- :
- 2023 CX-5 Premium; 2018 Mazda 3 GT hatch
..keep on holding! (gah) http://wardsauto.com/north-america/mazda-didn-t-want-damage-clean-diesel-reputation
For those holding your breath for diesel power in US market CX-5...
- Thread starter paris1
- Start date
I've been keeping my eye on this since the CX-5 first drives hit the presses. At the time, I thought a SkyActiv-D CX-5 would be my next car, but it still hasn't even been mentioned for getting the diesel once (if) the 2.2 L goes on sale in the 6. Honestly, I have no major issue with a urea-injection setup and the DPF if that's what it takes to keep the oil and the fuel separate, performance to meet expectations, and fuel economy to make it worthwhile for the price increase.
As life and family situations always are changing, it's now looking like I'll be in Guam for a few years pretty soon. With a maximum speed limit (per reports on the internet) of 35 mph, the island isn't well suited to modern diesels anyway. So, I'm looking back at the Sport 2.0 L 6MT and trying to come to terms with the bare-bones features, no options, and minimal paint colors.
As life and family situations always are changing, it's now looking like I'll be in Guam for a few years pretty soon. With a maximum speed limit (per reports on the internet) of 35 mph, the island isn't well suited to modern diesels anyway. So, I'm looking back at the Sport 2.0 L 6MT and trying to come to terms with the bare-bones features, no options, and minimal paint colors.
I am a fairly cautious person and until Mazda get the excess fuel in engine oil permanently fixed, I will not even consider buying the Diesel. So far the fixes are nothing more than a patch, by raising the high oil level mark with translates into allowing more fuel in the engine oil. JMO. Ed
- :
- 2023 CX-5 Premium; 2018 Mazda 3 GT hatch
You might not say that once you see the amount of the increase. All that downstream stuff adds major cost to the setup and I think that's what Mazda is trying to avoid in the market segment they're in. All that talk in the article about the 2.2 diesel not having enough "zoom-zoom" for Mazda execs is just smoke and mirrors to buy them time to resolve this issue.
I believe the fuel economy they are getting is too low / too similar to the gas 2.5L. This makes it hard for them to justify the extra price tag and maintenance cost for potential buyers. I believe they are truly trying to tweak it to get more economy. Of course, this is just speculation.
That's actually a recent trend (as of 2013/2014), the latest and most advanced direct injected gasoline engines have narrowed fuel efficiency gap and can run super clean with less costly pollution control hardware.
Mazda is not the only company to have DPF problems and oil dilution issues on clean diesels.
From reading the link I would forget about the diesel, you are better off without it.
In the UK we hate DPF, but the thought of having a PDF and additional systems is just too much for me to consider, I would never buy such a engine.
As advances are being made now with petrol engines the gap has been narrowed, all these emission add on's to diesel engines are killing economy and performance, and at the same time reducing reliability due to the complexity.
The diesel is also considerably dearer in the UK, as is the fuel compared to petrol.
Buy a turbo petrol if you want extra low down torque.
I would be very interested to read a comparison test between a 2.5 petrol and the 175ps petrol.
In the UK we hate DPF, but the thought of having a PDF and additional systems is just too much for me to consider, I would never buy such a engine.
As advances are being made now with petrol engines the gap has been narrowed, all these emission add on's to diesel engines are killing economy and performance, and at the same time reducing reliability due to the complexity.
The diesel is also considerably dearer in the UK, as is the fuel compared to petrol.
Buy a turbo petrol if you want extra low down torque.
I would be very interested to read a comparison test between a 2.5 petrol and the 175ps petrol.
Last edited:
The problem is that direct-injection gasoline engines emit a significantly higher amount of particulate matter than the DPF-equipped direct-injected diesels. I'll agree that DPF and other emissions controls have made diesel ownership somewhat onerous, but there are still distinct areas of advantage. Direct-injected diesels can return great numbers even with turbos whereas direct-injected gasoline turbos really struggle with economy in city driving while they do nicely on the highway.
The other thread about soot on the tailpipes is an excellent reason why particulate matter is becoming an issue in gasoline vehicles. Sure, they have SULEV/ULEV/etc. ratings, but Europe is beginning to consider DPFs for gasoline models as well. The direct-injection seems to promote particular matter in the combustion cycle compared with multiport injection.
I suspect that both gasoline and diesel engines are only going to become more complex in the upcoming decade.
The other thread about soot on the tailpipes is an excellent reason why particulate matter is becoming an issue in gasoline vehicles. Sure, they have SULEV/ULEV/etc. ratings, but Europe is beginning to consider DPFs for gasoline models as well. The direct-injection seems to promote particular matter in the combustion cycle compared with multiport injection.
I suspect that both gasoline and diesel engines are only going to become more complex in the upcoming decade.
The difference is the particulate filters for DI gasoline engines will most likely be much cheaper (under $100) than the DPF used on diesels. Also it's very possible that advance DI gasoline engines can reduce particulate emissions through other measures other than particulate traps.
A modern diesel without a DPF would run far dirtier than a modern DI gasoline engine without particulate filter.
Chris_Top_Her
Contributor
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
probably a good thing to keep me from trading in for one.
GPF (on DI gasoline engine) is far cheaper and less complicated than DPF (pm diesel engine) and doesn't require those active regeneration cycles (and the problems associated with them). The amount of soot handled by a GPF is far lower than with DPF. It's still to be determined as to how DI gasoline engine/automakers deal with reducing particulate matter with or without a particulate filter.
Well-said CX-SV. I certainly agree with the points you make--DPF is subject to a higher soot/particulate load than the GPF would be and therefore without particulate filters, diesels would emit a much greater amount of PM.
I've always loved the low-end torque, clatter, and relaxed nature of diesels, but modern diesels are not the slam dunk decision they were in the '90s or early '00s. Maybe as Mazda forces the compression of gasoline engines higher and higher while driving diesel compression even lower will settle in on a nice homogeneous charge compression ignition engine that would be the best of both worlds. I'd love to see an algae-based biofuel that would work in such an application and not require exotic emission controls. But we're years to decades from that point.
I've always loved the low-end torque, clatter, and relaxed nature of diesels, but modern diesels are not the slam dunk decision they were in the '90s or early '00s. Maybe as Mazda forces the compression of gasoline engines higher and higher while driving diesel compression even lower will settle in on a nice homogeneous charge compression ignition engine that would be the best of both worlds. I'd love to see an algae-based biofuel that would work in such an application and not require exotic emission controls. But we're years to decades from that point.
