Any word on whether they'll put a diesel in the 5 anytime soon?

[JeffB]

Several years ago I read an article that Mazda was going to put a diesel in the Mazda5, perhaps a modified version of what they had in Europe. It looked like the perfect 2nd car for our family. We have 4 kids and I wanted to get a 6 seater with good gas mileage.

We have a pretty large mini-van we can use for longer trips etc. but had outgrown my little Subaru Impreza sportwagon. My wife wanted a vehicle with sliding doors so the kids wouldn't ding other cars, but I thought 2 minivans was a bit much. The Mazda5 looked like it would fit the bill perfectly.

But then the US implemented their new ultralow sulfur requirements for diesels and Mazda put their diesels on hold. I've been holding out for several years now and it appears they've finally got their diesel ready for the U.S. market, but it sounds like they're going to put it in the 6 first. OK, but does it look like they'll be putting it in the Mazda5 soon?

I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. The kids are getting bigger and bigger. The oldest is 6'2" or 6'3" now and even if it's only me or their mother taking them to school they're pretty cramped in there. It would also be nice to have a 6 passenger vehicle for the times when the Chevy Uplander is getting inspected or having work done on it etc. There aren't a lot of other good options out there but my Subaru is now 17 years old with 150,000 miles on it, even though it still seems to be going pretty strong.

I'd like to give it to my son who'll be turning 16 in May and get something a little more appropriate for us. We've gotten by this long with just one 6 passenger vehicle, and I guess we could go with a 5 passenger a little easier now if my son may be driving on his own a bit more anyway. The others will be attaining driving age at 2 year intervals after that as well.

So has Mazda given any inkling that they'll put a diesel in the Mazda5 ever? I saw someone mention that they may even discontinue the 5 as it's not a big seller in the states. Bummer. Should I just move on?

 

[DougNuts]

Go try one out first, they aren't the best for taller drivers or passengers. One of the reasons I bought used is because I'm hoping that some new engines and styling come out after the Mazda3 redesign.

 

[chief_wiggum]

I too would love to see the new skyactiv-D put in the 5, but I'm not optimistic it will happen anytime soon. The auto pundits all agree the new 6 will get it first, sometime during the 2nd half of this year, and then the CX-5. Since Mazda USA puts 0 money into advertising the 5, I'm going to guess that IF it does happen, we're at least 18 months away from seeing it...maybe with the new design. Either way, I think the 5 is a perfect candidate for the diesel and I'd be very interested in trading the wife's current model for one with the skyactiv-d.

p.s. go Cards!

 

[MarkVII88]

The 5 tends to be the last car in the Mazda lineup to receive the newest technology and updates. My guess will be that the 2014 Mazda5 will have the skyactive-G 2.0L available on the 5-Sport and maybe the skyactive-G 2.5L available on the 5-Touring and Grand Touring. I sincerely hope that all levels of the Mazda5 will have the skyactive 6spd transmissions for 2014. I just test drove a 2014 CX-5 a couple weeks ago and the sport had the 2.0 and the touring/grand touring had the 2.5. My guess on the diesel is that it may come to the Mazda5 in late 2015 or early 2016 but probably won't be available on the 5-Sport.

 

[JeffB]

Thanks for the replies everybody.

Yeah, I wanted to go take a look at them this afternoon as I had ordered a gas cap for our Chevy Uplander as the check engine light was coming on and it was throwing a code indicating a pressure leak in the fuel system & the gas cap is the most likely culprit. The dealer sold both Chevy's & Mazdas so I thought it would be a perfect opportunity. But at the last minute, my wife decided that would give her an excuse to go shopping nearby so off she went.

As a side note, don't get an aftermarket gas cap if you run into the same problem. Several places have told us that they're notorious for not working. Don't know if the dealer cap will fix it, but the after market one definitely didn't. Live and learn I guess.

I'm about 6' and my son is two or three inches taller already, but I'm hoping the 5 will be fine even if not ideal. We both fit fine in the subcompact Subaru Impreza, even if only in the front seat. Even the back seat is acceptable in a pinch as long as there are only 2 people back there, and the ones in the front aren't overly tall and have to move their seats way back.

It's too bad the 5 seems to be the redheaded stepchild of the Mazda lineup, at least in the U.S. It seems like it should fit a nice niche, particularly given the dearth of 6 passenger vehicles out there. It also looks like it might be the most fun minivan to drive, and pretty versatile as far as hauling passengers and "stuff" for people on a budget or looking for a vehicle with better gas mileage. The diesel seems like it would definitely set it apart from any other current competition.

Is the skyactive-G line of engines in the 2013 models? If not, is it a big improvement over what was available in prior years? Ditto on the 6 speed transmission. If for some reason my wife insisted on getting a new car pretty soon, or the Subaru suddenly conked out, I might still consider the 5 even with a gas engine, though the mileage doesn't look nearly as impressive as the diesel.

Other options might be a 5 seater with good gas mileage, though that wouldn't be the ideal. I'm even mildly interested in the Nissan Leaf all electric. That would be pretty awesome for around town, but would obviously be limited for longer jaunts. But maybe we could work around that if we had two other vehicles we could shuffle around among us.

If I eventually give up waiting on a diesel for the Mazda5 and go with a 5 passenger, I guess I should consider the Mazda6 if it gets one in time, along with the VWs which are all 5 passenger as well, other than perhaps their SUV. (Hurry up Mazda!)

One reason I'm pretty big on gas mileage right now is my concern that we're bumping up against the dreaded "peak oil". Maybe it's a false alarm again, but it looks like we're definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel so to speak with using tar sands and shale oil to meet demand even though U.S. demand is down pretty significantly from its peak. Of course world demand is probably still rising, but that isn't likely to change any time soon barring another big economic crash, which I'm not ruling out either. But even in that type of scenario, having a very economical car would be a pretty significant priority.

Btw, why did Mazda name their 5 passenger vehicle the 6 and their 6 passenger vehicle the 5? Do the Japanese drive on the wrong side of the road too?

In any event, thanks again for the info & input, it's much appreciated.

and yes, Go Cards!

 

[Orangutan]

The 2013 does not use Skyactiv. 2014 is a good bet for the introduction of Sky-G and Sky transmissions, with the Sky-G 2.0 the most likely version. The Sky-D is certainly a nice engine but so are the Sky-Gs. (I don't think "peak oil" is a good reason to get rid of a car for a different one, by the way, but that's my opinion.)

Let's look at this example for comparison:

The Mazda3 uses the same powertrain as the Mazda5. In the 3 hatchback, the 2.5 I4 MZR engine with five-speed automatic transmission is rated at 22/29. In the 5, the exact same powertrain is rated at 22/28.

However, the Mazda3 hatchback is also available with the 2.0 I4 Sky-G with six-speed automatic transmission, a combination rated at 28/39. That's a difference of 6 and 10 miles/gallon respectively. Compare these numbers to the TDI in the Volkswagen lineup, rated at 41-ish mpg, but with a price penalty at the pump of no less than 20-50 cents/gallon depending on where you are.

Yes, a diesel in the 5 would be nice, but there's not much reason for it when the gasoline engines can produce competitive numbers and acceleration (even if the diesel is an absolute torque monster).

 

[JeffB]

The 2013 does not use Skyactiv. 2014 is a good bet for the introduction of Sky-G and Sky transmissions, with the Sky-G 2.0 the most likely version. The Sky-D is certainly a nice engine but so are the Sky-Gs.

Thanks for the info. Is that a pretty big deal? Are the Sky-Gs a lot peppier &/or get better gas mileage?

(I don't think "peak oil" is a good reason to get rid of a car for a different one, by the way, but that's my opinion.)

I agree, at least based upon just the theory or the possibility of peak oil. Of course when prices jumped pretty dramatically in the years leading up to the big crash in 2008, a lot of people were forced(?) to be dumping their Suburbans and Hummers or other gas guzzlers. Fortunately I wasn't in that position, but I'd certainly like to avoid being put in such a position at some point in the future, or even just be put in a position of being seriously squeezed by a major jump in prices or having issues because of shortages &/or rationing etc., whether it's because our country loses control of inflation, or "peak oil" or a war in the Middle East, hurricane, pipeline malfunction, refinery fire, terrorist attack or whatever.

Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but perhaps that's because I'm an insurance broker. My job is trying to help people minimize risks, even unlikely ones. For instance, I think homeowners insurance is important, even though most people don't have a major fire or lose a home to a tornado.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I think the risks of major financial problems for our country &/or big jumps in price for fuel are real.

I'm not really switching vehicles based on peak oil, though. I've been driving the Subaru since we bought it in 1996 and it's time to get a new one. I'm thinking of keeping it and letting my kids use it after we get a new one. My oldest son turns 16 in a few months and that could be a good car for him assuming he shows he's responsible enough -- and learns how to drive a manual shift.

Since we're getting a new car anyway, i'm looking for one that fits our needs and gets good fuel economy. Given that we've had our current one 17 years so far, it seems prudent to take into account the possibility that fuel prices could rise significantly. Prices were 99 cents per gallon in 1998 and are now about 3 1/2 times that price. Who knows what the next 15 years will bring?

Actually, if we got a diesel I'd be shooting for more than 15 years. I've heard they last a lot longer than gas engines. Supposedly there are a number of diesel autos with over a million miles on them that are still going strong. Of course these newer turbo diesels may not hold up that well, but who knows, maybe they will be a lot more durable as well.

Let's look at this example for comparison:

The Mazda3 uses the same powertrain as the Mazda5. In the 3 hatchback, the 2.5 I4 MZR engine with five-speed automatic transmission is rated at 22/29. In the 5, the exact same powertrain is rated at 22/28.

That's good to know. It looks like there's not much of a drop off there.

However, the Mazda3 hatchback is also available with the 2.0 I4 Sky-G with six-speed automatic transmission, a combination rated at 28/39. That's a difference of 6 and 10 miles/gallon respectively. Compare these numbers to the TDI in the Volkswagen lineup, rated at 41-ish mpg, but with a price penalty at the pump of no less than 20-50 cents/gallon depending on where you are.

That's a pretty significant jump in gas mileage. 27.3% city & 35.7% hwy by my reckoning. But I'd have to wonder how much performance one would be giving up. Would the smaller engine be a real dog, particularly in the 5?

My little Subaru was rated at 24 mpg, 22 city & 29 hwy, which was decent for an AWD back then. They look pretty comparable to the numbers for the 5. I'd be giving up the AWD, but picking up an extra passenger seat.

I ran some of the numbers you gave through a spreadsheet to see how the fuel costs would compare for a diesel vs the 2.5 I4 MZR gas engine using 41 mpg vs 24 mpg over 12,000 mi/yr with the diesel paying a $.35/gal premium over gas prices.

@ gas price -- gas - Diesel = difference
$3/$3.35 $1,500 - $980.49 = $519.51
$4/$4.35 $2,000 - $1,273.17 = $726.83
$5/$5.35 $2,500 - $1,565.85 = $934.15
$6/$6.35 $3,000 - $1,858.54 = $1,141.46
$7/$7.35 $3,500 - $2,151.22 = $1,348.78
$8/$8.35 $4,000 - $2,443.90 = $1,556.10
$9/$9.35 $4,500 - $2,736.59 = $1,763.41
$10/10.35 $5,000 - $3,029.27 = $1,970.73

Yes, a diesel in the 5 would be nice, but there's not much reason for it when the gasoline engines can produce competitive numbers and acceleration (even if the diesel is an absolute torque monster).

I'm not so sure about that, even if the diesels cost another $3,000 or so, and even if the fuel cost another $.35/gal on average, which I'm not sure will continue indefinitely into the future.*

The annual fuel savings are pretty significant even with a fuel premium. It looks like they would more than pay for the additional cost of the diesel engine in about 6 years even if fuel prices were to average $3/gallon. If fuel prices continue on their current trajectory since 1998, gas would be over $10/gal in 15 years. I personally think there's a chance we could get there a lot sooner. Those Saudi oil fields have been pumping millions of barrels of oil for more than half a century, and they're already resorting to things like pumping sea water into them to force more oil up to be pumped out fast enough. The decline in older fields is being replaced by much more energy and capital intensive fields like those in deep sea areas and and by alternatives like tar sands, and shale oil, which are much more expensive to produce than the early fields close to the surface, many of whom shot gushers of oil into the sky when 1st drilled. Then too, millions if not billions of people around the world from the developing nations are clamoring for more oil. Indian consumption has been growing rapidly and China passed us up in the number of vehicle sold last year or the year before. Almost everyone there walked or rode bicycles a couple of decades ago.

I guess we'll see, but I'd like to prepare for the possibility of rapidly rising prices just in case. Even if they remain stable, it looks to me like the diesel would more than pay for itself long before it ended its useful lifetime, if they're even nearly as durable as their earlier counterparts.

Thanks for the reply and the info, btw.

 

[Orangutan]

Thanks for the info. Is that a pretty big deal? Are the Sky-Gs a lot peppier &/or get better gas mileage?

Yes, that's the whole point of Skyactiv. The engines and transmissions are lighter, more powerful, and more fuel efficient than their predecessors. Eventually all of Mazda's powertrains will be Skyactiv.

I agree, at least based upon just the theory or the possibility of peak oil. Of course when prices jumped pretty dramatically in the years leading up to the big crash in 2008, a lot of people were forced(?) to be dumping their Suburbans and Hummers or other gas guzzlers. Fortunately I wasn't in that position, but I'd certainly like to avoid being put in such a position at some point in the future, or even just be put in a position of being seriously squeezed by a major jump in prices or having issues because of shortages &/or rationing etc., whether it's because our country loses control of inflation, or "peak oil" or a war in the Middle East, hurricane, pipeline malfunction, refinery fire, terrorist attack or whatever.

Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but perhaps that's because I'm an insurance broker. My job is trying to help people minimize risks, even unlikely ones. For instance, I think homeowners insurance is important, even though most people don't have a major fire or lose a home to a tornado.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I think the risks of major financial problems for our country &/or big jumps in price for fuel are real.

I'm not really switching vehicles based on peak oil, though. I've been driving the Subaru since we bought it in 1996 and it's time to get a new one. I'm thinking of keeping it and letting my kids use it after we get a new one. My oldest son turns 16 in a few months and that could be a good car for him assuming he shows he's responsible enough -- and learns how to drive a manual shift.

Since we're getting a new car anyway, i'm looking for one that fits our needs and gets good fuel economy. Given that we've had our current one 17 years so far, it seems prudent to take into account the possibility that fuel prices could rise significantly. Prices were 99 cents per gallon in 1998 and are now about 3 1/2 times that price. Who knows what the next 15 years will bring?

I agree about thinking about the future. I'm just not planning on having my 5 for 17 years, but who knows?

Actually, if we got a diesel I'd be shooting for more than 15 years. I've heard they last a lot longer than gas engines. Supposedly there are a number of diesel autos with over a million miles on them that are still going strong. Of course these newer turbo diesels may not hold up that well, but who knows, maybe they will be a lot more durable as well.

That's good to know. It looks like there's not much of a drop off there.

The Mazda5 is really just a wagon/van version of the Mazda3. According to everything I've read, the 5 actually has a better coefficient of drag than the 3 hatchback, too, so it's mainly just a few hundred extra pounds.

That's a pretty significant jump in gas mileage. 27.3% city & 35.7% hwy by my reckoning. But I'd have to wonder how much performance one would be giving up. Would the smaller engine be a real dog, particularly in the 5?

Well, here's how I look at it. The 2.3 I4 in the 2006-2010 generation of Mazda5 made about the same, or less, power than the Sky-G 2.0. If you want to feel what it'd be like, drive a CX-5 with the 2.0, which in AWD form weighs about the same as the current Mazda5.

My little Subaru was rated at 24 mpg, 22 city & 29 hwy, which was decent for an AWD back then. They look pretty comparable to the numbers for the 5. I'd be giving up the AWD, but picking up an extra passenger seat.

I ran some of the numbers you gave through a spreadsheet to see how the fuel costs would compare for a diesel vs the 2.5 I4 MZR gas engine using 41 mpg vs 24 mpg over 12,000 mi/yr with the diesel paying a $.35/gal premium over gas prices.

@ gas price -- gas - Diesel = difference
$3/$3.35 $1,500 - $980.49 = $519.51
$4/$4.35 $2,000 - $1,273.17 = $726.83
$5/$5.35 $2,500 - $1,565.85 = $934.15
$6/$6.35 $3,000 - $1,858.54 = $1,141.46
$7/$7.35 $3,500 - $2,151.22 = $1,348.78
$8/$8.35 $4,000 - $2,443.90 = $1,556.10
$9/$9.35 $4,500 - $2,736.59 = $1,763.41
$10/10.35 $5,000 - $3,029.27 = $1,970.73



I'm not so sure about that, even if the diesels cost another $3,000 or so, and even if the fuel cost another $.35/gal on average, which I'm not sure will continue indefinitely into the future.*

The annual fuel savings are pretty significant even with a fuel premium. It looks like they would more than pay for the additional cost of the diesel engine in about 6 years even if fuel prices were to average $3/gallon. If fuel prices continue on their current trajectory since 1998, gas would be over $10/gal in 15 years. I personally think there's a chance we could get there a lot sooner. Those Saudi oil fields have been pumping millions of barrels of oil for more than half a century, and they're already resorting to things like pumping sea water into them to force more oil up to be pumped out fast enough. The decline in older fields is being replaced by much more energy and capital intensive fields like those in deep sea areas and and by alternatives like tar sands, and shale oil, which are much more expensive to produce than the early fields close to the surface, many of whom shot gushers of oil into the sky when 1st drilled. Then too, millions if not billions of people around the world from the developing nations are clamoring for more oil. Indian consumption has been growing rapidly and China passed us up in the number of vehicle sold last year or the year before. Almost everyone there walked or rode bicycles a couple of decades ago.

I guess we'll see, but I'd like to prepare for the possibility of rapidly rising prices just in case. Even if they remain stable, it looks to me like the diesel would more than pay for itself long before it ended its useful lifetime, if they're even nearly as durable as their earlier counterparts.

Thanks for the reply and the info, btw.

But that's not comparing the Sky-D to the Sky-G, which is really what you should look at. Let's say that the diesel gets 43 mpg while the gas gets 39. You also have to pay several thousand more for the diesel in the first place, and it's most likely going to be reserved for top trim levels. I don't know if you're looking at a Sport entry-level trim or the Grand Touring, but if you want to be frugal I'm assuming you'll go for the Sport, which is currently about $4,000 cheaper than the Grand Touring. While it is more efficient and has more torque, you're going to pay substantially more to buy it and then you'll have to pay more to run it.

 

[chief_wiggum]

If i remember correctly, the new Skyactiv-D is supposed to net ~54 mpg hwy when it comes out in the 6 later this year...though for the life of me, i can't find where i saw that, but the service manager and i were discussing it last time i was at the dealer.

 

[Orangutan]

If i remember correctly, the new Skyactiv-D is supposed to net ~54 mpg hwy when it comes out in the 6 later this year...though for the life of me, i can't find where i saw that, but the service manager and i were discussing it last time i was at the dealer.

That's most likely an uncorrected number converted from Japanese or Euro mileage, which is different from our fuel economy rating. The only 50 mpg vehicles in the U.S. are hybrids, and even then not by much (51 Prius, 53 PriusC, etc.) In the UK, the Sky-D is rated for an uncorrected-to-U.S.-standards 52 mpg, for example.

 

[JeffB]

Yes, that's the whole point of Skyactiv. The engines and transmissions are lighter, more powerful, and more fuel efficient than their predecessors. Eventually all of Mazda's powertrains will be Skyactiv.

OK, thanks. That's good. But it sounds like the 2013 5s don't have Skyactiv and we don't know for sure yet whether the 2014s will?

I agree about thinking about the future. I'm just not planning on having my 5 for 17 years, but who knows?

I realize most people don't, but I'd prefer to get a good reliable one I like and drive the wheels off of it. It's a lot cheaper then buying new every 4 or 5 years and taking a big hit on the depreciation, the sales taxes and transaction fees etc. We paid barely over $14,000 for the Subaru out the door, so by my reckoning we've had less than $824 depreciation per year assuming no residual value, which isn't true. I was inspired by a book I got from the library years ago, "How to make your car last a lifetime." The guy broke down the costs for maintaining a vehicle and repairing it as needed vs buying new when it starts getting older. He showed that by the time you take into account depreciation, interest expense (or opportunity cost for investments if you pay cash), insurance and so on that you could replace the engine, transmission & most of the interior and still come out thousands ahead. If you keep them in good enough condition long enough many of them will bottom out in value and then actually start going up in value. I don't plan on keeping them that long, but think it's still a more cost effective way of transportation.

The Mazda5 is really just a wagon/van version of the Mazda3. According to everything I've read, the 5 actually has a better coefficient of drag than the 3 hatchback, too, so it's mainly just a few hundred extra pounds.

Thanks. That's a definite plus in my book.

Well, here's how I look at it. The 2.3 I4 in the 2006-2010 generation of Mazda5 made about the same, or less, power than the Sky-G 2.0. If you want to feel what it'd be like, drive a CX-5 with the 2.0, which in AWD form weighs about the same as the current Mazda5.

Thanks, that sounds like very good advice.

My little Subaru was rated at 24 mpg, 22 city & 29 hwy, which was decent for an AWD back then. They look pretty comparable to the numbers for the 5. I'd be giving up the AWD, but picking up an extra passenger seat.

I ran some of the numbers you gave through a spreadsheet to see how the fuel costs would compare for a diesel vs the 2.5 I4 MZR gas engine using 41 mpg vs 24 mpg over 12,000 mi/yr with the diesel paying a $.35/gal premium over gas prices.

@ gas price -- gas - Diesel = difference
$3/$3.35 $1,500 - $980.49 = $519.51
$4/$4.35 $2,000 - $1,273.17 = $726.83
$5/$5.35 $2,500 - $1,565.85 = $934.15
$6/$6.35 $3,000 - $1,858.54 = $1,141.46
$7/$7.35 $3,500 - $2,151.22 = $1,348.78
$8/$8.35 $4,000 - $2,443.90 = $1,556.10
$9/$9.35 $4,500 - $2,736.59 = $1,763.41
$10/10.35 $5,000 - $3,029.27 = $1,970.73

But that's not comparing the Sky-D to the Sky-G, which is really what you should look at.

That's true, but then again we don't know when the Sky-G will get to the Mazda5. I'd also be interested in seeing the mpg numbers for the Sky-G 2.5 which I'm guessing would be the engine I'd prefer. I had googled Mazda5 diesel, which is how I found this forum, and saw a review from a car magazine for the U.S. prototype Sky-D which the guy drove over in Europe somewhere. He was pretty high on it and one of the things that stuck in my mind was how he said it had much better acceleration from a start. He noted that he could pull out into quickly moving traffic where he didn't think it would have been an option with the gasoline version. Of course he was probably comparing it to the version that doesn't have a Sky-G powertrain, but it still makes me think even the Sky-G 2.0 might be rather underpowered for even a relatively light mini-van. My Subaru sportwagon is considered a subcompact and it has a 2.4L engine, and I don't consider it a speed demon by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's say that the diesel gets 43 mpg while the gas gets 39.

But I doubt even the Sky-G 2.0 would get that kind of mpg rating from the EPA. I'm guessing my own mileage would be about 40% to 50% highway. The Subaru had 22 city & 29 hwy, but the EPA rated it at 24 mpg, so it looks like they weight things more toward the city mileage than the highway. That probably means the Sky-G 2.0 would be rated closer to 29 or 30 mpg in the 3 and maybe a mile or two less in the 5. I would think the Sky-G 2.5 would drop down several more mpg as well.

You also have to pay several thousand more for the diesel in the first place, and it's most likely going to be reserved for top trim levels. I don't know if you're looking at a Sport entry-level trim or the Grand Touring, but if you want to be frugal I'm assuming you'll go for the Sport, which is currently about $4,000 cheaper than the Grand Touring. While it is more efficient and has more torque, you're going to pay substantially more to buy it and then you'll have to pay more to run it.

Yeah, I think I'd probably prefer the Sport, but then again if I thought the 2.5L was necessary, I'd probably have to go for the higher trim levels anyway. That's always been irritating to my. I miss the good old days when you could order a car's options a la carte. It seems a little silly to me to force people to buy a lot of options they're not interested in just to get one they consider necessary.

I also realize all companies tend to charge a lot more for the newest technology to cover the R&D costs, and they know the early adopters will be willing to pay for it. On the other hand, this might be a slightly different situation. With the US federal government pushing the new ever increasing fleet mileage mandates, it might be in Mazda's best interests to use the diesels as a loss leader, or at least with a more normal markup and crank up production a bit more as soon as practical. They can charge the premiums for the people who want the SUVs and gas guzzlers, and more easily attain those mandatory fleet mileage numbers sooner.

I'm not holding my breath, but it seems like a viable strategy to me. I think that may be at least one reason why Nissan has cut their all electric Leaf vehicles pretty drastically. If they can sell enough of those, it gives them some breathing room on the mileage on their other vehicles.

 

[cburrell]

For comparison purposes: the 2014 CX-5 AWD with 2.0 skyactiv-G has a curb weight of 3415 lbs and has an epa rating of 25-city, 28-combined, and 31 highway mpg's. The 2013 Mazda 5 with the 2.5 MZR has a curb weight of 3457 lbs and has an epa rating of 21 city, 24 combined, and 28 highway mpg's. Say that if Mazda does get around to dropping the Skyactiv into the 5 next year (which still isn't certain with them working hard on the redesigns of the 2015 mazda 3 and miata), and the lighter skyactiv transmission and engine allows the 5 to drop 50 to 100 pounds, it would still be slightly heavier than the fwd cx-5 with the 2.0 skyactiv which has a curb weight of 3263 lb and yields 1 more mpg in city and highway driving. So, seriously 26/32 mpg's for the 5 with only skyactiv engine and transmission, is probably being generous. I would bet it would be right around were the AWD cx-5 with 2.0 skyactiv version is at 25/31 mpg's. To me, gaining 3 more mpg's isn't worth buying a new one if they get skyactiv in 2014, when you could snag some awesome deals on some used 2012's and by then some 2013's which will more than make up for the cost savings in fuel. Not to mention the fact that most people ( including many members in the CX-5 forum) who bought the 2013 CX-5's with the 2.0 skyactiv-g have all complained about the lack of power, it was the only knock most car magazines had against the 2013 CX-5. So, although the 2.5 MZR only has 3 hp more than the 2.0 skyactiv, it has 17 ft-lb more of torque that will be missed and noticed on a vehicle that many people already feel has barely adequate power already with the 2.5 MZR.

 

[JeffB]

... To me, gaining 3 more mpg's isn't worth buying a new one if they get skyactiv in 2014, when you could snag some awesome deals on some used 2012's and by then some 2013's which will more than make up for the cost savings in fuel.

Thanks, cburrell. That's certainly something to keep in mind. Buying something a few years old can be a cost effective way of doing things, especially if there are some awesome deals out there. It looks to me as if a 3 mpg bump would be a little over 10% improvement. If my earlier estimates were accurate, that would equate to ~ $200/yr in gas savings at $4/gal. That would be offset by lower sales taxes, personal property taxes & insurance. It might be a way for me to hold off a bit in waiting for a diesel, or some other improvements down the road. I could let my son drive the Subaru & I could drive the 5 for a couple of years of so. When it's time to retire the Subaru, I could let my son & by then oldest daughter share the then 4 or 5 year old Mazda5 & I could pick up a diesel version, assuming they eventually put one in.

It would certainly allow me to bide my time until I see something that really seems to fit rather than having to scramble if something big finally goes wrong with the Subaru. Or if we decide to get rid of the '05 Uplander down the road, if my wife liked the Mazda5 enough, she could take it over & we could get a gas sipping diesel for the main run around vehicle. It would definitely give some flexibility. But if I had my druthers, I'd still prefer they come out with the Sky-D for the '14 model 5.

 

[Silentnoise713]

Great points by cburrell. The real plus for a diesel on the Mz5 is the toque! MPG is a bonus. The $ premium should really make you do your math before dumping money into it.

My prediction is that the diesel will be optional on the CX5 and Mz6, upper trim. Both are high volume cash cows where people are willing to pay a premium. I do think Mazda will keep the Mz5 available b/c they don’t offer an alternative to fill the void (people mover), but when they do I believe it’s time for the pastures. Bring back the MPV! The 2.0 sky will be the standard engine on the 2014 and onward Mz5. Two years into its lifecycle, during mid cycle refresh, the 2.5 sky will be available, so 2016. The Mz3/Mz5 will not get the diesel. I’ve never had a diesel and am very interested in one but I’m not sure the demand justifies Mazda offering it to every model. This is just my uniformed, what the heck, guess, which I hope I’m wrong. Options are a good thing (unless you can’t decide).

 

[cburrell]

I would imagine that if the 5 gets skyactiv in 2014, it will be about as lethargic as the first generation 5 with the 2.3 MZR that produced 153 hp and 148 ft-lbs of torque. That is almost identical to what the 2.0 skyactiv produces, and everyone knocked the 2.3 MZR in the first generation. It has been discussed to exhaustion in the past on this forum. If I was in the market, I personally wouldn't pay 20,000$ for a 2014 skyactiv 5 sport which will would give me a 10% increase in fuel economy over a 2012 or 2013 5, when I can get a used 2012 or 2013 5 sport with relatively low mileage for 15,000$ all day long. That is a 5000$ dollar difference that would take a long time for that 10% increase in fuel economy to make up for. My buddy at work just picked up a 2012 5 sport with 28,000 miles on it for 14,300$ out the door. The dealer had 3 more just like it on the lot. I am waiting until the 5 gets the full skyactiv treatment, probably sometime in 2016 or 2017. When they can run a 13:1 compression ratio with the 4 to 2 to 1 header, and make the chassis lighter and stiffer with high strength steel, basically when they redesign the 5 by using the new 2015 mazda 3 skyactiv platform. Really the current skyactiv 3 was just a stop gap for Mazda until they could roll out the full skyactiv treatment in the 3. It will be the same for the 5 if it gets skyactiv for 2014. Just think about it like this: the current Mazda 3 i touring has a curb weight of 2950 lbs and yields a epa rating of 28 city and 40 highway using only the skyactiv engine and transmission. The 2014 Mazda 6 i touring has a curb weight of 3232 lbs and has an epa rating of 26 city and 38 highway. The new 6 with full skyactiv treatment weighs almost 300lbs more than the 3, has 29 more hp and 35 ft-lbs of torque than the the 3, yet it yields only 2 miles less in city and highway driving than the lighter 3. Point is that waiting until Mazda gives the 5 a complete skyactiv treatment, will make the fuel saving more worthwhile. I will be more willing to spend more money on a new 5 that has a 25% to 30% improvement, over a 2014 with a 10% to 15% improvement.

 

[w2zoom]

I too was waiting for the diesel I even wrote to mazda usa lol. If you drive stick go test drive one plenty of power even fully loaded with kids.Also on the diesel side of things I got a ram 2500 truck in which I get 17-19 city and 24-26 highway gotten as much as 28 on highway theres guys on the road with these trucks pulling trailers everyday with over a million miles on engine.The oil part of my post I live in Bakersfield I drive on highway 65 on my way to work, last year the oil companys put up over a dozen oil pumps and thats only the ones that are visible from highway,to me they are just being greedy we need a new fuel or just drop it all together and find a new way to get around.