How it is the CX9 engine doing, it is a turbo engine, and will come to the CX5?
Thats 7 years ago. Now Toyota follows the same philosophy coming out a naturally aspirated、high compression、high thermal efficiency Dynamic Force 168hp 2.0L, and 203~206hp 2.5L which is proven getting much better real-world MPGs (20% gain based on Fuelly) on 2018 Camry.imho, the mpg route and cheaper to make.
Kudos for Mazda for implementing an large 4 banger with natural torque but with competitive mpgs. Skyactiv-X is on the horizon which should improve the skyactiv engine's power deliver (less dead spots) but with better mpgs.
I believe the X is using supercharging, not turbocharging.
When gen-2 CX-9 just came out in 2016, the owners manual says to use only 5W-30 oil. The problem is even Mazda OEM 5W-30 oil in the US is equivalent to Castrol GTX conventional oil. Many Mazda dealers and oil change shops use conventional or synthetic-blend 5W-30 oil for oil change on CX-9. Of course we should know conventional or synthetic-blend is not as suitable as using a full synthetic GF-5 5W-30 oil for a turbo engine.They have a weird discussion regarding correct oil to use. If anything, I think it may be burning a bit of oil. Normal for turbo cars.How it is the CX9 engine doing, it is a turbo engine, and will come to the CX5?
That*s 7 years ago. Now Toyota follows the same philosophy coming out a naturally aspirated*high compression*high thermal efficiency Dynamic Force 168hp 2.0L, and 203~206hp 2.5L which is proven getting much better real-world MPGs (20% gain based on Fuelly) on 2018 Camry.
SkyActiv-X is a brand new technology and only time will tell. Remember Mazda had to change the design from original HCCI to SPCCI adding spark ignition and a turbo charger to overcome many issues. To me it almost becomes a 2.0L turbo with less power at 188hp but having very complicated spark and compression ignitions. We don*t Know how good the fuel efficiency will be, hopefully it won*t be like disappointing EPA FE ratings from its 2.2L diesel.
Yes, SPCCI SkyActiv-X uses a supercharger, not a turbo charger like I stated earlier.I believe the X is using supercharging, not turbocharging.
When gen-2 CX-9 just came out in 2016, the owner*s manual says to use only 5W-30 oil. The problem is even Mazda OEM 5W-30 oil in the US is equivalent to Castrol GTX conventional oil. Many Mazda dealers and oil change shops use conventional or synthetic-blend 5W-30 oil for oil change on CX-9. Of course we should know conventional or synthetic-blend is not as suitable as using a full synthetic GF-5 5W-30 oil for a turbo engine.
But I noticed Mazda has changed the wording in owner*s manual on 2018 CX-9. It recommends API SM/SN or ILSAC GF-IV/GF-V 0W-30/5W-30/10W-30 engine oil. Hopefully all CX-9 owners understand the 2.5L turbo needs full synthetic GF-5 oil and they should make sure they get such oil when they do the oil change for their CX-9.
You keep harping about 20% gain on the 2.5L used in previous gen camry. I own the previous gen camry - its a pig when it comes to highway fuel efficiency. Accord, Mazda6, Volvo S60, Volvo S80, Kia / Hyundai sisters - all of these from the same year / generation give the Camry an ass whooping in mpg. If you go to any Toyota forums you will see numerous threads on fuel economy being less than advertised.
My 13 Corolla gave 32 mpg on highway, my 15 Camry does the same. When I drive it which is more mixed, CX5 >> Camry in mixed driving, even short haul trips - CX5 >> Camry.
So - if you had terrible FE to begin with, 20% of terrible is less terrible. With a Mazda6 (2017 Gen1) my wife's commute would be 34 mpg, in my hands probably 37 mpg - the Camry does 32 for her and 25~27 for me. Its an old technology - pretty much the same drivetrain carried over from 2014 which was refreshed in 2012. There could be lot of faults with Mazda, but its way ahead in terms of
1. Real world fuel economy.
2. Lowest tail pipe emissions since its divorce from Ford.
Btw rode in an 18 Camry - looks like a poor mans version of prev gen Avalon. Pretty much a copy paste interior. His avg mpg was 26.
You should check upcoming all new 2019 Toyota RAV4 with 203~206 hp naturally aspirated 2.5L and 8-speed auto. It*ll have the best EPA FE ratings in the same class due to its highest engine thermal efficiency. It has both direct and port injection so that some of the drawbacks of direct injection can be eliminated. I don*t know if you can accept the new look, but IMO at least it looks better than the outgoing RAV4!
I actually have a need of a new car. But, like you, I always have some reservation getting a newly-designed vehicle. But I may have to get a 19 RAV4 if I cant wait for that long until 20 MY. The good thing is the new engine and transmission have been in 2018 Camry for more than a year and havent heard any complaints. It seems we dont have to worry about these on the new RAV4.I'm really looking forward to this new Rav4. If I buy, it won't be until the second year for the redesign. I was a big Toyota fan up until the gas pedal farce.
No, not in my opinion. I had personal first hand experience with this and I can tell you it did not have anything to do with floor mats or sticking gas pedals. If you dig deep enough you come across an independent lab that found software issues which make the on board computer thinks it should be accelerating, so it accelerates. I posted the links on here somewhere a while back. The gas pedal-floor mat thing was a cheap out for Toyota IMO, I thought the story was quite ridiculous, so was the gas pedal redesign. Anyway, I recently bought a 2015 Scion Xb, which basically is a Toyota, has a 2.4 liter Camry engine in it. Sparked a renewed interest in the brand.I actually have a need of a new car. But, like you, I always have some reservation getting a newly-designed vehicle. But I may have to get a *19 RAV4 if I can*t wait for that long until *20 MY. The good thing is the new engine and transmission have been in 2018 Camry for more than a year and haven*t heard any complaints. It seems we don*t have to worry about these on the new RAV4.
A friend of mine have always been getting freshly redesigned Camry*s for 4 consecutive generations. He said he has never had any issues for each new generation Camry, and each has accumulated more than 100K miles. He also said although he*s worried about the reliability issue in general on turbo engines, but he wouldn*t hesitate to get a turbo-charged Lexus NX because he trusts Toyota and its turbo would be the most reliable one.
And I thought sudden-acceleration issue on Toyota is caused by the driver-side floor mate which was improperly *positioned* makeing gas pedal stuck?
Those sudden-acceleration accidents are always fishy to me, not saying sudden-acceleration wont happen, but I do believe we should be able to use the brake to stop the car as the brake is more powerful, or at least we can shift the gear to neutral. To me many cases are caused by driver error - he or she stepped on gas pedal instead of brake pedal. Then they blame it on the car manufacture trying to avoid responsibility. Few years ago a friend of mine who swears her new Lexus RX 300 did sudden-acceleration to her and she almost hit a traffic light as she was trying to sway away the car in front of her. She actually got another new RX after she threatened Lexus shell sue them because the vehicle is unsafe to drive.No, not in my opinion. I had personal first hand experience with this and I can tell you it did not have anything to do with floor mats or sticking gas pedals. If you dig deep enough you come across an independent lab that found software issues which make the on board computer thinks it should be accelerating, so it accelerates. I posted the links on here somewhere a while back. The gas pedal-floor mat thing was a cheap out for Toyota IMO, I thought the story was quite ridiculous, so was the gas pedal redesign. Anyway, I recently bought a 2015 Scion Xb, which basically is a Toyota, has a 2.4 liter Camry engine in it. Sparked a renewed interest in the brand.
Toyota's Smart Brake Technology does exactly that, brake pedal overcomes anything the accelerator, which is by throttle-by-wire since about the early to mid 2000s, wants to do.Those sudden-acceleration accidents are always fishy to me, not saying sudden-acceleration won*t happen, but I do believe we should be able to use the brake to stop the car as the brake is more powerful, or at least we can shift the gear to neutral. To me many cases are caused by driver error - he or she stepped on gas pedal instead of brake pedal. Then they blame it on the car manufacture trying to avoid responsibility. Few years ago a friend of mine who swears her new Lexus RX 300 did sudden-acceleration to her and she almost hit a traffic light as she was trying to sway away the car in front of her. She actually got another new RX after she threatened Lexus she*ll sue them because the vehicle is unsafe to drive.
Hopefully those software bugs causing sudden-acceleration have been resolved after these years.
I'm really looking forward to this new Rav4. If I buy, it won't be until the second year for the redesign. I was a big Toyota fan up until the gas pedal farce.
I just like the way it looks, don't like the redesign of the 2017 CX5. Also like the fact you could put it into 4 wheel lockup manually and go off roading (more like beach driving for me)I am all excited for the RAV4, but after driving a Mazda 6 2.5T , I will have to drive both of them, and make a choice, then, if Mazda DOES come out with a CX5 2.5T. I have nearly 100K miles on my CX5, it's treated me well, and if the 2.5T gets the 0-60 into the high 5's, it's going to be very hard to ignore. I honestly don't see why it couldn't. The Subaru Forester 2.0XT was turning 6.3 seconds to 60, and it has a CVT and you guys all say CVT's suck. The Forester 2.0XT weighs 3700#, and has 250hp/258tq.
The CX9's 2.5T has 250hp (using 93 octane), and over 300# torque, and the engine in the CX5 would weigh around 3700-3800#, and it has t his wonderful 6-speed that everyone loves, so why COULDN'T it shave 0.3 seconds off the Forester's 0-60? Hmmmm?
I am all excited for the RAV4, but after driving a Mazda 6 2.5T , I will have to drive both of them, and make a choice, then, if Mazda DOES come out with a CX5 2.5T. I have nearly 100K miles on my CX5, it's treated me well, and if the 2.5T gets the 0-60 into the high 5's, it's going to be very hard to ignore. I honestly don't see why it couldn't. The Subaru Forester 2.0XT was turning 6.3 seconds to 60, and it has a CVT and you guys all say CVT's suck. The Forester 2.0XT weighs 3700#, and has 250hp/258tq.
The CX9's 2.5T has 250hp (using 93 octane), and over 300# torque, and the engine in the CX5 would weigh around 3700-3800#, and it has t his wonderful 6-speed that everyone loves, so why COULDN'T it shave 0.3 seconds off the Forester's 0-60? Hmmmm?
Because Mazda's 2.5T is designed for CX-9 which emphasizes low-end torque. It'll run out of breath after 4,000 rpm which's not beneficial during fast acceleration.I am all excited for the RAV4, but after driving a Mazda 6 2.5T , I will have to drive both of them, and make a choice, then, if Mazda DOES come out with a CX5 2.5T. I have nearly 100K miles on my CX5, it's treated me well, and if the 2.5T gets the 0-60 into the high 5's, it's going to be very hard to ignore. I honestly don't see why it couldn't. The Subaru Forester 2.0XT was turning 6.3 seconds to 60, and it has a CVT and you guys all say CVT's suck. The Forester 2.0XT weighs 3700#, and has 250hp/258tq.
The CX9's 2.5T has 250hp (using 93 octane), and over 300# torque, and the engine in the CX5 would weigh around 3700-3800#, and it has t his wonderful 6-speed that everyone loves, so why COULDN'T it shave 0.3 seconds off the Forester's 0-60? Hmmmm?