30 C3 diesel oil as the only oil Mazda diesel owner's can use, because they can't!

Mandate it maybe no. Deny warranty if you dont use it - yes they will.

If you use a oil that does not meet the manufacturer's specifications, especially after being specifically told how important it is, I have no doubt they will deny engine warranty when anything related goes wrong. And, it will go wrong if you dont use an oil that meets specs.

No different to using an aftermarket part that doesnt meet manufacturer's specs that causes a failure - no warranty.

Here Mazda specifies a full synth 5W-30 that meets JASO DL-1 or ACEA C-1. No doubt they will be very clear about the required oil specifications when the diesel engine is released in the USA.

Yes, people need to have commitment to enjoy a Mazda CX-5 diesel, especially in the US!

So from my personal experience since 2013, the reality of CX5 diesel ownership is hardly any different to owning a petrol engined version. Except trips to the gas station are less frequent and the torque is amazing!

The addition of adblue in the US will hardly change that, its cheap, and infrequent fills will be required.

 

[Anchorman]

Moonlighter

I agree with most of what you say but I don't know what level of emissions you are running. Since Sept 2015, all diesels here must meet Euro VI. That means that all of the 2016.5s conform to this spec. My daily trip to work of about 25 miles is a healthy mix of hills, motorway and city work but it seems to regenerate on mileage rather than back pressure. I use only high grade diesel which is laced with detergent and only the correct oil which is about 12 ($15) a litre (qt). Maybe you don't get dilution but I certainly do and by 6000 miles it was half way between the full mark and the X. I changed the oil of my own accord at that stage but neglected to reset the oil data which must be done for it to accurately measure viscosity. By the time I got to 12000 miles, it was half way again and this time the wrench indicator coupled with the service indicator was illuminated because I didn't set the oil data.

My point is, the more regens, the more diesel gets into the oil so maybe that's why yours doesn't move much. I completely agree that running a diesel is no big deal and the only reason I would prefer petrol is because of the current "dirty diesel" storm that rages in Europe. Mine is exempt because of how clean it is but some of the clean air pundits are mooting a complete ban which will effect residual values.

 

[Moonlighter]

Moonlighter

I agree with most of what you say but I don't know what level of emissions you are running. Since Sept 2015, all diesels here must meet Euro VI. That means that all of the 2016.5s conform to this spec. My daily trip to work of about 25 miles is a healthy mix of hills, motorway and city work but it seems to regenerate on mileage rather than back pressure. I use only high grade diesel which is laced with detergent and only the correct oil which is about 12 ($15) a litre (qt). Maybe you don't get dilution but I certainly do and by 6000 miles it was half way between the full mark and the X. I changed the oil of my own accord at that stage but neglected to reset the oil data which must be done for it to accurately measure viscosity. By the time I got to 12000 miles, it was half way again and this time the wrench indicator coupled with the service indicator was illuminated because I didn't set the oil data.

My point is, the more regens, the more diesel gets into the oil so maybe that's why yours doesn't move much. I completely agree that running a diesel is no big deal and the only reason I would prefer petrol is because of the current "dirty diesel" storm that rages in Europe. Mine is exempt because of how clean it is but some of the clean air pundits are mooting a complete ban which will effect residual values.

Euro V or equivalent here at the moment. The Govt is considering whether Euro 6 should be adopted.

My regens happen about every 300-350kms i would say. Until I retired earlier this year my daily trip was similar to yours and took me 35-50 minutes depending on traffic. Can honestly say that I never once saw oil level rise noticeably in the 3 years I was commuting daily in my 2013 CX5 lease car. The company had half a dozen other diesel CX5's and our fleet manager said they saw no fuel in oil issues in the time I was there. Ran about 30,000km/year on average.

In my own 2016 CX5 Akera I use an Australian produced Penrite 5W-30 JASO DL-1 oil that meets Mazda specs, I pick it up on special at Autobarn for about $40 for a 5 litre container. Thats half the price Mazda charges for their factory version.

Im doing about half the annual KMs that I used to do when travelling to work. No oil level changes so far, car just under a year old.

Makes me wonder what the issue is, most of these oil level reports these days seem to come from UK drivers?

Maybe your colder temps have an effect?

 

[Jonno21]

Makes me wonder what the issue is, most of these oil level reports these days seem to come from UK drivers?

Maybe your colder temps have an effect?

You might be on to something with the cooler temps? I had oil level rise in the first year of ownership of my 2013 CX5 nearly up to the "X" mark and the dealer after consultation with Mazda gave me a free oil change whilst not admitting there may be a problem. During the second year of ownership the oil had crept about 2 cm above the full mark at the time I traded it in for my present 2016 CX5 at 26,000 miles.

My present CX5 now has oil rise about half cm above the full mark at 7,500 miles. Since retirement I do low mileage but long journeys as no longer stuck in traffic jams going to work so I am disappointed to see the oil level start to rise. Incidentally, when purchased the oil level was exactly half way between minimum and maximum on the dipstick. Crossed fingers, I can make it to September when the annual service is due.

It's a pity for the UK market that the only way to get an automatic CX5 version is to buy diesel otherwise I would have bought petrol. That's a hard admission for me personally to make as I've driven diesel for 19 years and the profusion of bolt on complex anti pollution technologies have negated the advantage of running diesel.

 

[Anchorman]

You might be on to something with the cooler temps? I had oil level rise in the first year of ownership of my 2013 CX5 nearly up to the "X" mark and the dealer after consultation with Mazda gave me a free oil change whilst not admitting there may be a problem. During the second year of ownership the oil had crept about 2 cm above the full mark at the time I traded it in for my present 2016 CX5 at 26,000 miles.

My present CX5 now has oil rise about half cm above the full mark at 7,500 miles. Since retirement I do low mileage but long journeys as no longer stuck in traffic jams going to work so I am disappointed to see the oil level start to rise. Incidentally, when purchased the oil level was exactly half way between minimum and maximum on the dipstick. Crossed fingers, I can make it to September when the annual service is due.

It's a pity for the UK market that the only way to get an automatic CX5 version is to buy diesel otherwise I would have bought petrol. That's a hard admission for me personally to make as I've driven diesel for 19 years and the profusion of bolt on complex anti pollution technologies have negated the advantage of running diesel.

Almost identical to my situation. The oil was lower than full when new so added to the amount above full was enough dilution to provoke my old fashioned ways and get the oil out. I guess if the engine is cold, the tolerances of the pistons is at the lower end added to running rich during extended warm up might well explain why moonlighter doesn't see the effect so badly but those in the northern US certainly will.

I think Mazda UK are going to get their fingers burned with this diesel only policy. I could just about get away with a FWD and winter tyres (it's a risk driving Buxton to Manchester most days) but my wife has really taken to autos so that excludes me from the puny 2.0G option as it only comes with the manual box. I'm fed up with them because my next car will take me into retirement and I just wanted my final car to be perfect to my needs. Unless they do a U turn, Toyota or Lexus will get my business. The dirty diesel storm is only just beginning to rumble and I see as well as emission charging, the lib dems want a complete ban by 2025. The others will wait until after the election before being clearer about what is planned.

 

[yrwei52]

I do note however that here in Aus we have nationally enforced diesel fuel quality standards so there is basically no difference in quality between retail fuel brands. If you use crap fuel then you might get issues.

So dont over dramatise this. Its rarely an issue in practice. Mazda dealers here as a matter of course will ask you about your driving habits and anticipated annual mileage if you ask about a diesel, and will recommend a petrol engine when appropriate.

It may not be an issue in Australia, but it may be in the US. Diesel fuel in the US just began to phase in more stringent regulations by EPA to low sulfur diesel fuel from 2006. There's no other detergent regulations to diesel fuel like gasoline. Not like Australia, I can imagine poor diesel quality would be an issue for diesel CX-5 in the US.

I simply can't imagine US Mazda dealers will advise potential CX-5 diesel buyers to get a less expensive gasoline CX-5 if his/her driving condition is not suitable for a diesel.

Mandate it maybe no. Deny warranty if you dont use it - yes they will.

If you use a oil that does not meet the manufacturer's specifications, especially after being specifically told how important it is, I have no doubt they will deny engine warranty when anything related goes wrong. And, it will go wrong if you dont use an oil that meets specs.

No different to using an aftermarket part that doesnt meet manufacturer's specs that causes a failure - no warranty.

Here Mazda specifies a full synth 5W-30 that meets JASO DL-1 or ACEA C-1. No doubt they will be very clear about the required oil specifications when the diesel engine is released in the USA.

Here again MNAO can't do the way you think it'd work. We have Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. The act states that a dealer must prove that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage. Many people don't care Mazda recommended oil and parts as people here get used to use cheaper aftermarket parts and any kind of oil they prefer for maintenance. And $15 a quart for a C3 diesel oil? No way here as many CX-5 owners don't even want to pay $10 extra to use Mazda moly oil and OEM oil filter! This just happened on the other day to a friend of mine who took my advice bought a 2016.5 CX-5 GT! And you may be able to find cheaper $40 per 5 liter C1 diesel oil in a supermarket, but not here in the US.

The addition of adblue in the US will hardly change that, its cheap, and infrequent fills will be required.

The same issue. No matter how cheap it is, still an additional work and extra expense and many people may neglect to do it. Does Mazda diesel need certain quality of DEF like Mercedes diesel? I know it's not cheap here for Mercedes:

There's good news for those getting bored of strolling around town in the Bluetec E-Class A copy of the bill shows the vehicle's AdBlue tank was given an additional 7.5 gallons of the fluid at a price of $241.50 (or about $32.20 per gallon) with an installation charge of $52.48 for the full $293.98 price.

 

[Jonno21]

No matter how cheap it is, still an additional work and extra expense and many people may neglect to do it.:

I think they will find out they have to do it. The car will give a warning how many miles are left until the adblue additive needs to be added until it runs out. Once the mileage is reached the car will refuse to start to prevent useage without the additive.

 

[NelsonLewis]

I think they will find out they have to do it. The car will give a warning how many miles are left until the adblue additive needs to be added until it runs out. Once the mileage is reached the car will refuse to start to prevent useage without the additive.

And like he was trying to say, "having" to do something extra will be seen as a negative to some. It's all about convenience these days, and adding extra steps to ownership, no matter how small, is no convenience...

 

[murky]

Wow, Adblue at parts stores is $10 for 2.5 gallons. That's $4/gallon and 1/10 of what Mercedes was charging there. Robbery.

 

[Red MC]

There are a lot of people who won't buy a diesel simply because it's a diesel, and there are people who will buy a diesel because it's a diesel, and not a lot of people in between. People who may have been on the fence before the VW scandal are probably not going to try it now. So I think the market for a CX-5 diesel consists of people who've already had diesel cars before, or people who were wanting to buy one before VW and others pulled theirs off the market.

I don't think that minor stuff like refilling the urea tank is going to influence their decision. I look at it like having a vehicle with a separate rear washer fluid tank, just one more thing to top off every once it a while (usually at oil change). Fuel contamination of the oil is something that worried me a bit more, but everything I've read seems to suggest that Mazda has that under control since the software update a few years ago.

 

[murky]

There are a lot of people who won't buy a diesel simply because it's a diesel, and there are people who will buy a diesel because it's a diesel, and not a lot of people in between. People who may have been on the fence before the VW scandal are probably not going to try it now. So I think the market for a CX-5 diesel consists of people who've already had diesel cars before, or people who were wanting to buy one before VW and others pulled theirs off the market.

I don't think that minor stuff like refilling the urea tank is going to influence their decision. I look at it like having a vehicle with a separate rear washer fluid tank, just one more thing to top off every once it a while (usually at oil change). Fuel contamination of the oil is something that worried me a bit more, but everything I've read seems to suggest that Mazda has that under control since the software update a few years ago.

Good post.

The washer tank comparison is apt.

I've also been more concerned with the fact that diesel fuel isn't a good engine lubricant, than that oil dilution would require more frequent changes. I wish it was easier to get good information on what Mazda did to correct the problem.

I'm planning to get a diesel CX-5, and I live 15 minutes from my work. I take 40 minute drives at least twice a month. I'm hoping that I won't be a candidate for filter related problems.

I had a 1976 Mercedes 240D for a few years in the early 90s. I have a Kubota compact utility tractor from the 90s. That's my exposure to diesel engines.

 

[Monterra]

^^I think that driving pattern should be OK for DPF regen..and I'm sick of the CR-V/CX-5 thread without an end:
This guy is pretty funny yet informative:
http://autoexpert.com.au/buying-a-car/should-i-buy-petrol-or-diesel?rq=diesel

and..again:

From the Mar C/D in case you missed it file:


2018 Mazda CX-5 Diesel: Increased Efficiency for the Lovable CX-5
If you're looking for a fun-to-drive diesel, it'll likely be this one.

2018 Mazda CX-5
What It Is: A compression-ignition middle finger to Mango and to the masses of virtually identical life-ends-with-children mobiles. Should also come with the bonus of meaningful steering feel and impressive road manners.

Why It Matters: If the CX-5 diesel works as it should, it could offer segment-leading fuel economy and performance. According to a Mazda representative, the company’s most recent attempt at bringing a diesel stateside in the Mazda 6 ended with a tough decision. “It could be made to drive the way we wanted or it could meet U.S. emissions, but not both,” he said. “We wouldn’t accept that.” Mazda says it has solved that problem here. And so, with VW out of the TDI game, if you’re looking for a fun-to-drive diesel, it’ll likely be this one.


Platform: Mazda mildly altered the CX-5’s platform for the 2017 model year, providing a marginally lower center of gravity. An additional 0.4 inch of track width increases stability.

Powertrain: A urea-injected version of Mazda’s Europe-market sequentially turbocharged 2.2-liter diesel four-cylinder mates exclusively to the company’s existing six-speed automatic transmission. Revisions to the engine’s injector design and injection strategy will help the 2.2 exceed the 173 horsepower it makes in the rest of the world. Drivability and NVH also will be improved over that engine, which chugs out 310 pound-feet of torque.

 

[mangoconchile]

There are a lot of people who won't buy a diesel simply because it's a diesel, and there are people who will buy a diesel because it's a diesel, and not a lot of people in between. People who may have been on the fence before the VW scandal are probably not going to try it now. So I think the market for a CX-5 diesel consists of people who've already had diesel cars before, or people who were wanting to buy one before VW and others pulled theirs off the market.

Yup. If they want to sell this diesel to people that already have a history with diesels, ok then. But if they think they're somehow going to convert people who have been driving gasoline cars their whole life to diesel they're smoking crack. Diesel is old, electric/hybrid/turbo charging is the future. Honda is planning in releasing a CRV Hybrid in the future, which will further increase MPG, and the CX-5s competitors will only release cars that offer more MPG and power than they do now. The new Forester has already been seen testing, you know it will further improve on MPG and power, same thing with the Rogue, RAV4, Tucson, etc...

 

[Monterra]

No history with diesel, yet I want this so take your hybrid CR-V (ETA on that btw?) and jam it

 

[Kaps]

No history with diesel, yet I want this so take your hybrid CR-V (ETA on that btw?) and jam it

Honda made FCF Clarity. If Mirai is a flop, Clarity is its father in flopping.
Mostly CR-V will be hydrogen fuel. But you have to drive to California to fill it everytime.

 

[Red MC]

Yup. If they want to sell this diesel to people that already have a history with diesels, ok then. But if they think they're somehow going to convert people who have been driving gasoline cars their whole life to diesel they're smoking crack. Diesel is old, electric/hybrid/turbo charging is the future. Honda is planning in releasing a CRV Hybrid in the future, which will further increase MPG, and the CX-5s competitors will only release cars that offer more MPG and power than they do now. The new Forester has already been seen testing, you know it will further improve on MPG and power, same thing with the Rogue, RAV4, Tucson, etc...

Improvements on MPG and power happen on the diesel side as well. Diesel has and will always have advantages in torque and fuel economy due to the higher compression ratios allowed by the fuel and self-ignition. You can tune a turbocharged gas engine to have a diesel-like torque curve as Honda has with the CR-V's 1.5T, but you won't match the fuel economy of a diesel while doing it.

I want my next car to have some low end grunt and passing power, to handle hills without hunting gears, to have some ability to accelerate at cruising rpms. Mazda's 2.5T has that, with 310 lb-ft. at 2000 rpm, and if that's what they offered in the CX-5, I'd take it. But with the diesel you get the same 310 lb-ft. but with ~10 MPG better fuel economy. It's like having your cake and eating it too.

I'm not presently interested in any hybrids. All of the hybrid SUVs/CUVs I've seen so far are unimpressive in terms of highway mileage, and the weight penalty hurts acceleration and handling. Then there is additional drivetrain complexity which may reduce reliability and increase repair costs, and the high battery replacement cost. They're fine for city drivers who have to haul kids or stuff, but they're not what I'm looking for.

Have you seen the EPA numbers for the RAV4 hybrid? 34 city, 31 highway. The CX-5 diesel will easily beat the RAV4 hybrid in highway fuel economy, and will probably beat it in combined real-world fuel economy too. You wonder who would buy a diesel if there is a hybrid, sometimes I wonder the opposite. A couple years ago I rented a Golf Bluemotion for a week in the UK and got 66 MPG (US equivalent 55 MPG, measured at the pump) and that included 80-90 mph motorway driving. I was thinking who needs a Prius?

 

[NelsonLewis]

There is a reason for you to post here. I can understand - you own one. If you were looking around thats cool too. But, I dont see any reason why someone who has made a decision to post here.
I dont know what happened to Mike it was before I started being a regular - I am non tech guy so keep out of core engine discussions, but in general its a decent forum with freedom for all.
Heck we love Unob - who just calls our cars toasters.

There's tons of people that call this car, and others in its price range an "appliance". I agree. Heck, do a quick Google search, it's everywhere...

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

My car is an applaince for sure. I know because I've burned my arm on the exhaust mani and engine, and finger on the brake rotor. My stove did the same thing.

 

[NelsonLewis]

My car is an applaince for sure. I know because I've burned my arm on the exhaust mani and engine, and finger on the brake rotor. My stove did the same thing.

Makes sense to me, I must confess.

 

[mangoconchile]

Getting back on topic:

Improvements on MPG and power happen on the diesel side as well. Diesel has and will always have advantages in torque and fuel economy due to the higher compression ratios allowed by the fuel and self-ignition. You can tune a turbocharged gas engine to have a diesel-like torque curve as Honda has with the CR-V's 1.5T, but you won't match the fuel economy of a diesel while doing it.

I want my next car to have some low end grunt and passing power, to handle hills without hunting gears, to have some ability to accelerate at cruising rpms. Mazda's 2.5T has that, with 310 lb-ft. at 2000 rpm, and if that's what they offered in the CX-5, I'd take it. But with the diesel you get the same 310 lb-ft. but with ~10 MPG better fuel economy. It's like having your cake and eating it too.

I'm not presently interested in any hybrids. All of the hybrid SUVs/CUVs I've seen so far are unimpressive in terms of highway mileage, and the weight penalty hurts acceleration and handling. Then there is additional drivetrain complexity which may reduce reliability and increase repair costs, and the high battery replacement cost. They're fine for city drivers who have to haul kids or stuff, but they're not what I'm looking for.

Have you seen the EPA numbers for the RAV4 hybrid? 34 city, 31 highway. The CX-5 diesel will easily beat the RAV4 hybrid in highway fuel economy, and will probably beat it in combined real-world fuel economy too. You wonder who would buy a diesel if there is a hybrid, sometimes I wonder the opposite. A couple years ago I rented a Golf Bluemotion for a week in the UK and got 66 MPG (US equivalent 55 MPG, measured at the pump) and that included 80-90 mph motorway driving. I was thinking who needs a Prius?

I understand the argument for Diesel technology, increased fuel economy/torque. But my argument against Diesel was never about the technical details. I just don't think it's a good idea for Mazda to release a diesel engine, simply because like you mentioned earlier, they're not going to convert anyone from Gas to Diesel by offering this. The only people that would likely buy this are people who drive/have a history with diesel engines and even then, they would have to question whether they're going to spend their hard-earned money on a diesel offered by a company that has 0 diesel presence in this country. Couple that with the fact that the CX-5s competitors will only further improve power/fuel economy using Turbo/Hybrid, I just don't think it's a good idea. I think they should have offered the 2.5T instead, but I believe they may be saving it for when CX-5 sales slow down.