Different versions in the USA and Europe?

[Querorz]

Hi guys,

Here in Turkey, Mazda Cx-5 is the most nimble 2.0L engine SUV on the market, compared to other 2.0L engines. 0-62 mph in 9.2 seconds? This is better than most of the sedan cars.

However when i watched reviews from the USA , most of the people said that Cx-5 was a bulky car with 11 seconds performance. Then, when i checked Mazda's USA website, i saw that the most of the numbers about performance were different. Here is some of them:

In Europe SKYACTIV-G 2.0L 165 hp @ 6000 rpm torque: 210 / 4000 Compression ratio: 14:1
In the USA SKYACTIV-G 2.0L 155 hp @ 6000 rpm torque: 150 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm Compression ratio: 13:1


What do you think?

I don't know much about cars but i guess since car taxes for bigger engines is high in Europe, Mazda put a tighter compression in Europe model. So, even the small engine would perform well.


So, can we still call the European model "bulky" even with 210 nm torque ? (Keep that in mind that we are talking about 2.0 engines)

 

[ALafya]

US version has slightly less compression ratio so it can drive on 87 octane ("Regular", the lowest octane in most states, using (RON + MON)/2 method, which is different from the European method).
Buyers here will view a high octane only vehicle as a disadvantage. The difference in cost is about 20 cents / gallon or about 6%.
This is skimping is not base in reality, since at 28MPG it is only about $70 a year more for an average 10K miles/year.

At the same time, most US consumers will opt for the 2.5L engine, which is more powerful, but uses a little more fuel, so they end-up not saving on gas

 

[ikerg]

But this can be changed with an ecu programming?
I am thinking to moving to europe and get it there

 

[Querorz]

Guys, but can this little difference in the engine make a big difference in performance? USA Youtube tests show that 2.0L engine's performance is not better than 11 secs. They call it "a slow and bulky SUV". But i really don't want to get a bulky car. Performance is so important for me. In European catalogues performance is 9.2 secs for 0-62 mph . Is that really possible or are we being fooled?

 

[felixd]

how about the Asian country . will the compression be 13:1 or the 14:1 ? cheers

 

[loximoto]

Guys, but can this little difference in the engine make a big difference in performance? USA Youtube tests show that 2.0L engine's performance is not better than 11 secs. They call it "a slow and bulky SUV". But i really don't want to get a bulky car. Performance is so important for me. In European catalogues performance is 9.2 secs for 0-62 mph . Is that really possible or are we being fooled?

I think that the difference is due to different models tested.
9.2 seconds can be reached with a FWD with manual transmission, while the 11 secs performance regards an AWD car with automatic transmission, which has only 160hp.

 

[Querorz]

I think that the difference is due to different models tested.
9.2 seconds can be reached with a FWD with manual transmission, while the 11 secs performance regards an AWD car with automatic transmission, which has only 160hp.

9.2 seconds is for Automatic transmission, my friend. You are from Europe. What do you think about the performance of your car?

 

[piotrek91]

The USA version of the CX-5 (2.0L) gets from 0-60MPH in 9.2s
Both the automatic AWD and manual FWD achieved the same time in these two tests:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-touring-awd-test-review

The European version gets 0-62MPH in 9.2, so it is only slightly faster.
The European version has 165HP and 210NM (155 ft-lb) of torque
while the USA version has 155HP and 203NM (150 ft-lb)

The difference between 165HP vs 155HP and 210NM vs 203NM is not that big..

All of the complaining you hear about in reviews is because the 2.0L CX-5 is one of the slowest cars on the market here.

 

[Querorz]

The USA version of the CX-5 (2.0L) gets from 0-60MPH in 9.2s
Both the automatic AWD and manual FWD achieved the same time in these two tests:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-touring-awd-test-review

The European version gets 0-62MPH in 9.2, so it is only slightly faster.
The European version has 165HP and 210NM (155 ft-lb) of torque
while the USA version has 155HP and 203NM (150 ft-lb)

The difference between 165HP vs 155HP and 210NM vs 203NM is not that big..

All of the complaining you hear about in reviews is because the 2.0L CX-5 is one of the slowest cars on the market here.

Oh , that's true. I didn't know "ft-lb" wasn't the same thing with "nm" . So, yeah, European and the USA versions are almost the same. Here in Turkey , you have to pay 1,200 dollars tax annually for a 2.0L engined vehicle. On the other hand 2.5L's tax fee is 2 times more expensive(2,400 USD) . And gas prices are incredibly high as well. So, no one dares to buy a 2.5 Liter.

Ironically , Cx-5 with 9.2 secs performance is the fastest SUV in 2.0L engined SUVs, while it is slow for you. Even 2.0L CR-V or Forester's performance is 11 seconds from 0 to 60.

 

[V8toilet]

I tested my 2.0 FWD Sport on a G-tech, which is a device made to measure acceleration and G-force accurately, and measured from 8.37 seconds to 8.6 seconds depending on the day and temperature For 0-60 times. It averaged 8.5 seconds to 60 MPH.

 

[Querorz]

I tested my 2.0 FWD Sport on a G-tech, which is a device made to measure acceleration and G-force accurately, and measured from 8.37 seconds to 8.6 seconds depending on the day and temperature For 0-60 times. It averaged 8.5 seconds to 60 MPH.

Impressive... Was that a 2.0L?

 

[Pongchanok]

how about the Asian country . will the compression be 13:1 or the 14:1 ? cheers

Mostly 13:1 except Thailand 14:1 (required 95 RON).

 

[V8toilet]

Impressive... Was that a 2.0L?

Yes, 2.0 as stated in the quote. My 2.5 Touring does it in 7.5 seconds.