We need to search online to see if someone has recorded thisI am very curious about the 50-70 times in high gear, etc. and how they compare.
We need to search online to see if someone has recorded thisI am very curious about the 50-70 times in high gear, etc. and how they compare.
There are no gasket issues with the current diesel.I think diesel engine is delayed due to engine gasket issue which happens in many countries.
As mileage accumulates (50K, 100K), these older engines begin to show this issue.
Mazda certainly wants to be very cautious not to tarnish their reliability image due to diesel engines in US.
(CX7 was pretty bad for Mazda in USA due to its turbo)
That is my guess, but the diesel engine issue is real.
There are no gasket issues with the current diesel.
Any issues with diesel were first generation up to late 2014, at least here in OZ. When update came in 2015, next to no issues since
In the interim, found 0-175km/h (0-109mph) specially from 37 second mark:
Quite possibly. I have tried to look on YouTube to see if there's any in gear acceleration, but have been unable to find one as of yet. This is where the extra torque advantage would helpAs best I can tell, it took right around 30-31 seconds to hit 109mph. The 2.5L CX5 hits 110mph in 31 flat. Sounds like it is equivalent, vs. better.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-cx-5-25l-awd-test-review
As best I can tell, it took right around 30-31 seconds to hit 109mph. The 2.5L CX5 hits 110mph in 31 flat. Sounds like it is equivalent, vs. better.
Right, I never said it's a bad vehicle or noone should buy one.
It should be close to the same since there is only 9 HP difference between the two engines. In a comparison of sustained maximum acceleration, the result usually comes down to horsepower/weight.
The driving experience is quite different though due to the top-heavy powerband of the naturally aspirated 2.5L vs. the bottom-heavy powerband of the turbo 2.2D.
Rolling acceleration should be better in the diesel if I am not mistaken
Maybe a current owner here can post a video showing this along with times (uhm)In the chipped out big trucks I drove for work sometimes, it sure SEEMED like it, but maybe it was just the super linear power delivery being deceptive. I don't know. THe videos/numbers don't seem to back the theory.
Rolling acceleration should be better in the diesel if I am not mistaken
I think it depends on whether you're talking about mash-the-pedal testing, or real world roll-on acceleration which is usually less than full throttle.
In mash-the-pedal tests, Mazda's current 6AT in the CX-5 downshifts fast, so the 2.5L gets into its powerband quickly and I suspect acceleration times will be roughly similar. If the 2.2D has an edge it will be small.
When cruising around in the real world, the transmission is lugging both engines at low RPM in a high gear. Under those conditions, the 2.5L is far away from its power band and isn't going anywhere without a couple of downshifts. But the 2.2D will have torque on tap, so it will feel more powerful and responsive in everyday driving.
I think it depends on whether you're talking about mash-the-pedal testing, or real world roll-on acceleration which is usually less than full throttle.
In mash-the-pedal tests, Mazda's current 6AT in the CX-5 downshifts fast, so the 2.5L gets into its powerband quickly and I suspect acceleration times will be roughly similar. If the 2.2D has an edge it will be small.
When cruising around in the real world, the transmission is lugging both engines at low RPM in a high gear. Under those conditions, the 2.5L is far away from its power band and isn't going anywhere without a couple of downshifts. But the 2.2D will have torque on tap, so it will feel more powerful and responsive in everyday driving.
I agree with that.
This is why I want the diesel. I like to accelerate without downshifting
Will still do it depending on throttle pressure etc