The diesel are coming the diesel are coming

[xtrailman]

There's a couple of UK owners working in Germany who say the 2.2 diesel is problematic, so i don't think you are getting the full picture, i know nothing about the 1.5, so can't comment.

I'm not trying to talk down the car i own, just reporting the facts.
On one caravan forum i use dailey of about the ten owners, two have reported being towed of the motorway due to engine failure.

They do a lot more miles than i do, and i have never broken down due to engine failure, but had a couple of failed starts due to battery failure, smart charging setup being responsible.

On my 2013 car on its second service at 14000 miles, the vacuum brake pump was found out of tolerance, it was so dangerously worn the garage wouldn't allow the car to leave the garage, so for a week i had to drive a crappy 2013 sportage.

The 2.2l (SH-VPTS) is very reliable and not too many issues have been encountered, according to my guy in germany... it's the 1.5l (S5-VPTS) that have injection pump issues that causes severe fuel dilution and eventually thrown rods.... while the 2.2l came out first, the 1.5l is more popular in Europe due to the demand for low displacement engines and smaller cars... a lot of boat anchor SkyActiv diesels he has seen are the 1.5l/S5 ones

 

[xtrailman]

If you read the whirlpool posts the engine failures were also high milage motorway cars, indeed both the engine failures mentioned on the caravan forum were two owners who did 90% motorway miles, not short journeys.

I'm on my forth diesel car, and my thired with a DPF fitted, only the Mazda has been prone to excessive oil rise.

The mazda engine regens every approx 250 miles, regardless of useage, so if the regen is interupted oil dilution takes place. My last regen completed while i was driving under 2000 revs driving locally on a 5 mile jorney travelling at an average of only 30mph.

The DPF is i believe fitted inside the cat adjacent the engine, so its capable of carrying out a regen, as the required burn temperatures can be reached.

What isnt diesel friendly is short stop start driving, which isnt really good for petrol either, but ideal for electric cars IMO.

I should add a regen is easily identified on the exhaust note which changes noticeably on the overrun, and the average fuel readout takes a dive.

I'm on my 2nd european market diesel (volvo and, now, mazda) and I've yet to have diesel/dpf related problems.

It's understood, here in the UK, that a driving profile of predominantly short journeys isn't diesel friendly. The DPF burn is supposed to wait for a longer journey, after a fill up.

My driving profile is once every 4 weeks I do 2x200 miles on a saturday and, each day in between those 4 weeks my journeys are short; at least 2 a day between 2 and 15 miles. I think once I've smelled the DPF burn phase when i wasn't on a lengthy journey, but all seems fine.

 

[xtrailman]

I can only think that hopefully they have redesigned the method used for DPF regen?
They have to get it right because the USA will make them pay big time now Trump is in charged.

I guess that's the real reason why Mazda didn't bring this over to us yet because that'll majorly drag down their reliability ratings

 

[Anchorman]

I've run both the 1.5 diesel in the CX-3 and the 2.2 in my current CX-5. Neither have given any problems and I tend to think the early engine failures have long gone. I certainly don't think any will make it to the next model. The oil dilution problem has been apparent on both of mine and I can tell you that my new 2016 model CX-5 regenerates very frequently- not more than every 100 miles and when it does, it drinks diesel. For info for you US guys, when it "regenerates", it pumps diesel into the exhaust to super heat and burn out the particulate matter which is trapped in the filter. It sounds different during this phase and the metal of the exhaust smells like burning. The diesel gets into the exhaust in the "post injection" cycle - in other words, via the exhaust stroke. It's not unlike the afterburner on a fighter jet. However, the problem with this method is that so much diesel is fed into the bore that some can get past the piston into the oil - especially if the process is interrupted by stopping the engine. The dipstick has 3 marks, low, high and an X, well up the dipstick which indicates the maximum level of dilution and the oil must be changed. The version for the US will use the urea method which constantly drip feeds animal urine into the exhaust and that processes particulate on an ongoing basis. I don't know if it will still need a less frequent post injection phase but as long as it doesn't, you shouldn't get any dilution issues. I would hope that it also vastly improves fuel consumption. On the positive side, the pulling power of the diesel is much like you get on a RAV4 with the V6 engine - I have driven one so can compare. I don't think you should be concerned about the mechanical reliability. One thing I'm not sure about for the US and that relates to the diesel quality. Here you can buy cheap diesel in the supermarket but it is devoid in the additives that keep particulate to a minimum. You can buy high grade diesel here which is typically double dosed with detergents. Do you have the option of high grade diesel? On my annual visits to Florida, the only diesel I can see is out where the trucks fill up.

 

[TheMAN]

where did you hear about the urea injection for the USDM SkyActiv-D? I thought Mazda wanted to avoid that at all costs?

diesel quality has vastly improved over the past 15 years due to stricter regulations requiring low sulphur diesel. The issue now, of course, are the cetane ratings... they are not marked at the pumps and you'll get whatever that the distributor provides, which varies from region to region... that being said though, it's still vastly better quality than most of the world (without comparing Europe and Japan)... I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't even know anything about cetane ratings either and they just think diesel is diesel

 

[Unobtanium]

where did you hear about the urea injection for the USDM SkyActiv-D? I thought Mazda wanted to avoid that at all costs?

diesel quality has vastly improved over the past 15 years due to stricter regulations requiring low sulphur diesel. The issue now, of course, are the cetane ratings... they are not marked at the pumps and you'll get whatever that the distributor provides, which varies from region to region... that being said though, it's still vastly better quality than most of the world (without comparing Europe and Japan)... I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't even know anything about cetane ratings either and they just think diesel is diesel

I know dick all about diesel, but this thread is making it sound like the 1911 of the car world. It's not as awesome as you think, it breaks often, offers no advantages for most people, costs a lot, and only sounds cool because of an era gone by.

 

[Anchorman]

where did you hear about the urea injection for the USDM SkyActiv-D? I thought Mazda wanted to avoid that at all costs?

diesel quality has vastly improved over the past 15 years due to stricter regulations requiring low sulphur diesel. The issue now, of course, are the cetane ratings... they are not marked at the pumps and you'll get whatever that the distributor provides, which varies from region to region... that being said though, it's still vastly better quality than most of the world (without comparing Europe and Japan)... I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't even know anything about cetane ratings either and they just think diesel is diesel

It was quite widely publicised at the announcement of the diesel for the US, this is typical,

http://www.autonews.com/article/20161121/OEM06/311219928/mazda-solves-its-diesel-dilemma

Over here, diesels have been in light vehicles for many years and the problems with diesel blocking the emission system (EGR, DPF, SCV etc) takes some time to manifest itself as xtrailman has eluded to above. The problems can be minimised with the use of low ash oil, good quality diesel and even additives (I dose my fuel with Millers Ecomax diesel treatment) which can add the detergents not present in base diesel. You guys have got to go through all this but Mazda will ensure the oil is right (you mustn't deviate from the correct spec) and with time you will have a better choice than the stuff they slosh through your Cummins engined 18 wheelers. You might be tied to Mazda for the oil for a bit and you might not easily get good additives. Don't put any old stuff in the diesel!

http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=227&sector=Car

 

[xtrailman]

I know dick all about diesel, but this thread is making it sound like the 1911 of the car world. It's not as awesome as you think, it breaks often, offers no advantages for most people, costs a lot, and only sounds cool because of an era gone by.

Its the torque thats the pulling power for owners such as myself, pre DPF it was also the economy.

 

[Ziggity]

I know dick all about diesel, but this thread is making it sound like the 1911 of the car world. It's not as awesome as you think, it breaks often, offers no advantages for most people, costs a lot, and only sounds cool because of an era gone by.

It's the range of a tank - 530 miles for me - and the torque. the stupid little petrol engine they offer here doesn't offer the same pulling power. The diesel also means my emissions related road tax is extremely low 30 per year, where a land rover is 500.

 

[Unobtanium]

It's the range of a tank - 530 miles for me - and the torque. the stupid little petrol engine they offer here doesn't offer the same pulling power. The diesel also means my emissions related road tax is extremely low 30 per year, where a land rover is 500.

Makes total sense if you're towing, or live in the UK maybe, but for a non-towing use in America, where max range isn't the end-all, be-all goal? What good is it?

 

[Ziggity]

Makes total sense if you're towing, or live in the UK maybe, but for a non-towing use in America, where max range isn't the end-all, be-all goal? What good is it?

Your petrol engine has 20bhp on ours. But then my diesel has 100 ft/lb on your petrol and, when not towing, it's nice to feel that push.

You're right though and with a more powerful petrol engine, I'd swap back.

 

[TheMAN]

the added torque will be very welcomed on heavy cars like the CX-5 and 6... they'll give those competitors with V6 engines a run for their money
right now, even with the 2.5l in the US, they feel like slugs

 

[craigo]

Exactly! In the link I posted earlier the guy compared 2012 ML350 gas and ML350 BlueTEC for 30,000 miles and the gas ML saved $1,425 than diesel ML on all operating cost!

One thing to remember though in many Asian countries the government subsidizes diesel fuel and the price is a lot cheaper than gasoline. That would make big difference there!

Again, Mercedes seems to be unusual. See my video with the recent ram truck where it truly is as easy as adding gas. DE fluid runs under $4 / gal from walmart. A tank of it (a handful of gallons) should last several thousand miles.

 

[Anchorman]

the added torque will be very welcomed on heavy cars like the CX-5 and 6... they'll give those competitors with V6 engines a run for their money
right now, even with the 2.5l in the US, they feel like slugs

That's an interesting comment because things have taken a turn for the worse with diesels in Europe. The powers that be have determined that the particulates that are generated by diesels are far more harmful than the emissions from a gasoline engine. For that reason, some European capital cities are now considering a complete ban on Diesel engines cars and other cities are planning surcharges on admission to the city or inflated parking charges.

Personally, regardless of the thrill that the 175 diesel gives me, I will not buy another diesel engined car. It's ironic that this all comes at a time when diesels are emerging in the USA. It will be interesting to see if the concerns about particulates make it across the Atlantic.

 

[craigo]

That's an interesting comment because things have taken a turn for the worse with diesels in Europe. The powers that be have determined that the particulates that are generated by diesels are far more harmful than the emissions from a gasoline engine. For that reason, some European capital cities are now considering a complete ban on Diesel engines cars and other cities are planning surcharges on admission to the city or inflated parking charges.

Personally, regardless of the thrill that the 175 diesel gives me, I will not buy another diesel engined car. It's ironic that this all comes at a time when diesels are emerging in the USA. It will be interesting to see if the concerns about particulates make it across the Atlantic.

The particulates are part of why diesels have never sold well in passenger cars here. The emissions standards are stricter than current EU ones, meaning that scrubbers have to be added, which makes the vehicles unprofitable. Except of course VW's magical technology that passed emissions without sacrificing performance

Some will say it's people's perceptions of past diesel cars belching smoke and being unreliable, but I think it has more to do with money. The equivalent vehicle with similar performance that meets the standard costs too much.

 

[Kaps]

More than diesel a hybrid CX-5 will be a big game changer if Mazda releases one in next 5 years or so. Added instant torque and 32-33 city mpg numbers will be amazing.
Got my oil change done and lets see if i can break the 30 barrier.

 

[chris76]

That's an interesting comment because things have taken a turn for the worse with diesels in Europe. The powers that be have determined that the particulates that are generated by diesels are far more harmful than the emissions from a gasoline engine. For that reason, some European capital cities are now considering a complete ban on Diesel engines cars and other cities are planning surcharges on admission to the city or inflated parking charges.

Personally, regardless of the thrill that the 175 diesel gives me, I will not buy another diesel engined car. It's ironic that this all comes at a time when diesels are emerging in the USA. It will be interesting to see if the concerns about particulates make it across the Atlantic.

Not sure why Europe pushed so hard for diesel vehicles to reduce C02 levels and yet apparently failed to implement sufficient standards for particulates and N02, causing a massive smog problem. Diesels can be extremely clean with the right engineering.

 

[Anchorman]

More than diesel a hybrid CX-5 will be a big game changer if Mazda releases one in next 5 years or so. Added instant torque and 32-33 city mpg numbers will be amazing.
Got my oil change done and lets see if i can break the 30 barrier.

Unless they buy the hybrid technology in, they have such a long way to go. Toyota have probably spent more developing that technology than Mazda have on the entire range.

 

[Unobtanium]

Your petrol engine has 20bhp on ours. But then my diesel has 100 ft/lb on your petrol and, when not towing, it's nice to feel that push.

You're right though and with a more powerful petrol engine, I'd swap back.

The 2.5L gas burner is just as fast 0-60 as the 2.2L diesel. Horsepower matters more than torque. Oh, I used to hem and haw about torque too back when I was in highschool and college and it was cool to hate Honda, but a ride in an S2000 in 2004 changed my mind. HP/weight is what wins races. Torque? Well, it pulls things and gives you more margin of error if you can't drive. But the CX-5 shifts for you, so...

Check out the data on the 2.2L D CX-5. It's not very impressive for all it's superior torque...

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/1602-whale-watching-driving-mazdas-2-2l-skyactivdiesel/

Still slower than my 2.5L gas burner, and if it requires the urea or whatever, it will cost more to operate to boot. If it's like MB, but I don't have a clue about that stuff other than what's in this thread, so if it's really cheap like another poster states, and you want to gamble on troubled technology...go for it!

 

[Ziggity]

The 2.5L gas burner is just as fast 0-60 as the 2.2L diesel. Horsepower matters more than torque. Oh, I used to hem and haw about torque too back when I was in highschool and college and it was cool to hate Honda, but a ride in an S2000 in 2004 changed my mind. HP/weight is what wins races. Torque? Well, it pulls things and gives you more margin of error if you can't drive. But the CX-5 shifts for you, so...

Check out the data on the 2.2L D CX-5. It's not very impressive for all it's superior torque...

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/1602-whale-watching-driving-mazdas-2-2l-skyactivdiesel/

Still slower than my 2.5L gas burner, and if it requires the urea or whatever, it will cost more to operate to boot. If it's like MB, but I don't have a clue about that stuff other than what's in this thread, so if it's really cheap like another poster states, and you want to gamble on troubled technology...go for it!

You haven't said anything i disagree with, however I don't race anywhere. I pootle around the single lane roads within/at the speed limit and cruise at 70 on the motorways. I'm in a cheap car with a small engine and when I want to overtake, the torque is helpful. even at 70, if i want to accelerate to 90, i don't have to downshift from 6th, it just goes and doesn't need an appointment.

unfortunately our country has tied CO2 emissions to road tax and this was put in place to incentivise diesel uptake, ultimately, to pacify the European court's need for CO2 reduction. I'm a lot disappointed with them ignoring the other emissions too. I will probably look to petrol or petrol/electric hybrid next to do my part for the atmosphere.

I have to note, personally, diesel has not cost me more than petrol in vehicle maintenance, so my next move to a petrol plant won't be based on higher costs or lower reliability.