And why would Mazda care for v6 if they have much more advanced turbo charged engine producing 300+ tq at very low rpm?
Because not everyone in the target demographic wants a 4-cylinder turbocharged engine on a 2-ton CUV?
What difference does it make if it produces more torque than V6...does it at much lower rpm and will burn less fuel at hwy speeds? Did u ever had turbocharged vehivle...I guess not? So mazda should yet again...get v6 engine from another manufacturer to satisfy your lust for V6 in the specs...even if it's inferior in any and every way? I am cheering for mazda, they finally went all mazda tech on 2nd gen.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
What difference does it make if it produces more torque than V6...does it at much lower rpm and will burn less fuel at hwy speeds? Did u ever had turbocharged vehivle...I guess not? So mazda should yet again...get v6 engine from another manufacturer to satisfy your lust for V6 in the specs...even if it's inferior in any and every way? I am cheering for mazda, they finally went all mazda tech on 2nd gen.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
offering a version with Toyota's V6 doesnt sound like it would be worth the R&D to match everything else in the skyactive platform. Maybe before the turbo 2.5 was announced, but we now know what direction Mazda went.
What difference does it make if it produces more torque than V6...does it at much lower rpm and will burn less fuel at hwy speeds? Did u ever had turbocharged vehivle...I guess not? So mazda should yet again...get v6 engine from another manufacturer to satisfy your lust for V6 in the specs...even if it's inferior in any and every way? I am cheering for mazda, they finally went all mazda tech on 2nd gen.
Small displacement, direct injected turbo 4's are the new normal for the auto industry. It is not really possible to hit the fuel economy requirements with a normally aspirated engine anymore. Even Porsche, BMW, etc. have all made the switch. Personally, I am not thrilled by this. Barring a relaxation of CAFE standards, the industry is not going to move back to normally aspirated, 3+ liter engines in anything but lower volume, higher priced applications.
I am guessing that at the volumes that Mazda expects to sell the CX-9, there isn't a business case for a "premium" engine option. I doubt they can justify the monetary investment (or take the CAFE hit) a larger, normally aspirated V6 would require.
2016 Mazda CX-9 Priced from $31,520 MSRP[1], Elevates Midsize, Three-Row Crossover Experience
CX-9 Signature (AWD Standard)
$44,015
Thanks! This was the information I've been waiting for a while to see. The loaded Signature trim seems pretty tempting and would have anything I could hope to want in a vehicle. I can't wait to finally test drive it.
Also, note that Android Auto or Apple Car Play is not mentioned in the PR. That's likely a reason to skip the 1st model year.
There must be a reason why Volvo is the only other car maker putting a turbo 4 in a vehicle like this.
The other benefit is that they consume less fuel WHEN THE TURBO ISN'T SPOOLED UP. And that's the big flaw in the whole thing. To move a large 3 row CUV at anything faster than a crawl, drivers will be spooling up the turbos all the time. When this is happening, the engine ends up consuming fuel just like a larger one and the fuel savings virtually disappear.
So the question is, will Mazda be able to pull this off where others have failed? Will the new CX-9 provide a satisfactory driving experience while meeting the EPA mpg? I have a hunch that they will do better than Ford and even Volvo because they're starting with a larger engine (2.5L). But I also agree with some of the earlier posts suggesting that they figure out a way to get Toyota's 3.5L V6 into the car as an option. That engine is smooth, powerful and efficient. I wouldn't be surprised if it matches the 2.5L turbo in real world fuel economy.
I'm also a little curious if the upgraded nappa leather is only available in auburn, or if it can come in the colors they mentioned for a lower trim level (black and sand). Auburn could look nice coupled with certain exterior colors, but not necessarily all of them.
See, that Auburn colored leather is the only item I really want in the Signature. But, I could live with Black leather, so it's really not a must-have. It's gonna be a toss-up for me.
It's called bad white balance. Judging fine color variance from non pro pictures is waste of timeI need to see it in person. Some of the pics people shared from the car shows has it looking "orange-ish", while the professional pics from Mazda look like a more elegant auburn/deep red. We'll see.