Good point, but Mazda is tiny in comparison to Ford. Ford has a way bigger parts bin and has several cars that share all of those engines. It is expensive to have many configurations if you only produce a handful of models. Mazda has to be super efficient to turn a profit.
2014 Engine Options...Article From Yesterday
- Thread starter zoomzoom_cx9
- Start date
Good point, but Mazda is tiny in comparison to Ford. Ford has a way bigger parts bin and has several cars that share all of those engines. It is expensive to have many configurations if you only produce a handful of models. Mazda has to be super efficient to turn a profit.
Well that's where I'm stuck. Reviews and non-owners often want more power for passing and hills, but it seems like most owners say it does just fine for them in real life... that the reviews are misleading. It's confusing. After more than an hour in test drives, it seemed reasonable to me, but I keep wondering if I'm missing something? I don't need a sports car, but I also don't want to feel stressed when merging, etc.
Yes, but the CX-5 is the volume Mazda model (2nd to the Mazda3), worldwide sales are significant by any automakers standards especially when considering they all are built in one factory for the entire world market. But in the US, Escape does outsell the CX-5 by 4x as you noted.
CX-5 is key to Mazda for financial success, they need to offer some additional competitive engines (at extra charge of course for extra profit, and these engines need to be used across multiple product lines such as in the new Mazda6 and CX-5).
Last edited:
The fact that the CX5 gets the highest gas mileage combined over any other CUV is what drew me into even looking at it in the first place. I suspect this is true for all of you as well or you wouldn't have bothered to look and buy it too. If Mazda does drop in a 2.5 liter engine I'm betting the gas mileage will be a combined 24 mpg just like the Honda CRV, which has a 2.4 liter I-4 and is the closest in real world mileage to the CX5. Also don't expect the 2.5 to have as high a compression ratio as the 2.0 unless it has a super long stroke and about the same size piston (not likely). I also think the type of people who want more accelerating power are also the type of people (on average) who drive more aggressively and will exploit that power lending to even less MPG in real world driving than the people who drive with the lesser 2.0.
Last edited:
The CX-5 is 'similar' to others like the CR-V and Escape in size and perhaps in handling. There's a CX-5 in my yard 'cause fuel economy separates it from the herd. In fact, had the fuel economy been the same as the Escape I would still be driving the Volvo and waiting for the diesel.
In response to another post, mine is a 2 car family, but only in summer as the MX-5 gets winter stored. The need for a second year-round ride ebbs when the family can commute with public transit which is faster (in rush hour) and just cheaper than the cost of downtown monthly parking.
Brian
P.S. Not that I any longer give a sh*t as I retired in April.
When I started to research the CX5, I was shocked that they could get away with advertising on television that it gets 35+mpg. Reason being, only the 6spd manual gets this MPG rating and that config doesn't even represent half of the fleet. Therefore it would not surprise me if they keep the 2.0L 6spd in the fleet (as the cheapest option) so they can keep advertising the class-leading fuel economy, meanwhile they will cater to the whiners (and car reviewers) with the 2.5L option.
They made their mark with economy and handling and now they are supplementing the options with another [more powerful] world engine. I think its actually been a successful marketing strategy.
They made their mark with economy and handling and now they are supplementing the options with another [more powerful] world engine. I think its actually been a successful marketing strategy.
Agreed, the 2.0 might be a little less than desired, but the 189 hp 2.5 is a bit too much (for me).
Still, I'm surprised how well the little 2.0 does considering the hp/weight ratio thing. It's 0-60 (9.4ish) is about the same as many compact cars, including the Civic, Elantra and Cruze. Yet no one is reviewing them as being dangerously slow when passing, etc.
Canadian-ES-GT
Member
- :
- Protege
I would think that when sitting higher, you don't feel speed as much.
It just gets me thinking about the sluggish Chevy Colorado I drove once, than got back into my speedy Protege. Even though the Colorado does go faster than my car, I never really felt the hamsters under the bonnet.
Happy to see that the 2.5 will make its way into the CX-5. From the articles I've read, they will be able to re-use this engine quite a bit in NA. (Mazda 3, 5, 6, CX-5)
It just gets me thinking about the sluggish Chevy Colorado I drove once, than got back into my speedy Protege. Even though the Colorado does go faster than my car, I never really felt the hamsters under the bonnet.
Happy to see that the 2.5 will make its way into the CX-5. From the articles I've read, they will be able to re-use this engine quite a bit in NA. (Mazda 3, 5, 6, CX-5)
zoomzoom_cx9
Member
- :
- CX-9 Touring AWD
I had emailed Mazda asking about the 2.5 Skyactiv in the 2014 CX-5 and this is the response I got.
Thank you for contacting Mazda North American Operations.
First I would like to thank you for your loyalty to Mazda. Unfortunately I
cannot confirm that the 2014 CX-5 will be available with the 2.5 skyactive
engine. I can advise you to use the Mazda website www.MazdaUSA.com for updates
on vehicles.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. If you have further
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to conact me at the number below.
Thank you for contacting Mazda North American Operations.
First I would like to thank you for your loyalty to Mazda. Unfortunately I
cannot confirm that the 2014 CX-5 will be available with the 2.5 skyactive
engine. I can advise you to use the Mazda website www.MazdaUSA.com for updates
on vehicles.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. If you have further
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to conact me at the number below.
That is subjective.
If you are on the highway LOTS, then it probably is worth it.
If you are in the city 90% of your driving, then not.
For me, it wont be worth it at all as I never drive on the highway much anymore.
It may be about feeling. We also have a Protege which has similar 0-60 but certainly does not feel slow when accelerating.
It also may very well be gearing issue - Protege goes quicker into higher rpm range (it is also a stick).
So, rationally I understand that CX-5 is as quick, but I could net help feeling that it was slow during two test drives that I did. That was on a flat road.
I plan to take the car into the mountains occasionally. I would hate if it struggled much there.
I suspect what you are feeling at lower speed and lower revs is the engine going into the high MPG mode or Atkinson cycle. The gas pedal feels a bit dead in this mode, with fairly large throttle openings, but MPG is higher than any SUV as a result.
The sky active 2.5 will double the chances of us purchasing a CX-5. I do not think the real world mileage hit will be as bad as some of you guys think. It will probably end up somewhere between the CR-V and the 2.0G's mileage. The added torque will require less RPMs from the engine and give the feeling of effortless acceleration. Like someone else said, fuel economy isn't linear.
It will be interesting and totally plausible to maintain the same MPG or even better with a manual transmission or even a 7 speed transmission as well using i-ELoop instead of an alternator and battery will have some significant MPG gains. There is going to significant price bump even in the base model next year since this was the introductory year margins were low to help grow sales and the brand. The CX5 is going get some competition from BMWs X1 that goes on sale this fall in the US it is significantly faster with average CUV MPG at a slightly higher price point.
How cool would it be to see a Turbo Rotary Skyctiv bio-diesel Mazdaspeed CX5?
How cool would it be to see a Turbo Rotary Skyctiv bio-diesel Mazdaspeed CX5?
New 2012 CR-V gets 27.2 actual average MPG, by real owners on Fuelly. Government EPA number is 26 combined (25 AWD).
CX-5 Fuelly number is 28.6
The current RAV-4 and previous CR-V were getting circa 24 MPGs. As you may know, new RAV-4 is coming out, and it will likely match the CR-V numbers.
At the end of the day, the 2.0L Gas CX-5 has a very narrow actual lead.
CX-5 Fuelly number is 28.6
The current RAV-4 and previous CR-V were getting circa 24 MPGs. As you may know, new RAV-4 is coming out, and it will likely match the CR-V numbers.
At the end of the day, the 2.0L Gas CX-5 has a very narrow actual lead.
I think Mazda did an outstanding job by picking the 2.0 SKYActive engine in the CX5. The market was ready for an outstanding high efficient vehicle with excellent handling AND best in class mile mileage. However: there are a fairly large number of people who don;t look at details and just want performance and mileage. Mazda chose the mileage rather than the power. I wonder if auto buyers will Look at the mileage or read the test which seem to say the vehicle is underpowered? I think Mazda could have taken a middle of the road approach and put a 170 hp 2.3l Sky Active engine in and maybe satisfied the greatest number of people. I'm not sure a 155 hp 2.0l and a 190HP 2.5 can accomplish that. ED
ED - Good way to look at the CX-5, I agree with Mazda's choice of standard engine. As you said, best-in-class gas mileage is the result of the 2.0L Skyactiv engine. Any bigger engine with same technology would get them to lower gas mileage average, even if it potentially appealed to a slightly greater number of people. Not that it matters, the CX-5 US inventory continues to be low in most of the significant market areas. We have a some groaning on the internet, but the sales demand has exceeded the supply in US for months.
