- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
That’s for 2015 CX-5 and prior ⋯
Rear Differential Oil Change Procedure for 2017+ CX-5?
- Thread starter Chocolate
- Start date
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
For 2016 CX-5 and up, use Mazda Long Life Hypoid Gear Oil SG1.
⋯ EXAMPLE DIFF. BETWEEN 2013 AND 2016 YMs
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Do you have Mazda dealers in your country?
- :
- 2019 CX-5 GTR
Simple answer seems no:
Mazda Long Life Hypoid Gear Oil SG1
Whats the specs for this gear oil, and whats a good a after market equivalent?
www.bobistheoilguy.com
some more reading:
AWD: 80W-90 vs Long Life Hypoid Gear Oil - What's the difference?
What is exactly the difference between the Mazda 80W-90 gear oil vs the Long Life Hypoid Gear Oil for CX5's with AWD? It's almost double the price per quart. Where can one find the Mazda Hypoid oil for less online?
the why the oil matters is the type of gears used
What Is Hypoid Gear Oil?
If you work with motorcycles or perform your own transmission fluid changes, you will have been introduced to gear oil and specifically hypoid oil at some point in your mechanical learning. That said, most people have no idea what hypoid oil is, much less what it is used for.
itstillruns.com
Hypoid gearboxes: What are they and where are they used?
Hypoid gearboxes are a type of spiral bevel gearbox, with the difference that hypoid gears have axes that are non-intersecting and not parallel.
www.motioncontroltips.com
"To cope with the sliding action and heavy work loads for hypoid gears, high-pressure gear oil is necessary to reduce the friction, heat and wear on hypoid gears. This is particularly true when used in vehicle gearboxes. Care should be taken if the gearing contains copper, as some high-pressure lubricant additives erode copper. "
Good reminder I need to change the front/rear diff fluid on my CX-5 and G35x. My '15 is at around 55k miles... last time changed was 20k miles. I like to do diffs at 30K intervals... I overlooked this one.
Has anybody considered that the minimum required amount of oil is less than the refill procedure indicates, and that the refill procedure is written to make it easier. At the factory they may have better and more controlled ability to fill and measure a precise amount. I think it unlikely that Mazda is so cheap and/or incompetent to try and save, or fail to fill $1.50 worth of fluid for more than a short run before making a correction at the factory. The fact that the alleged under-filling spans multiple model years makes me think it, if real, intentional. Mazda must have a reason for filling to where they do, and I suspect its a good one. Not saving a dollar or two per car.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Then why can Mazda simply design a proper location of fill hole at the first place so that it reflects the gear oil quantity they designed for like everybody else? The front casing of rear differential had been redesigned at least once to resolve premature wear on input shaft bearing, why can Mazda relocate the fill hole at the same time to eliminate the confusion? A penny saved is a penny earned. If each car saved $2 on gear oil, it’d save $300K per year just from US CX-5 sales!
And BTW, the front transfer case on CX-5 has no such issue. It takes stated 0.45 quarts of gear oil to reach the fill hole.
Assume a hypothetical, that a case performs and lasts equally well if the total enclosed volume is anywhere from 30% to 70% full with oil.
It would make sense for Mazda to put the user refill line at 50% full to allow maximum margin for error for what the aftermarket mechanics may do in the say 30% of cars that ever have the fluid checked or serviced.
But at the factory, Mazda would likely only fill to 35% full because they may have a +/- 1% variation in their fill and measurement process. In this case, it makes sense to save the $2 if there is no functional downside to using less than the 50% they put in the user fill process.
In this scenario, amateurs checking or trying to remedy the fill much earlier than the service interval are more likely to do harm than good.
I'm just making up these numbers. But a scenario like this seems far more plausible than Mazda intentionally, or through negligence, continuously failing to put an adequate amount of oil in their new cars.
edit: of course another plausible explanation could be if the lower fill allows them to pass some test or criteria for the new cars that is necessary or desirable for them. Such as meeting fuel economy targets.
It would make sense for Mazda to put the user refill line at 50% full to allow maximum margin for error for what the aftermarket mechanics may do in the say 30% of cars that ever have the fluid checked or serviced.
But at the factory, Mazda would likely only fill to 35% full because they may have a +/- 1% variation in their fill and measurement process. In this case, it makes sense to save the $2 if there is no functional downside to using less than the 50% they put in the user fill process.
In this scenario, amateurs checking or trying to remedy the fill much earlier than the service interval are more likely to do harm than good.
I'm just making up these numbers. But a scenario like this seems far more plausible than Mazda intentionally, or through negligence, continuously failing to put an adequate amount of oil in their new cars.
edit: of course another plausible explanation could be if the lower fill allows them to pass some test or criteria for the new cars that is necessary or desirable for them. Such as meeting fuel economy targets.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I guess my argument is still, why does Mazda implement the same way like you described at front transfer case to save another $2?
I'm assuming most of their designs are evolutionary, where they borrow design intent, and in many cases direct CAD from previous or parallel efforts. In many cases decisions on what to ship may be based on existing tooling or copy and paste design elements. If it works and meets function, you don't change your tooling or design set just so some small percentage of end-use mechanics can see the consistency.
Maybe the front doesn't have as much wiggle room on fill capacity. Maybe they copied the design directly from another application that had different constraints, but still plenty well-suited to the new application. Maybe they didn't have time/resources/will to do loss function testing across the full range of fill levels so just stuck with a level they've proven works for the front, but had to do that for the rear design and they more fully know over what range of fills it performs adequately.
Who knows. Whatever the reason, I'm sure it made sense to Mazda considering their design philosophy, and standing as most reliable car brand, think it unlikely that the reason is incompetence or negligence.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yes, who knows why Mazda did this way. But one thing for sure is they did this and other things which I don’t agree with are for cost savings.
But I simply can’t agree with you that Mazda is “standing as most reliable car brand“ claim!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
BTW, Mazda should either change the official instruction or change the capacity spec on rear differential which won’t cost a penny. You can’t specify the rear differential gear oil capacity as 0.45 quart for gen 1 CX-5 or 0.37 quart for gen 2 CX-5, but we need about 0.8 quart to fill the rear differential to the fill hole by following the official instruction!
I agree with you there. The listed capacity should be accurate. If its based on something other than the obvious, that should be spelled out.
And the methodology could be questionable but: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/consumer-reports-ranked-mazda-as-the-most-reliable-brand-of-2020/
At least they're within spitting distance of the most reliable brands. It isn't a laughable assertion.
edit: I also think it absurd that they continue to supply a much smaller diameter spare on their AWD CX-5. But I don't believe that was an engineering decision, unlike the factory fluid fills.
And the methodology could be questionable but: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/consumer-reports-ranked-mazda-as-the-most-reliable-brand-of-2020/
At least they're within spitting distance of the most reliable brands. It isn't a laughable assertion.
edit: I also think it absurd that they continue to supply a much smaller diameter spare on their AWD CX-5. But I don't believe that was an engineering decision, unlike the factory fluid fills.
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yeah I wouldn’t mix SG-1 with any other gear lubricants. And based on Mazda specs, the gear oil capacity for front transfer case on gen-2 CX-5 is 0.48 quarts and rear differential is 0.37 quarts. But in reality by following official Mazda refill instruction you need about 0.48 quarts for the front and 0.8 quarts for the rear. And you do need to get 2 quarts of SG-1, not 1, for both front and rear gear oil replacement.never mind probably not,bought another one for 83$
never had problem with spending good money on taking the best care for my cars its just a shame i new that before i could save 45$on the shiping.
$83 per quart for SG1? Must not be USD?
