Canadian-ES-GT
Member
- :
- Protege
^ seems like it didn't want to go into second
First drive of the Diesel - Review and Photos/Videos
- Thread starter inodes
- Start date
VK Sefirosu
Member
- :
- 2016 CX-5 GT AWD
Diesel certainly looks interesting, unfortunately on our shores that may take a while. Maybe the sales figures and demand will make that happen sooner though.
Anyway, I was wondering, is I-Stop limited to the diesel engine ? I'd guess this should contribute somewhat to fuel economy especially in heavy stop and go traffic. That feature, along with Smart city brake support and lane departure warning is not available here at all in Canada and I beleive it is the same for the US.
Anyway, I was wondering, is I-Stop limited to the diesel engine ? I'd guess this should contribute somewhat to fuel economy especially in heavy stop and go traffic. That feature, along with Smart city brake support and lane departure warning is not available here at all in Canada and I beleive it is the same for the US.
Canadian-ES-GT
Member
- :
- Protege
The i-stop system is for all new Mazdas. Only thing is that us Canadians and Americans won't see this feature for some time.
I am really disappointed to hear this. It's one feature I am liking A LOT. There is a little interruption to the drive, but in practice it only really impacts me if I want to beat another car off the line to cut into traffic. If I know this is going to happen, lifting the brake a little bit brings the engine immediately to life.
The manual has a whole two pages on the conditions that it does and doesn't work, so behind the scenes there is a bit of computation required to make it work. I'm sure this adds up to extra cost. The cost saving to fuel may or may not may for this extra expense.
We don't have any choice here. i-Stop is standard equipment on all models whether manual, auto, petrol or diesel.
It seems as if a combination of diesel and stop-start is common on new models these days.
Canadian-ES-GT
Member
- :
- Protege
I'm guessing Mazda will decide to bring the system sooner than later.
If I remember well, I read that they had no plans to implement it in North American cars. On the other hand, the new Kia Rio has the "start-stop" system in a 400$ eco package. As it gets more popular or cheaper to manufacture, Mazda will bring it here.
If I remember well, I read that they had no plans to implement it in North American cars. On the other hand, the new Kia Rio has the "start-stop" system in a 400$ eco package. As it gets more popular or cheaper to manufacture, Mazda will bring it here.
It's possible to turn everything off
Six buttons on the side console:
* TCS OFF - Traction Control Off (Default: On)
* TPMS - Tire Pressure Monitoring reset (Only required for reset)
* i-Stop - OFF (Default Off)
* BSM OFF - Blind Spot Monitoring Off (Default On)
* AFS OFF - Adaptive Frontlight System Off (Default On)
* LDWS OFF - Lane Departure Warning System Off (Default Off)
Ok. I didn't try it myself but read somewhere that tcs/esp turns on automatically if a certain speed is reached, I think it was above 30 km/h.
So what's your impression of the diesel and the automatic transmission?
I've never been a fan of automatics. I curse majority of transmissions for being far too slow for my liking. My personal favourite is VW's DSG transmission, but low speed on the DSG can vomit inducing for the more sensitive passengers.
The auto transmission on the CX-5 is very smooth to start off with, but very quick and seamless to change (nearly DSG like above 3rd gear). On the petrol though, the transmission is very keen to get all the way up to 5th or 6th. And at the low rpm that produces, there is very little torque or power to play with.
Conversely, the diesel has two tricks up its sleeve. The first is that because the engine is low revving to begin with (diesels are), the gear ratios cause gear changes to not go up so quickly. The gearing feels far more reasonable. In addition to that, there is a massive amount of torque down low. The diesel outdoes the petrol's torque by more than twice. And at least half of that is available at 1000rpm (diesel has 200Nm@1000rpm (max 420Nm@2000rpm), the petrol has max 200Nm@4000rpm). This really makes the diesel feel like it has MUCH more useable grunt that the petrol.
The difference is significant.
One thing that is very noticeable as well is that the low compression of the diesel allows it to rev higher than competitors diesels due to much lighter, more free spinning components. This seems to result in far less noise. The noise is still diesel like, but anyone who sees the car (particularly diesel owners), are very, very surprised. Putting a diesel Tiguan next to the Mazda and opening the engine bays I dare say the Mazda would not sound as noisy.
I did test drive the VW Tiguan and Passat as well. The Passat in particular feels like it has a similar power/torque to the Mazda. The Tiguan feels slower.
Unfortunately either it might be the bedding in of the engine, or my lead foot.... but I can't seem to get close to the stated fuel economy.
Australian government testing indicates 5.7L/100km should be achievable, yet so far the average indicated by the car is 8.0L/100km. I have checked this figure by looking at fuel receipts and reckon the car is fairly accurate at calculating its consumption.
inodes, I have a tiguan which I am trading in for the Mazda because of many, many problems. Here there are 2 diesel versions - the 138bhp and the 168 bhp (approx.). Which did you try? have the 168 bhp so when I get the CX5 it will be an interesting comparison.
Last edited:
In Australia, we only get the 168hp version. Australia is a country of 4WD's (highest ownership per capita) and towing (every second person owns a boat) - the 138hp version wouldn't sell.
That said, SUV's are not purchased by anyone really needing to tow.
I went to one of the many boat ramps in Sydney (we have 4 rivers and a harbour - if you're not out on the water, then you're missing out). Everyone seems to have massive vehicles. 4WD drive of choice seems to be a Nissan Patrol.
But, that said.... the CX-5 is for families who ski and snowboard instead. I'm loving the idea of throwing my skis into the back, and not requiring the use of snow chains.
Bring on winter!!!
What are they meant to be.
I feel this is the case too. However, I did get a $900 tax credit in my diesel BMW 335d. Wife and I are looking for a suv type vehicle for her and our 2 year old. I'm disappointed that Mazda hasn't imported the diesel cx5 with the initial introduction. I think diesel torque/economy with Japanese reliability is a big plus. (don't get me started in my prior Audi a4, that's why I won't touch any VAG products like the Tiguan!). I'm currently getting about 34-36 mpg on my BMW and would love to get similar FE in a SuV. One potential negative about diesels in ca is these punks have mandated that diesels get smog checked every 2 years! On petrol you get 6 years before your first smog. Oh well our states broke lol.
The Skyactiv-D is quite clever in this regard. The compression has been brought way down to 14:1 - which is lowest compression for a diesel (MUCH lower than the VAG TDI's). Coincidently it's the same compression as the European and Japanese spec Skyactiv-G, which is the highest compression for a mass produced engine.
Getting back to the low compression on the Diesel though. By reducing the compression the intention was to get a much higher percentage of the diesel combusted and therefore reducing soot significantly.
Tests in Japan have shown the soot content to be as low as 0.02% from the CX-5 Diesel due to the change in design.
With this, it's exceeded not only currently European requirements, but they have exceeeded the future Euro 6 (required of new vehicles from 1st January 2015).
One requirement of Euro 6 (that the CX-5 complies with) is that any device fitted to a Euro 6 compliant Diesel car to control pollution must be able to last for a distance of 160,000km prior to replacement, and require a check every 100,000km/5 years.
The CX-5 Diesel would most certainly pass the current Californian requirements with flying colours!
Euro 6 require PM (Particulate Matter) to be 0.005g/km (extremely low).
I can't seem to find the figure for California - which is typically measured in bhp-hr instead.
Does anyone have the specifications for California. It would be interesting to compare.
If the CX-5 exceeds Euro standards well beyond 3 years - then how many years would it exceed Californian specs?
Last edited:
Looking at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php
California is 0.01g/mile (LEV II Emission Standards for Passenger Cars and LDVs < 8500 lbs, g/mi).
Euro 6's figure of 0.005g/km makes the California figure look very conservative.
This can't be right.....
California is 0.01g/mile (LEV II Emission Standards for Passenger Cars and LDVs < 8500 lbs, g/mi).
Euro 6's figure of 0.005g/km makes the California figure look very conservative.
This can't be right.....
It's not just the particulates that California is crazy about, they're also too obsessed with nox and HC. That's why the BMW diesels in Europe don't need urea like the USA versions do.
