CX-5 Sales continue to set records

Kaps

Contributor
:
CX-5 Touring 2016.5
I bought a Camry instead of a mazda6. Whenever wife drives CX-5 she praises it a lot. Toyota is trying hard to shed the boring tag and it seems they are trying too hard. In a way happy I don't have two Mazdas. Servicing them has been a bad experience. So much so I am willing to risk it and go fumoto myself.
I might have to reconsider mazda unless I live close to one dealer that's not a total dud. Brand philosophy and dealer's does not overlap. Specially one who also run Chevy/Hyundai also.
 
:
'18 Mazda CX-5 Akera KG i-Activ AWD 2.5L In Sonic Silver
Servicing quality depends on the dealer.

I've experienced both a very good Mazda dealer service centre (won't hesitate to take my upcoming CX-5 to them) as well as a very bad Mazda dealer service centre (never again will I use them or even buy a car from them as there sales department was not that much better).
 

cburrell

Member
:
2013 CX-5 Touring, 2016 Mazda 6 Sport
No, the new 2.5L Dynamic Force I4 D-4S Dual Injection with Dual VVT-i and ECO, Normal and Sport drive modes from Toyota is nothing like Mazda's SkyActiv-G 2.5L other than 13:1 compression ratio.

New Direct Shift-8AT 8-speed automatic transmission is also different from Mazda's SkyActiv-Drive 6-speed automatic.

And I'm also impressed with true off-road capabilities with Multi-Terrain Select and an Toyota-first, Dynamic Torque Vectoring All-Wheel Drive with "Rear Driveline Disconnect" AWD system on new RAV4.

First off your comparing a 7 year old engine that debuted in 2012 to a brand new engine by Toyota. Secondly, it isn't some great technological advancement that Toyota managed to get 15 to 20 more horsepower out of the dynamic force 2.5 engine over the 2.5 skyactiv G, it is actually just basic physics...Toyota made the new dynamic force engine red line at 100 more rpms than the Skyactiv G engine, and paired it with a 8 speed transmission, when the skyactiv G is only paired to a 6 speed transmission. So by having 100 more rpms to red line, and having 2 more gears over the Skyactiv G engine, the dynamic force engine is able to gain 15 to 20 more HP on the top end, but max torque which is way more important than HP for daily driving is virtually identical to that of the 2.5 Skyactiv G engine...so unless you plan on driving at max speed at red line the 15 to 20 HP is negligible. Finally, according to a Car and Drive article from December of 2017, a top Mazda engineer confirmed that the reason Toyota purchased a 5% stake in Mazda was so they could study Mazda's engine technology. Here is the quote from the article, " Chen argues that Mazda's new approachwhich kickstarted in 2012 with the launch of the first Skyactiv enginewas proven successful when Toyota took a five percent stake in Mazda this past August. "They're actually starting to see benefits of how we do things," Chen said. "Obviously [Toyota's] new engine is very similar to our Skyactiv-G engine. They envy us and our ability to challenge and do things differently. Their deal is that they want to study our engine expertise." So, when you factor in the fact that Toyota's new 2.5 engine only makes 15 or 20 HP more with a higher red line and 2 more gears, and minimal improvements in epa ratings over a 7 year old Mazda engine, the new Toyota engines don't seem that impressive...especially in light of the fact that the New dynamic force engines won't be able touch the new Skyactiv X engines in terms of performance and epa ratings.
 
:
Mazda CX-5 Akera
First off your comparing a 7 year old engine that debuted in 2012 to a brand new engine by Toyota. Secondly, it isn't some great technological advancement that Toyota managed to get 15 to 20 more horsepower out of the dynamic force 2.5 engine over the 2.5 skyactiv G, it is actually just basic physics...Toyota made the new dynamic force engine red line at 100 more rpms than the Skyactiv G engine, and paired it with a 8 speed transmission, when the skyactiv G is only paired to a 6 speed transmission. So by having 100 more rpms to red line, and having 2 more gears over the Skyactiv G engine, the dynamic force engine is able to gain 15 to 20 more HP on the top end, but max torque which is way more important than HP for daily driving is virtually identical to that of the 2.5 Skyactiv G engine...so unless you plan on driving at max speed at red line the 15 to 20 HP is negligible. Finally, according to a Car and Drive article from December of 2017, a top Mazda engineer confirmed that the reason Toyota purchased a 5% stake in Mazda was so they could study Mazda's engine technology. Here is the quote from the article, " Chen argues that Mazda's new approachwhich kickstarted in 2012 with the launch of the first Skyactiv enginewas proven successful when Toyota took a five percent stake in Mazda this past August. "They're actually starting to see benefits of how we do things," Chen said. "Obviously [Toyota's] new engine is very similar to our Skyactiv-G engine. They envy us and our ability to challenge and do things differently. Their deal is that they want to study our engine expertise." So, when you factor in the fact that Toyota's new 2.5 engine only makes 15 or 20 HP more with a higher red line and 2 more gears, and minimal improvements in epa ratings over a 7 year old Mazda engine, the new Toyota engines don't seem that impressive...especially in light of the fact that the New dynamic force engines won't be able touch the new Skyactiv X engines in terms of performance and epa ratings.

Finally someone talking some sense. I dont know how the Mazda bashing began again and the topic moved to Toyota tech. Its silly suddenly trying to compare something brand new that is long overdue from Toyota and comparing it to Skyactiv-G which has been around for years now. The current Skyactiv engines are still superior to equivalent engines from its own era. There is a reason why there will be a new update soon after its own lifecycle period and in the form of the Skyactiv-X it will be groundbreaking and a game changer for the ICE.
 
:
2022 2.5GT
Finally someone talking some sense. I don’t know how the Mazda bashing began again and the topic moved to Toyota tech. It’s silly suddenly trying to compare something brand new that is long overdue from Toyota and comparing it to Skyactiv-G which has been around for years now. The current Skyactiv engines are still superior to equivalent engines from its own era. There is a reason why there will be a new update soon after its own lifecycle period and in the form of the Skyactiv-X it will be groundbreaking and a game changer for the ICE.

Exactly, and one of the big benefits of the Mazda arrangement is that it isn’t blown or tuned to death. A big capacity engine given less work to do is a recipe for longevity. A 1.4 turbocharged engine with 200bhp is a ticking bomb. The CX-9 shows the same block is capable of bigger things but I reckon they’ve got it right.
 
:
Mazda CX-5 Akera
Exactly, and one of the big benefits of the Mazda arrangement is that it isn’t blown or tuned to death. A big capacity engine given less work to do is a recipe for longevity. A 1.4 turbocharged engine with 200bhp is a ticking bomb. The CX-9 shows the same block is capable of bigger things but I reckon they’ve got it right.

The 2.5T from Mazda is definitely very mildly tuned. I have no doubts it is capable of much more power and torque but Mazda isn’t playing the numbers or high performance game. Also agree on the unfounded issues of cylinder deactivation. Haven’t heard of any issues of that on the VW Tiguan either.
 
:
'18 Mazda CX-5 Akera KG i-Activ AWD 2.5L In Sonic Silver
The 2.5T from Mazda is definitely very mildly tuned. I have no doubts it is capable of much more power and torque but Mazda isn’t playing the numbers or high performance game. Also agree on the unfounded issues of cylinder deactivation. Haven’t heard of any issues of that on the VW Tiguan either.

Indeed. Mazda have tuned it to provide response in everyday suburban driving.
 
:
2021 CX-9 Sig
:
2014 CX-5 GT
Does anybody know if what Mazda did with the 2.0 to bump it to 181 hp would work with the 2.5? A 17% increase in the 2.5 would give almost 220 HP, which would be fantastic. A bump to 200 hp would help with marketing.
 
:
'18 Mazda CX-5 Akera KG i-Activ AWD 2.5L In Sonic Silver
Does anybody know if what Mazda did with the 2.0 to bump it to 181 hp would work with the 2.5? A 17% increase in the 2.5 would give almost 220 HP, which would be fantastic. A bump to 200 hp would help with marketing.

Don't think they will be doing that with the 2.5L.

If I am not mistaken, it's already reached it's max outputs. Hence the development of the SkyActiv-X not to mention the 2.5T.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
Toyota's Dynamic Force engine tech by Engineering Explained video.
40% thermal efficiency on base 2.5L engine with 13:1 compression ratio, and 41% thermal efficiency on hybrid variant with 14:1 compression ratio are the best among production engines, especially for low-cost、mass-production gasoline engines.

So much for borrowing Mazda's idea for this Dynamic Force 2.5L development as this engine, like I have said before, is nothing like Mazda's SkyActiv-G other than compression ratio. And the engine has been under development since 2016, long before Toyota acquired Mazda's 5% stack!
 
:
'18 Mazda CX-5 Akera KG i-Activ AWD 2.5L In Sonic Silver
When one is a very large automotive manufacturer with large cash reserves, you can spend lots of $$$ on getting these gains.

For Mazda to have done what they have done with their SkyActiv technology with all the constraints of being a small independent manufacturer, they do deserve a round of

giphy.gif
 

cburrell

Member
:
2013 CX-5 Touring, 2016 Mazda 6 Sport
40% thermal efficiency on base 2.5L engine with 13:1 compression ratio, and 41% thermal efficiency on hybrid variant with 14:1 compression ratio are the best among production engines, especially for low-cost、mass-production gasoline engines.

So much for borrowing Mazda's idea for this Dynamic Force 2.5L development as this engine, like I have said before, is nothing like Mazda's SkyActiv-G other than compression ratio. And the engine has been under development since 2016, long before Toyota acquired Mazda's 5% stack!

I see that you don't ever address anyone's rebuttals, you just restate your previous nonsense. First off, you continue to compare a 7 year old engine to a brand new engine developed by Toyota, that is apples to oranges, secondly your ignorance on how engines work is beyond me...thermal efficiency is directly related to compression ratio. The quick and easy way to make an engine more thermally efficient is to increase the compression ratio, so the part of the dynamic force engine that is identical to the Skyactiv G, that you keep trying to trivialize and marginalize as a minor thing to have in common, is one of the big reasons why the new dynamic force engine is 40% thermally efficient. Secondly, some of the skyactiv G engines are already close to 40% thermally efficient as well...while Toyota made nice gains it isn't mind blowing considering the base I4 in the 2017 Camry was 35% thermally efficient. A 5% increase with the dynamic force is a nice improvement but it isn't mind blowing. The Skyactiv X is 44% thermally efficient, trying comparing dynamic force to the X when it hits the market later this year. The fact is that you can say what you want but in real world gas mileage testing by magazines like car and drive, Edmonds, and others, the new 2.5 dynamic force in the Camry was only 1 or 2 mpg's better in combined and city driving than a 7 year old Skyactiv G engine that is in the Mazda 6. The only clear advantage the dynamic force engine has over the G engine in highway mileage, and most of that is due to it having two extra gears from the transmission which the G doesn't have that keeps it rpms lower at highway speeds. The fact is for a new engine, the dynamic force engine isn't that much better of an engine than a 7 year old skyactiv G engine...so it achieves 15 or so more HP on the top end because of the 8 speed transmission, and it gets 3 or 4 more mpg's on highway again because of the transmission. Sorry I am not that impressed with a brand new engine that only offers moderate gains over an engine that has been in production for 7 years and was developed almost a decade ago.
 
:
Mazda CX-5 Akera
I see that you don't ever address anyone's rebuttals, you just restate your previous nonsense. First off, you continue to compare a 7 year old engine to a brand new engine developed by Toyota, that is apples to oranges, secondly your ignorance on how engines work is beyond me...thermal efficiency is directly related to compression ratio. The quick and easy way to make an engine more thermally efficient is to increase the compression ratio, so the part of the dynamic force engine that is identical to the Skyactiv G, that you keep trying to trivialize and marginalize as a minor thing to have in common, is one of the big reasons why the new dynamic force engine is 40% thermally efficient. Secondly, some of the skyactiv G engines are already close to 40% thermally efficient as well...while Toyota made nice gains it isn't mind blowing considering the base I4 in the 2017 Camry was 35% thermally efficient. A 5% increase with the dynamic force is a nice improvement but it isn't mind blowing. The Skyactiv X is 44% thermally efficient, trying comparing dynamic force to the X when it hits the market later this year. The fact is that you can say what you want but in real world gas mileage testing by magazines like car and drive, Edmonds, and others, the new 2.5 dynamic force in the Camry was only 1 or 2 mpg's better in combined and city driving than a 7 year old Skyactiv G engine that is in the Mazda 6. The only clear advantage the dynamic force engine has over the G engine in highway mileage, and most of that is due to it having two extra gears from the transmission which the G doesn't have that keeps it rpms lower at highway speeds. The fact is for a new engine, the dynamic force engine isn't that much better of an engine than a 7 year old skyactiv G engine...so it achieves 15 or so more HP on the top end because of the 8 speed transmission, and it gets 3 or 4 more mpg's on highway again because of the transmission. Sorry I am not that impressed with a brand new engine that only offers moderate gains over an engine that has been in production for 7 years and was developed almost a decade ago.

Yes unfortunately his refusal to address ones certain rebuttals is the norm and you will see repetitive tables of comparison numbers. Everyone knows Toyotas thermal efficiency gains are basically Skyactiv 7 years late to the party. Admittedly Toyota has implemented its own version with its own combination of 8 speed transmission etc. but that doesnt make the concept different despite his insistence of different length of bore x stroke or piston shape etc. What is bizarre is the reprimand on Mazda to somehow come up with something better in terms of numbers to Toyotas new release. How dare you Mazda? Why didnt you come up with better numbers than Toyotas 2018 engines 6 years ago, yesterday or tomorrow? Mazda has moved onto bigger projects already ie. Skyactiv X HCCI into production which will be groundbreaking. Thats what Im more excited about.
 
Yes unfortunately his refusal to address one’s certain rebuttals is the norm and you will see repetitive tables of comparison numbers. Everyone knows Toyota’s thermal efficiency gains are basically Skyactiv 7 years late to the party. Admittedly Toyota has implemented its own version with its own combination of 8 speed transmission etc. but that doesn’t make the concept different despite his insistence of different length of bore x stroke or piston shape etc. What is bizarre is the reprimand on Mazda to somehow come up with something better in terms of numbers to Toyota’s new release. How dare you Mazda? Why didn’t you come up with better numbers than Toyota’s 2018 engines 6 years ago, yesterday or tomorrow? Mazda has moved onto bigger projects already ie. Skyactiv X HCCI into production which will be groundbreaking. That’s what I’m more excited about.



Spot on m8te. Mazda has their timeline and is moving along according to that. They have been testing the new X engine for some time now according to all reports and test cars with that engine have been driving around for almost a year if not more.

The incessant rambling with !! Is something I just gloss over. Does anyone know if Y works for Mazda or is a auto technician? I wonder what his sources are for much of his info.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
I see that you don't ever address anyone's rebuttals, you just restate your previous nonsense.
Because I've responded in another thread with topic somehow related to Toyota.

First off, you continue to compare a 7 year old engine to a brand new engine developed by Toyota, that is apples to oranges,
I was comparing current models, 2018 Mazda6 and 2018 Camry with similar 2.5L I4 setup. When SkyActiv-G just came out in 2012/2013, I didn't see people here screaming that's unfair comparison when it outperformed most others with older designs.

secondly your ignorance on how engines work is beyond me...
I only stated the fact and my honest opinion. You can present the fact to contradict my statement, but there's no need to start personal attack!

thermal efficiency is directly related to compression ratio. The quick and easy way to make an engine more thermally efficient is to increase the compression ratio, so the part of the dynamic force engine that is identical to the Skyactiv G, that you keep trying to trivialize and marginalize as a minor thing to have in common, is one of the big reasons why the new dynamic force engine is 40% thermally efficient. Secondly, some of the skyactiv G engines are already close to 40% thermally efficient as well...while Toyota made nice gains it isn't mind blowing considering the base I4 in the 2017 Camry was 35% thermally efficient. A 5% increase with the dynamic force is a nice improvement but it isn't mind blowing.
Right here your claim is false. If it's so easy and cheap to increase thermal efficiency with higher compression ratio, then why everybody else is not doing it making 14:1 or even 16:1 compression ratio on a gasoline engine? The fact is it's not quick and easy to produce a 14:1 or 13:1 gas engines due to many ill-effects and limitations, including available gasoline supply. Even Mazda has scaled back from original 14:1 SA-G 2.5L to 13:1 in other markets including Japan and Germany.

The Skyactiv X is 44% thermally efficient, trying comparing dynamic force to the X when it hits the market later this year.
From many reports SkyActiv-X 2.0L I4 is at least 2 years away for mass production. Mazda is predicting about 188 horsepower and 170 lb-ft of torque from the 2.0L SkyActiv-X. But nobody knows if there's a 2.5L SA-X available for production. People would say it's an unfair compression to Dynamic Force 2.5L with smaller displacement whenever the 2.0L SA-X is coming out!

The fact is that you can say what you want but in real world gas mileage testing by magazines like car and drive, Edmonds, and others, the new 2.5 dynamic force in the Camry was only 1 or 2 mpg's better in combined and city driving than a 7 year old Skyactiv G engine that is in the Mazda 6.
Check Fuelly with a lot more real-world MPG samples. For Camry with 2.5L the average real-world MPG for 2017 is 26.3 mpg but for 2018 with new 2.5L is 31.5! The jump for Mazda6 when switched to SA-G 2.5L is significant too, from 24.6 mpg for 2012 to 29.0 for 2013, and now 30.1 mpg for 2017.

The only clear advantage the dynamic force engine has over the G engine in highway mileage, and most of that is due to it having two extra gears from the transmission which the G doesn't have that keeps it rpms lower at highway speeds.
This's almost like claiming the quick and easy way to make an engine more thermally efficient is to increase the compression ratio! 8-speed automatic transmission is nice making a traditional step-automatic more resembling to a CVT for efficiency. But highway MPG also depends on gear ratios and final drive ratio and the power of the engine. You can't unlimitely push the gear ratio taller lowering the engine RPM on the highway but the engine simply can't handle it.

Now after the calculation the result of 2 extra gears on Camry actually contradicts your claim:

2018 Camry L:
8th gear ratio: 0.67 + final drive ratio: 3.63 + tire size: 205/65 R16 - overall diameter: 26.5"
= 64.83 mph @ 2000 rpm.

2018 Mazda6 Touring:
6th gear ratio: 0.599 + final drive ratio: 3.812 + tire size: 225/55 R17 - overall diameter: 26.8"
= 69.83 mph @ 2000 rpm.

So Mazda6, although is having 2 less gears, actually has advantage with taller overall top gear ratio driving on the highway!

The fact is for a new engine, the dynamic force engine isn't that much better of an engine than a 7 year old skyactiv G engine...so it achieves 15 or so more HP on the top end because of the 8 speed transmission, and it gets 3 or 4 more mpg's on highway again because of the transmission. Sorry I am not that impressed with a brand new engine that only offers moderate gains over an engine that has been in production for 7 years and was developed almost a decade ago.
Are you sure Camry's new Dynamic Force 2.5L I4 "achieves 15 or so more HP on the top end because of the 8 speed transmission"???

You keep repeating yourself by saying comparing a new engine to a 7-year-old engine is unfair, but is it fair to compare a current production engine, a 203~206 hp 2.5L Dynamic Force, to a future engine, an estimated 188 hp 2.0L SkyActiv-X, which won't be available for another 2 years?
 
Last edited:

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
⋯ Mazda has moved onto bigger projects already ie. Skyactiv X HCCI into production which will be groundbreaking. That’s what I’m more excited about.
Sorry to tell you that Mazda's original project of making a (spark-plug-less) Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) gasoline engine has failed because it's too volatile and difficult to manage for higher engine speeds and high-load situations such as acceleration. Mazda now has to settle for Spark Plug Controlled Compression Ignition (SPCCI) with spark plugs and a super charger added, for its upcoming 2.0L SkyActiv-X with estimated 188 horsepower and 170 lb-ft of torque.
 
Last edited:
:
Mazda3
First off your comparing a 7 year old engine that debuted in 2012 to a brand new engine by Toyota.

its a valid comparison imo. they're both new generation models, directly competing with one another. its just that one company decided to put a new motor in their CUV to give it a competitive advantage, and the other company has no engine to compete with it. that 2.5L skyactiv is on it's last legs competitively, and there's not much mazda can do to get more power or fuel economy out of it.

and we all know why the toyota has the ability to use an engine like this in the rav, because they have much bigger cash reserves to invest in R&D while the other doesn't.

the cx-5 is selling well, but that's more due to people switching to crossovers. one very good selling model cannot keep a company afloat is the rest of the lineup isn't selling well.

i personally find it very exciting that we now have a CUV in this segment that has over 200 horsepower, naturally aspirated, doesn't need spcci, doesn't need a turbo and uses an 8 speed automatic, although i do think there will be a decent price increase over the existing rav4.

The current Skyactiv engines are still superior to equivalent engines from its own era.

not really sure how this is relevant? it's 2018 not 2012.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts