2014 Engine Options...Article From Yesterday

[DougNuts]

I'm not sure a 155 hp 2.0l and a 190HP 2.5 can accomplish that. ED

I think it will. The 2.4L Honda engine is 185hp and gets very good fuel economy - it uses port fuel injection and a typical 5 speed auto. Throw on direct injection, higher compression and Mazda's tight 6 speed auto and all of a sudden you're at the same fuel economy that the 2.0G CX-5 gets. The CX-5 doesn't have enough torque, which is something I was wrong about as I always said it would have enough. Again, I think you guys will be surprised at how much 25% more displacement allows the engine to effortlessly accelerate, creating similar fuel economy when driven similarly. Additionally, it will have more power when it's requested and not require zinging the engine to 6000rpm to merge with 60mph traffic.

A good example of what I'm trying to put into words is my '97 Civic. With it I get 31.x mpg driving in the city and 31.x mpg driving on the highway @ 70-75mph. Load has a big impact on fuel economy.

 

[CX-SV]

A good example of what I'm trying to put into words is my '97 Civic. With it I get 31.x mpg driving in the city and 31.x mpg driving on the highway @ 70-75mph. Load has a big impact on fuel economy.

Yes, the load impact of not carrying extra 1100 pounds, AWD, large SUV frontal area, not to mention lack of safety, room, utility, comfort, lux features, style. IMHO, not the best of examples.

The CX-5 AWD actually getting 25-26mpg in city and 31mpg at 70-75mph is quite efficient given the modern SUV attributes and really shows automotive advancements put into practice. I think the 2.5L Skyactiv would be a good optional engine (which is what I think Mazda is planning, extra cost option), expect only a small penalty (5%-8%) in gas mileage, but there will be a penalty.

 

[exalted_one]

While Im dissapointed that mazda went 2.5 instead of 2.3 or 2.4 (the koreans get 200hp out of their 2.4....),

I really dislike statements like this, The 2.5 Mazda engine (assuming it is the MZR) currently has a compression ratio of 9.7:1 where the Hyundai engine is rocking an 11.3:1.

I would love a car with 11.3 compression ratio but for daily driving I really have to wonder what kind of toll that would take on an engine from a longevity standpoint. If you are concerned about MPG you should think of the Dollar-per-gallon since you will be using premium fuel.

 

[CX-SV]

Note: the 2.5L mentioned in articles is supposed to be "Skyactiv", therefore it will have high compression, probably closer to 13:1 (like the 2.0L Skyactiv, and it runs on regular gasoline).

 

[exalted_one]

Note: the 2.5L mentioned in articles is supposed to be "Skyactiv", therefore it will have high compression, probably closer to 13:1 (like the 2.0L Skyactiv, and it runs on regular gasoline).

Wow 13:1 on regular gas?

I didn't think that was possible, is there something in particular that allows this to happen or is it just REALLY good tuning?

 

[CX-SV]

Wow 13:1 on regular gas?

I didn't think that was possible, is there something in particular that allows this to happen or is it just REALLY good tuning?

Yes that's correct, no pinging too. Skyactiv includes direct injection, unique piston design, special header and a bunch of other unique design features to allow it to work effectively.

 

[puddle.jumper]

Wow 13:1 on regular gas?

I didn't think that was possible, is there something in particular that allows this to happen or is it just REALLY good tuning?

yup, just concurring that the current line of 2013 2.0L cx-5s in north america are 13:1 on regular gas. you can fill up with 87, 89, 91 -or however the local gas station labels them.

and so far, until we get official word on the specifications, a lot of this is speculation.

 

[katmar]

yup, just concurring that the current line of 2013 2.0L cx-5s in north america are 13:1 on regular gas. you can fill up with 87, 89, 91 -or however the local gas station labels them.

I can't find the web page, but I read an interview once with one of the Mazda engineers involved with SKYACTIV, and he mentioned that "in theory," using premium in the US-spec SKYACTIV-G 2.0 should give a small torque/power increase. I realize that isn't usually the case with most engines, and it ruins the whole point of saving fuel costs, but still it's interesting.

 

[CX-SV]

I can't find the web page, but I read an interview once with one of the Mazda engineers involved with SKYACTIV, and he mentioned that "in theory," using premium in the US-spec SKYACTIV-G 2.0 should give a small torque/power increase. I realize that isn't usually the case with most engines, and it ruins the whole point of saving fuel costs, but still it's interesting.

The interview you are referring to was some Mazda engineer speculating (about using premium in US spec engine) in the hallway, saying that further testing was needed or something, and of course no followup several months later as expected.

Note: 2.0L Skyactiv gasser in Europe has 14:1 CR, requires premium and does create measurably more horsepower.

 

[puddle.jumper]

The interview you are referring to was some Mazda engineer speculating (about using premium in US spec engine) in the hallway, saying that further testing was needed or something, and of course no followup several months later as expected.

Note: 2.0L Skyactiv gasser in Europe has 14:1 CR, requires premium and does create measurably more horsepower.

yep. i've read that awhile back.

the source article:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/11/2011-la-auto-show-2013-mazda-cx-5-to-hit-60-in-86-seconds-plus-cameo-by-patrick-dempsey.html

page 4 of this threaded discussion:
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123815916-Octane-Rating/page4

i'm still in non-scientific, comparison mode for my own experience. either this next fill up or the next one after than will be with 91. i didn't see any difference with 87 versus 89.

 

[DougNuts]

Yes, the load impact of not carrying extra 1100 pounds, AWD, large SUV frontal area, not to mention lack of safety, room, utility, comfort, lux features, style. IMHO, not the best of examples.

Based on your response, I guess you're right.

 

[CX-SV]

woohoo. hope this is true.

would put the cx-5 back at the top of my list.

(idhitit)

What's on your list (at the top)?

 

[Mistersix]

The interview you are referring to was some Mazda engineer speculating (about using premium in US spec engine) in the hallway, saying that further testing was needed or something, and of course no followup several months later as expected.

Note: 2.0L Skyactiv gasser in Europe has 14:1 CR, requires premium and does create measurably more horsepower.

I was curious about the benefits of premium fuel on this high compression engine as well. It seems they lowered the compression because they know americans are to cheap to want to put premium in this class of vehicle and it would hurt sells. Its still impressive that at 13:1, 87 octane is sufficient knock suppression.

If the ecu has a logic in it that finds mbt(maximum torque, best timing) using variable valve timing then its possible that raising the knock threshold with a higher octane fuel could net more torque, thus more power output. As the ecu could advance timing more aggressively. This practice was the standard i use tuning my speed 6. I bumped up timing until it just started knocking then backed off a 1/2 degree. Then to increase my knock threshold, i now add 2 gallons of E85 for octane rating about 96. Since then i've been able to add even more timing and make alot more power.

A tuning solution. Now thats what we need for this car. But that will probably never happen.

 

[aeglaeca]

Just my .02 here. The 2.0 has never left me worried or wanting in the passing lane, or driving up in the mountains. I think the 2.5 will be a good option engine, but, I would stick with the 2.0 for mileage. If you're on the fence about the CX-5, drive one. Take it on the freeway, drive it up a mountain and, if you find yourself wanting, wait for the 2.5.

 

[jason330i]

What's on your list (at the top)?

well, i am kinda all over the place.

but these are the ones i am considering.

acura rdx
toyota highlander
mazda cx-5
honda cr-v
hyundai santa fe

 

[V8toilet]

I think the problem is that drivers subconsciously do not want to loose while driving. Its like its an innate thing especially with male drivers. This is why they often drive crazier when the traffic gets heavier (more competition for a limited resource). This is why in heavy traffic drivers ride each others bumpers because god forbid if you loose 15' to another driver who wants to merge onto that highway. This is why many drivers will accelerate if you catch up to them on a three lane highway. As soon as you go to pass them they accelerate and if you go faster so do they and so on. This is why drivers jump off the line if they have another vehicle in the lane next to them and those two lanes merge into one a few hundred feet ahead but if they are the only one they accelerate smoothly. This is also why some drivers will go out of their way to pass a less aggressive driver only to get caught at the next light with the driver they just passed next to them, hey they got ahead. The best one is when you're coming off the highway and a driver accelerates madly around you after coming up behind you because you are entering the off ramp too slowly only to slam on the brakes going down that off ramp because the off ramp has a sharp turn in it. That driver actually gets a slower average speed and just wasted more fuel doing it.

If a driver can average 10 mph faster on a 23 mile highway commute (65 vs 75 mph average) they would only save 3 minutes off their travel time. Is it worth it to spend more money in gas to buy a bigger engine with a higher price for such little time actually gained? The 2.0 liter engine actually has a fat torque curve way down low in the RPM range for just a 2.0 liter four. It has decent snap off the line. Sure its not a honking V8 but it will pull the CX5 up a decent hill idling in drive. I can lug and maintain speed up some pretty steep hills at 1500 RPM in 6th gear. I can keep up with all those CRV's and Rav 4's and their 185 hp engines and not let the engine rev past 2500 RPM with my 150 HP engine. My CX5 goes 0-60 mph in 8.44 seconds measured on a G-Tech and still gets me 35-36 mpg average going back and forth to work. A half liter more really isn't going to make that much of a difference. Forget the peak horsepower numbers, what really matters is torque and at what RPM it is produced. The area under the curve in a graph is what really matters. People who do not know cars have long been suckers for peak HP #'s as a sales pitch. The old saying horsepower sells cars but torque moves them is still true today. The 2.5 liter engine will be quicker and it will have more torque but is it really needed? I guess if you have to be the guy they beats the other drivers than yes. (shrug)

 

[CX-SV]

I don't think there is a problem. A plus for the CX-5, the optional engines in US market won't exceed 30% of the US sales, but they (2.5L gasser and diesel) will be great extra-cost optional Mazda offerings.

The competitive highly successful 2013 Escape does well offering 3 engines (of which only 2 really sell since the base rental car engine is leftover crap from old Escape, and 1.6L turbo engine is predominate by far).

I appreciate horsepower, my other car has twice the power of the CX-5, it's not needed, but I want it regardless.

 

[CX-SV]

well, i am kinda all over the place.

but these are the ones i am considering.

acura rdx
toyota highlander
mazda cx-5
honda cr-v
hyundai santa fe

Not really, that list makes sense, all of these vehicle aren't that much different in size and configuration, being all compact to mid-sized crossover SUVs. (Sure they are considerably different in terms of price, engines, MPG, weight, etc.)

 

[paris1]

well, i am kinda all over the place.

but these are the ones i am considering.

acura rdx
toyota highlander
mazda cx-5
honda cr-v
hyundai santa fe

Here's something to consider Jason330i: In the first quarter or half of 2013 there will be a new Forester, a new Rogue and (one way or another) more power for the CX-5. I've been driving myself crazy trying to convince myself that the CX-5 drivetrain is "good enough". I think I'm about to put the whole thing on hold and see how things shake out next year!

 

[CX-SV]

Here's something to consider Jason330i: In the first quarter or half of 2013 there will be a new Forester, a new Rogue and (one way or another) more power for the CX-5. I've been driving myself crazy trying to convince myself that the CX-5 drivetrain is "good enough". I think I'm about to put the whole thing on hold and see how things shake out next year!

Sounds promising (the new Forrester and Rogue), as long as CVT trannys can be avoided.