All about CX-5 longevity

[jingjing]

Glad I just did of my 2014 cx-5 today. Had 34,795 miles on it. Had issues since last December. Here's my thread about it here http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123847321-My-last-Mazda-s. My last fix was back in June. Only put around 200 miles since then because I still don't trust it. Got a 2013 Toyota Tundra with only 20,790 miles on it. Was gonna get a truck anyways since I plan on getting a camper.

 

[buyingconstant7]

I'm not doubting you when you say other dealership employees told you this. I'm saying they were either mistaken or dishonest (I'm not sure which). I've heard plenty of dealership employees say things which were simply wrong. That's why I asked to see the spec sheet.

You can bet if 0W-20 GF-5 oil was available without having to pay synthetic or synthetic blend prices, someone other than your service department would have heard of it.

I guess asking around our dealer has given me a blind confidence in what we put in our cars. I will verify Tuesday of the oil and its type. If I'm mistaken, I apologize for everything I have said.

 

[buyingconstant7]

coming up for a oil change/8k service this week, different maz dealership, so will ask the same questions re non-synth 0w20
when booking i asked what oil mfg was used - answer was petrocan (meets/exceeds g5 specs according to their data sheet)


LOL
nah, try em, you might like em
every forum has it's own quirks, unfortunately there ARE trolls on the internet, and sometimes legit posters may 'appear' as such

we did look at your dealership when purchasing, but chose to buy elsewhere for a variety of reasons
other family members have purchased there though, new and used - no negs from them

Please do! I just have had everyone I've asked at our dealer say it's non synthetic. And now I'm starting to think I'm wrong, which makes me look like a ignorant fool. And no, I guess I got worked up and took it out wrong. I really do love the Mazda brand. I did have a choice to work at Subaru, Mazda or VW. I chose Mazda because they are a more simple brand that is easy to get used to. I've driven the whole lineup, including the new MX-5(which I'm convinced will be my next car) and love every one. I just bought my Golf because I talk, see and drive Mazdas all day everyday, and getting into my own Mazda at the end of a 9 hour day, I think, will just be depressing. But getting into something different, I think changes my mood. I love my car and wouldn't change a thing.

 

[buyingconstant7]

we did look at your dealership when purchasing, but chose to buy elsewhere for a variety of reasons
other family members have purchased there though, new and used - no negs from them

And hey, what do you mean by my dealership? Did you try all 4 in Calgary? Because I haven't specified which one I work at. If you did, that's a ton of driving!

 

[buyingconstant7]

My Z06 sooted up the tail-pipes BAD in the first 500 miles. Then, I cleaned them perfectly, and it never did it again. It also used about 1/2 quart of oil in the first 500 miles, too, which it never again did after I finished breaking it in. It is my opinion that if you are having a lot of "ugly black soot", that yes, indeed you might be burning oil.
*My CX-5 does not typically "soot" the tips of the tail pipes really. Maybe a tinge of it, but not enough for me to even mention to anyone who asked "How's the exhaust system?"

With my 2015 Golf 1.8t, I have to clean the soot off every 1,000km. Otherwise it bugs me that my stainless steel tips are black. I take a soft wire wheel on a cordless drill and go nuts until it's all off. The end result is very satisfying. And for Skyactivs, I noticed all the cars with over 20,000km have the black soot on the pipes. I was told it's something to do with turbocharging/supercharging/ or direct injection. On the old 2.0L non-Sky cars, there was 0 black soot on cars with over 150,000km.

 

[buyingconstant7]

I would not want to own a VW right now...

That being said, why judge a vehicle based on the forum? This forum is relatively tame, actually. I have known plenty of VW owners that were douchebags. I don't hate VW because of that. Heck, look at BMW. That kid that ran 3 people over in Cali with his Daddy's. I don't hate BMW.

Your logic is weak, here, brother.

Of course, I came from a Nissan and then a Chrysler, so I'm enjoying my drama-free Mazda product immensely!

Despite all that's going on with VW, I couldn't care less. And to even make me care even less, I don't have a "clean diesel" car, so I'll be fine anyways. And no, you're right I shouldn't judge a brand by the enthusiasts on the forums. That's like me reviewing a cars owner, rather than the car itself. So I do take that back

 

[MikeM.]

And hey, what do you mean by my dealership? Did you try all 4 in Calgary? Because I haven't specified which one I work at. If you did, that's a ton of driving!

According to the photos you posted in the opening post, you work at StoneyTrail Mazda.

Please don't feel bad if you're wrong about the oil, most people understand that you have only reported what you were told.

 

[CX-5um]

My Z06 sooted up the tail-pipes BAD in the first 500 miles. Then, I cleaned them perfectly, and it never did it again. It also used about 1/2 quart of oil in the first 500 miles, too, which it never again did after I finished breaking it in. It is my opinion that if you are having a lot of "ugly black soot", that yes, indeed you might be burning oil.

To that end, you are using a non-synthetic in a motor which as I understand DOES run significantly "hotter" than other motors. I think it would be an interesting experiment for you to sack up and use the Mazda Moly oil for 1-2 oil-changes, and track consumption.

*My CX-5 does not typically "soot" the tips of the tail pipes really. Maybe a tinge of it, but not enough for me to even mention to anyone who asked "How's the exhaust system?"

Technically if the dealership truly wanted to get its max value out of the shuttle CX-5, OEM Mazda oil would've been a cheap start.

 

[JbCalg]

And hey, what do you mean by my dealership? Did you try all 4 in Calgary? Because I haven't specified which one I work at. If you did, that's a ton of driving!

sure ya did - like mike posted - one of your photos shows the dealer branding
and always fun to tour the urban sprawl calgary has become LOL

 

[buyingconstant7]

According to the photos you posted in the opening post, you work at StoneyTrail Mazda.

Please don't feel bad if you're wrong about the oil, most people understand that you have only reported what you were told.

Ohh. well that's pretty obvious I guess, I never thought of that, haha! And it will make me feel like an idiot because I said a few things on here like I knew 100% what I was talking about with the oil. Now that I'm doing proper research, I realize that non-synthetic 0w20 may not even exist. I'm just dumbfounded because as a service advisor, I tell the techs when customers want synthetic oil, or to stick with the stuff that we always use.

 

[buyingconstant7]

sure ya did - like mike posted - one of your photos shows the dealer branding
and always fun to tour the urban sprawl calgary has become LOL

I feel dumb now! I totally forgot about the dealer branding on the shuttle, LOL! But yeah, I've worked at Kramer, at Sunridge and now at Stoney. I like Stoney the best because the people are actually down to earth and don't try to be sly and rip customers off. Where'd you end up buying your CX-5? Let me guess...Kramer? Haha

 

[buyingconstant7]

Technically if the dealership truly wanted to get its max value out of the shuttle CX-5, OEM Mazda oil would've been a cheap start.

We got tired of recycling shuttle units every 30-50,000km. It's a lot of paperwork and then the sales dept. buys the car and it will sit on the lot for months on end and then will just be sold at a super low price and we lose money. We're just experimenting if it's better to keep the shuttle until it dies, or to keep trading up. So this CX-5 is our guinea pig, I do have faith in Skyactivs. Especially the 2.0 because the old 2.0L non-Sky was as bulletproof as a 3.7 in a CX-9, that is to say...very bulletproof.

 

[Unobtanium]

Ohh. well that's pretty obvious I guess, I never thought of that, haha! And it will make me feel like an idiot because I said a few things on here like I knew 100% what I was talking about with the oil. Now that I'm doing proper research, I realize that non-synthetic 0w20 may not even exist. I'm just dumbfounded because as a service advisor, I tell the techs when customers want synthetic oil, or to stick with the stuff that we always use.

At least you didn't take a picture of something shiny without your pants on.

 

[CX-5um]

We got tired of recycling shuttle units every 30-50,000km. It's a lot of paperwork and then the sales dept. buys the car and it will sit on the lot for months on end and then will just be sold at a super low price and we lose money. We're just experimenting if it's better to keep the shuttle until it dies, or to keep trading up. So this CX-5 is our guinea pig, I do have faith in Skyactivs. Especially the 2.0 because the old 2.0L non-Sky was as bulletproof as a 3.7 in a CX-9, that is to say...very bulletproof.

Thanks for the reassurance of the 2.0 motor. My cousin recently bought a 2011 Mazda3 with the "non skyactiv" 2.5l motor. How was that motor compared to the 2.0 and 3.7?

 

[buyingconstant7]

Thanks for the reassurance of the 2.0 motor. My cousin recently bought a 2011 Mazda3 with the "non skyactiv" 2.5l motor. How was that motor compared to the 2.0 and 3.7?

I'll be honest, the old 2.5 wasn't mazdas best engine. They were based on the even older 2.3 and the common problems carried over for the 2.5. They had connecting rod bearing issues, lifter issues and a few others. Most of those were caused by infrequent oil changes, but most engines can take a few thousand Kms overdue before any damage happens. But the 2.5's couldn't. How many miles on it? Good service history? If it's been serviced right and will continue to be, it should be trouble free. But infrequent oil changes wreak havoc on 2.3's and 2.5's. Just make sure they're religious with maintenance. That's all. The new 2.5 skyactivs are too new to tell. But so far, they seem the same as the 2.0 Skyactiv.

 

[CX-5um]

I'll be honest, the old 2.5 wasn't mazdas best engine. They were based on the even older 2.3 and the common problems carried over for the 2.5. They had connecting rod bearing issues, lifter issues and a few others. Most of those were caused by infrequent oil changes, but most engines can take a few thousand Kms overdue before any damage happens. But the 2.5's couldn't. How many miles on it? Good service history? If it's been serviced right and will continue to be, it should be trouble free. But infrequent oil changes wreak havoc on 2.3's and 2.5's. Just make sure they're religious with maintenance. That's all. The new 2.5 skyactivs are too new to tell. But so far, they seem the same as the 2.0 Skyactiv.

80k miles on a 2011 so looks to be about 16k miles per year. Owned by a lady in her mid 40's. She has service records but I'll make sure my cousin specifically looks at oil change intervals. Her husband had installed cross drilled slotted rotors in the front lol. They didn't know any better. Runs well. My cousin plans on changing all pertinent fluids (engine, tranny, brakes).

My understanding is the the new 2.5 skyactiv engine's internal parts are essentially that of a larger spec'd 2.0 engine. Wise choice by Mazda imho. No need to waste resources in creating a whole different engine platform. We own both of these new skyactiv engines. for their HP ratings they're have good torque curves. The new 2.5l engine's max torque comes in at 3250 rpms. Then max HP comes in at 5700 rpm. Excellent city driving motors in terms of torque/fuel efficiency.

 

[V8toilet]

No need to waste resources in creating a whole different engine platform. We own both of these new skyactiv engines.

You are correct that the Sky 2.5 is a larger version of the 2.0 but just want to make it clear that they are actually two defferent engines in that almost none of the parts are interchangeable with each other. Even the engine block and it's bore centers are different.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

The old 2.5 is built and handles boost very well stock

 

[buyingconstant7]

80k miles on a 2011 so looks to be about 16k miles per year. Owned by a lady in her mid 40's. She has service records but I'll make sure my cousin specifically looks at oil change intervals. Her husband had installed cross drilled slotted rotors in the front lol. They didn't know any better. Runs well. My cousin plans on changing all pertinent fluids (engine, tranny, brakes).

My understanding is the the new 2.5 skyactiv engine's internal parts are essentially that of a larger spec'd 2.0 engine. Wise choice by Mazda imho. No need to waste resources in creating a whole different engine platform. We own both of these new skyactiv engines. for their HP ratings they're have good torque curves. The new 2.5l engine's max torque comes in at 3250 rpms. Then max HP comes in at 5700 rpm. Excellent city driving motors in terms of torque/fuel efficiency.

You don't really have to look at the service history to tell if it's been maintained. Let the car sit overnight and start it up on a chilly morning. If it ticks/rattles/knocks for even a second, problems will ensue later on. There should be 0 noise on a cold start with those engines. They had very precise and powerful oil pumps, and the instant the key is turned on and engine cranking over, theres oil in the cylinder head, so oil starvation isn't an issue. But anyways, it sounds like it should be fine. And yes, these are one of the best N/A engines I've driven for low RPM city driving. Passing on the highway even, required just one kick down, not the typical 2 or 3 from other cars.

 

[buyingconstant7]

The old 2.5 is built and handles boost very well stock

Does it? I've never seen one but I know they had weak connecting rods and bearings. But maybe it just happens with age...