In 2019, Mazda finally achieved what it spent several years trying to perfect. The marque known for its stylish, fun-to-drive cars created the CX-5 Skyactiv-D diesel crossover. It seemed great on paper, but Mazda found itself in a pickle. By the time Mazda finally got a diesel on the American market, Volkswagen already sealed diesel’s fate as an unpopular fuel. Mazda wasn’t helped by the fact that buying the much more expensive diesel netted you a weaker engine that didn’t do that great on fuel economy. Mazda was so proud of its diesel effort that it even announced a diesel sedan. Instead, Mazda’s diesel would last just a year before its cancelation.
Welcome back to Unholy Fails! For a while, I’ve been showing you different cars and motorcycles throughout history befitting the moniker “Holy Grail.” Sometimes, an automaker tries to make a vehicle that would have had a shot of one day being considered a Holy Grail, but for whatever reason the vehicle ended up a dud. I should note that these aren’t necessarily bad cars. An Unholy Fail can be a great car, but one that ultimately failed to accomplish its mission.
I feel as if today’s nomination fills that role. Mazda didn’t necessarily make a bad car, but an expensive one that came far too late to matter. The Mazda CX-5 diesel was so late to the diesel game and came so long after the infamous Dieselgate scandal that it looked like an oddball in a sea of evolving EVs and hybrids.
However, Mazda’s original intent to get into the American diesel passenger car market wasn’t a foolish one.
This story takes us back to the late 2000s when Volkswagen was showing considerable success in marketing diesel passenger vehicles to Americans. The brand had been selling diesel cars to Americans for decades, but interest was really taking off as Volkswagen marketed its “Clean Diesel” TDIs as the future of greener transportation. It also helped that Volkswagen TDIs got great fuel economy at a time when gas prices were high. Of course, Volkswagen would later be caught gaming emissions testing to achieve the TDI’s “cleanliness,” sparking the infamous Dieselgate scandal, but this was before all that came to light.
In 2009, Volkswagen reported that 81 percent of all Jetta SportWagen sales, about 40 percent of Jetta sedan sales, and 29 percent of Touareg sales were diesel models. By July 2009, Volkswagen was claiming 26 percent of all the vehicles that went home with VW customers were diesel-powered. And that wasn’t even the high point; Volkswagen diesels continued to gain momentum into the 2010s, all the way up to the Dieselgate revelations.
Naturally, other automakers saw Volkswagen’s smashing success and wanted a piece of the pie. I mean, 26 percent of total sales cannot be ignored. For some brands, including Mazda, Volkswagen’s runaway diesel success was the catalyst to develop efficient diesel models of their own. If only Mazda knew what it was getting into.
The Beginning
In 2007, Mazda announced its “Sustainable Zoom-Zoom” plan and created Skyactiv as the umbrella term for the future technologies to be developed under Sustainable Zoom-Zoom. As a brand known for building vehicles that deliver driving pleasure, the goals of Sustainable Zoom-Zoom were to develop diesel technology that cut down on CO2 emissions while retaining a high level of safety and the enthusiast-leaning driving experience Mazda wanted people to associate with the brand.
By 2011, the Sustainable Zoom-Zoom plan called for a 30% increase in fuel efficiency in global Mazda products by 2015. It also called for a 23 percent reduction in CO2 emissions in the same timeframe. Mazda also introduced a building block strategy, a plan where the automaker would gradually improve its existing technologies while introducing electric equipment into its vehicles. Mazda would start small with functions like auto start and stop and eventually snake its way to electric powertrains.
In 2010, Mazda laid down a roadmap of tech it was working on, from Green Car Congress:
SKYACTIV-G. A next-generation highly-efficient direct-injection gasoline engine that achieves a compression ratio of 14.0:1 with no abnormal combustion (knocking). The high compression combustion results in significantly improved engine efficiency, resulting in 15% increases in fuel efficiency and torque. Increased torque at low- to mid-engine speeds improves the driving experience. A 4-2-1 exhaust system, cavity pistons, multihole injectors and other innovations enable the high compression ratio.
SKYACTIV-D. A next-generation clean diesel engine that will meet global emissions regulations (Euro 6, US EPA Tier2 Bin5, and Post New Long Term Regulations in Japan) without expensive NOx aftertreatments—urea selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or a Lean NOx Trap (LNT)—due to a low diesel engine compression ratio of 14.0:1. The low-compression ratio results in 20% better fuel efficiency, Mazda says. A new two-stage turbocharger realizes smooth and linear response from low to high engine speeds, and greatly increases low- and high-end torque (up to the 5,200 rpm rev limit).
SKYACTIV-Drive. A next-generation highly efficient automatic transmission that achieves excellent torque transfer efficiency through a wider lock-up range and features the best attributes of all transmission types. It combines the advantages of conventional automatic transmissions, continuously variable transmissions, and dual clutch transmissions. A dramatically widened lock-up range improves torque transfer efficiency and realizes a direct driving feel that is equivalent to a manual transmission; the transmission delivers a 4-7% improvement in fuel economy compared to the current transmissions.
SKYACTIV-MT. A light and compact next-generation manual transmission optimized for a front-engined front-wheel-drive layout. It features a short stroke and light shift feel. Size and weight is reduced significantly due to a revised structure, and fuel economy is improved due to reduced friction.
SKYACTIV-Body A next-generation lightweight, highly-rigid body (8% lighter, 30% more rigid) with outstanding crash safety performance. SKYACTIV-Body is a straight structure in which each part of the frame is configured to be as straight as possible. Additionally, a continuous framework approach was adopted in which each section functions in a coordinated manner with the other connecting sections. Weight is reduced via optimized bonding methods and expanded use of high-tensile steel.
SKYACTIV-Chassis. The SKYACTIV next-generation high-performance lightweight chassis balances precise handling with a comfortable ride feel to realize driving pleasure. Newly developed front strut and rear multilink suspension enable high rigidity and lightness (The entire chassis is 14% lighter than the previous version.)
In case you skipped past it: Mazda was seriously thinking outside of the box. The Skyactiv-G gas engine would be different from the norm by having very high compression while the Skyactiv-D would be a low-compression diesel engine. Both these ideas were part of Mazda’s relentless pursuit to create the ideal internal combustion engine. The automaker wanted to make sure its engines were the absolute best they could be before the automaker would transition into other technologies.
At the time, Mazda said it would have its next-generation diesel engine ready for production in just two years. In 2012, Skyactiv-D did debut as promised. The Skyactiv-D 2.2 engine was fitted into the CX-5 crossover and then the Mazda6 sedan. Those cars then began to find some success for Mazda. America was due to get the engine in 2013 for the 2014 Mazda6. However, neither of those vehicles was sold in America with the Skyactiv-D 2.2. What happened? Mazda hit a snag when it came to certifying the engine for stricter U.S. emissions.
In September 2013, Mazda delayed the Skyactiv-D until April 2014. Reportedly, Mazda couldn’t figure out how to certify the Skyactiv-D to be 50-state legal while also having the engine perform as customers would expect from a Mazda. In January 2014, Mazda delayed the Skyactiv-D again, with no timeline for its arrival.
At the time, Mazda was set on doing even better than Volkswagen. Back then, you could buy a Volkswagen diesel that didn’t need a NOx after-treatment system like diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) to be “clean,” but still needed diesel particulate filters (DPF). Mazda wanted its diesel to use no after-treatment system at all. The automaker designed the Skyactiv-D to have a low compression ratio of 14:1 and hoped that optimized combustion timing would take care of those nasty emissions. What Mazda didn’t know was that Volkswagen wasn’t playing with a fair deck.
Still, Mazda sent its engineers to do what probably felt like was impossible. They had to engineer an engine that would deliver Zoom Zoom-worthy performance and do so while producing the kinds of light emissions the state of California would love to see. From DieselNet:
“While Mazda understands its Skyactiv-D can meet emission regulation requirements without the use of a NOx after-treatment system, it was decided that further development is required to deliver the right balance between fuel economy and Mazda-appropriate driving performance,” said the company. “Further information on the program, including a timeline of launch for North America, technical specifications and fuel economy will be available at a later date, closer to launch.”
The diesel engine then reportedly went into a sort of development hell. In 2015, Mazda indicated to WardsAuto that it even focused on other products ahead of fixing its diesel emissions dilemma. Engineers in Japan prioritized the new Mazda MX-5 Miata and the CX-3 over fixing the diesel engine.
In 2015, Mazda also showed the first signs of raising the white flag on its persistence in releasing a diesel engine without an after-treatment system. Still, Mazda wasn’t just going to slap a DEF tank to the existing Skyactiv-D. The automaker knew how important the TDI brand was to Volkswagen and it wanted Skyactiv-D to be the same. Volkswagen was the European benchmark for how to make a diesel, and Mazda wanted to be the new benchmark. Why did Mazda care so much? As Forbes reported, Volkswagen managed to capture 75 percent of the American diesel car market. The scraps were being fought over by Audi, Chevy, Jeep, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz.
Then Dieselgate took the world by storm. Suddenly, all the engineers chasing the success of Volkswagen’s TDI technology learned the “Clean Diesel” tech’s true innovation was the way it cleverly fooled emissions tests, not its ability to actually reduce emissions. Practically overnight, Volkswagen’s cheating put a black mark on diesel cars. Some automakers continued selling diesels anyway, which is how Americans were able to buy diesel-powered Cruzes long after Volkswagen got caught, but the damage was done.
But Mazda carried on, and in 2017, the brand once again promised to put a diesel engine in one of its American models, this time accompanied by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) certifying a Mazda diesel engine. In 2019, Mazda finally pulled the covers off the Mazda CX-5 Skyactiv-D. It took Mazda about a decade to develop the engine and meet U.S. emissions standards, with part of the extended development time reportedly the result of new diesel engines facing higher scrutiny from authorities in the wake of Dieselgate.
Still, Mazda had an 8 percent take rate for the Skyactiv-D in Europe, Japan, and Southeast Asia. A 10 percent take rate was expected for America, or a modest 15,000 units. After a very long wait, Mazda finally delivered its diesel engine to US buyers in the CX-5. Reportedly, the Mazda6 Skyactiv-D was also on the table, but we would never get it.
It’s Complicated
So, how did Mazda finally do it?
According to WardsAuto, one of the changes was the engine’s compression ratio. Mazda originally targeted a compression ratio of 14:1, lower than a typical diesel’s roughly 16:1 ratio. Mazda didn’t totally hit that target, but did hit 14.4:1. Reportedly, Mazda was able to hit that compression ratio thanks to improved fuel-injection technology. The CX-5 Skyactiv-D is noted to have piezoelectric fuel injectors with multiple nozzles that change dispersal pattern depending on the situation.
NOx emissions reduction was a big deal for Mazda when the engine was announced. The automaker did not achieve its goal of no after-treatment. The 2.2-liter twin-turbo Skyactiv-D engine received AdBlue urea injection, a NOx storage catalyst, and exhaust gas recirculation. According to WardsAuto, part of the addition of AdBlue was due to Mazda’s testing revealing drivers with a heavy right foot produced excessive emissions. AdBlue was the cure.
All of this was good news because it meant America could finally experience Mazda’s diesel engine, but it came with some weird penalties.
The biggest problem was the diesel provided no real power benefit. Modern diesels are known for their torque, but Mazda’s Skyactiv-D was an odd one out with its 168 HP and 290 lb-ft of torque. These numbers were handily bested by Mazda’s 2.5-liter turbo four, which made 250 HP and 310 lb-ft of torque. This is where you might expect me to tell you the diesel at least made its torque down low in the RPM range. The SkyActiv-D motor made its maximum torque when the tach’s needle swung to 2,000 RPM – just like the gas engine. If anything, that makes the gas engine sound that much cooler.
What Mazda’s diesel did offer was fuel economy. The 2.5-liter turbo four, when equipping a CX-5 AWD, delivered 27 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg in the city. The diesel, which was only available in the top Signature AWD trim level, achieved 30 mpg on the highway and 27 mpg in the city per EPA testing. Mazda representatives said the engine should do better than the EPA numbers. Some outlets hit the EPA numbers while some, like Car and Driver, were able to squeeze 34 mpg out of the engine.
While the diesel engine did offer better fuel economy than its gasoline counterpart, the greater cost of diesel fuel ate into the fuel-cost reduction benefit of the diesel’s narrow fuel economy advantage. The other problem was the $4,110 markup SkyActiv-D power added to CX-5’s asking price, further inflated by the required Signature AWD trim package. A four-grand premium for a slower engine that would only very slowly pay for itself at the pump (if it ever did) was a big ask – and the antithesis of zoom-zoom.
The CX-5
The SkyActiv-D was fitted into the Mazda CX-5, a compact crossover that Mazda has been selling since 2012. Here’s how Mazda describes the origins of the CX-5:
In 2010 when Mazda unveiled the Shinari—a four-door sports coupe concept—it also revealed its new “Kodo—Soul of Motion” design direction. The marque incorporated this styling into its next concept, the Minagi compact crossover SUV, which also brought Mazda’s suite of Skyactiv technologies to the public’s attention. The award-winning Mazda CX‑5 followed soon after, debuting at the September 2011 Frankfurt Motor Show. Combining both Kodo and Skyactiv attributes, the vehicle set out a new blueprint for the company’s future.
“Creating an SUV that would appeal globally was a difficult task,” recalls Masashi Nakayama, General Manager of Mazda’s Design Division, who styled the original CX‑5. “We set ourselves the challenge of bringing sporty design elements to the SUV, and in doing so created a whole new segment for the SUV market. We call this the ‘CX-5 segment’.”
From battling the elements in Chile to exploring Vietnam on and off the beaten track, the CX‑5 has proven it can handle any terrain. In 2019 a fleet of CX‑5s set off from the UK, traveling through ice and snow to reach Nordkapp, the northernmost point of mainland Europe. The CX‑5 has also crossed the world’s oldest and deepest lake—the frozen Lake Baikal in Siberia—becoming the first car manufacturer to achieve this feat. More recently, the CX‑5 excelled in a 62,000-mile endurance test conducted by German magazine Auto Bild, achieving one of the best marks ever awarded and earning a fourth-place spot in its all-time rankings.
The second-generation CX-5 launched in 2017 and was an evolution of Mazda’s Kodo design language. Mazda slots the CX-5 into the premium segment of compact crossovers and in my experience, it means rather lovely interiors with upscale appointments and features. In my experience, Mazda’s crossovers felt more expensive than they really were and kept you comfortable with low wind noise, good handling, and a suspension that soaks up the Midwest’s worst.
Reviews of the gasoline-powered CX-5 suggest the crossover’s independent suspension gave the vehicle agility and the CX-5 had decent body control. Opting for the Signature trim (again, a requirement to get the diesel engine), netted you Nappa leather, real wood trim, dual-zone climate control, heated and cooled front seats, a heads-up display, a 360-degree camera, and more. A “premium” vehicle, something really nice, but not quite luxury. I love it. Also, getting the diesel bumped your towing capacity up from 2,000 pounds to 3,500 pounds, which isn’t much, but at least it’s something.
Reviewers weren’t very impressed with the diesel. In a review hosted by Motor Trend, a reviewer describes an experience that sounds like an old-school diesel with lots of turbo lag:
It’s worth noting that the diesel’s extra 209 pounds—as compared with a CX-5 Signature with the 2.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder gas engine—does make itself felt in the steering, which seems a bit heavier than the standard model’s. It’s probably enough to make itself felt in corners, though I can’t say for sure. Southeast Michigan’s one fun cloverleaf on-/offramp has been under construction for what seems like years now, and the only kind of fast cornering in my month with the diesel Mazda was either around 45-degree city grid turns, or on a couple of very mild sweepers Up North.
Even those sorts of corners are hampered in the CX-5 by the diesel’s turbo lag. After VW got caught in Dieselgate, turbodiesel dynamics reverted to their natural state, which means a good deal of lag before the impeller winds up and pushes the driver back in the seat. Make a turn from a side street into heavy traffic—onto Woodward Avenue, for instance—and you have to recalibrate your response to various size gaps. Be patient. This is not specific to Mazda’s diesel, with its 290 lb-ft of torque. In fact, the CX-5’s throttle tip-in feels about as responsive as the 443-lb-ft 3.0-liter diesel V-6 in the 4,916-pound Land Rover Discovery.
[…]
The Mazda diesel’s payoff does not come from massive fuel savings, though. This example is EPA-rated for 27 mpg city and 30 mpg highway, 3 mpg better in the city and none better on the highway than the base 2.5 AWD. Compared to the turbo AWD model, the diesel is up 5 mpg in the city and 3 on the highway. I’m used to turbodiesels that have a strong highway number, which means fewer refueling stops on road trips, a nice advantage in the middle of winter in the Great Lakes region.
Our friend Kristen Lee echoed similar thoughts in her review for Jalopnik:
The car is also very slow. I’d heard from a fellow journalist the CX-5 diesel had just enough power to get out of its own way, but even that seemed generous when I actually got to drive it. Pieces breaking off of Pangaea would probably win a drag race. Other cars with similar power figures—the Toyota RAV4, the Camry, the Cadillac XT4—all felt like they could blitz the CX-5.
[…]
I appreciate that the CX-5 diesel exists. Variety is nice, and this is a nice idea. Agreeable as a daily driver, it has an impressively quality interior, too. Also, props to Mazda for building a diesel car that, you know, doesn’t cheat. (We think.)
But I also can’t shake the feeling this car sort of missed the boat. Had it come out 10ish years ago like it was supposed to, it probably would have had a fighting chance, since hybrids weren’t as prevalent and diesel’s reputation hadn’t been messed up beyond repair yet.
Kristen’s Jalopnik review and the review from Motor Trend note that the CX-5 indeed delivered on the promise of getting better mpg than the gasoline variants of the CX-5, but not that much better. Worse was the fact that if you really wanted good fuel economy, a hybrid did better. So, the CX-5 diesel found itself in a weird place. Mazda wanted buyers to pony up for a top-spec Signature and then pay another $4,000 for the diesel to get fuel economy that could be bested by a hybrid crossover running on regular gasoline. At the time, a Toyota RAV4 hybrid got 39 mpg for a mere $28,100.
It seemed like the Mazda CX-5 diesel was a fine crossover, but perhaps one that came a bit too late. If Mazda released its U.S. diesel in 2013 as expected and hit the originally estimated 43 mpg, it could have been a hit. Instead, it came at a time when diesel was already fading from American minds, and it didn’t bring much to the table. I couldn’t find any confirmed production numbers, but Motor Trend noted that Mazda corrected its sales expectations to just 1,000 units in 2019. The CX-5 diesel was discontinued after 2019 after slow sales, so that suggests that there aren’t many of them out there.
With that said, it isn’t hard to find one of these for sale. A quick search shows 11 for sale on a site like CarGurus and it looks like you could get one for about $24,000.
It’s incredible to think that Mazda spent nearly a decade tweaking an engine to sell it in America and in the end, its return on investment is perhaps as low as just 1,000 vehicles. So, that’s how Mazda made its own Unholy Fail. Still, it’s awesome Mazda even gave diesel a try and if you’re looking for a CX-5 that’s just a smidge different than the rest, the diesel could be your pick.
Mazda also spent a lot of time engineering a really compelling PHEV rotary crossover, but only launched the highly compromised pure EV version of it in the States, and only in one state, then cancelled it entirely due to poor sales rather than recognize they were just selling the wrong version of it and correcting course
If one came up for sale near me (Midwest) in the right spec with a warranty/extended coverage, and it was priced accurately for what it is, I wouldn’t say no to an MX-30.
I waited years for this to get released, as originally promised, in the 6. Looked at the Passat Diesel, but just couldn’t bring myself to buy a VW, loved the looks of the Mazda and really wanted it. Obviously I never got one, and haven’t owned a Mazda since…
I waited over 2 years for a diesel Mazda6. Ended up with a Honda Accord V6 sedan, which I don’t regret. Likely I would have been disappointed with the power output and taken a pass on the Mazda6 since I was underwhelmed with the existing 2.5L NA engine. The only thing that would have turned the decision around would have been excellent MPG, but that didn’t ,materialize either in the production version in the CX-5.
I even held out hope for a MazdaSpeed6, but alas, I was destined for disappointment for miles from Mazda.
Even within the diesel segment this engine wasn’t a performer from an efficiency standpoint. A comparable diesel Equinox got 8 mpg higher highway fuel economy, albeit at a lower power output.
“he diesel, which was only available in the top Signature AWD trim level, achieved 30 mpg on the highway and 27 mpg in the city per EPA testing.”
And consider there was another factor… Toyota’s hybrids had better fuel economy, could use cheaper regular unleaded gasoline and weren’t an emissions nightmare.
Mazda would have been better off sinking their money into hybrid tech… or making a great BEV platform and then selling vehicles on that platform with a variety of body styles.
Mazda forever.
Having read through the whole piece without noticing I was curious who penned it. Mercedes, you are truly the best of the best. Many thanks for an interesting read! I’ll keep an eye on the roads here in the EU, I don’t remember when I last saw a diesel, while CX-5’s are immensely popular here.
Very interesting, I didn’t realize the diesel had ever even made it to market. Sad that they poured so much money down the drain into this diesel blackhole, I am surprised they didn’t buy a VW or two to benchmark and figure out they were cheating, I believe I read some others in the industry had figured this out, though can’t remember where I read that.
Sadly as much as I like Mazda they seem to have a quixotic fascination with doing something unique in engine tech that has arguably never really paid off for them meaningfully. And the irony is they typically have such good “normal” engines-the Mazda 3 I had was by far the best 4 cylinder car I’ve owned. Thinking me and the missus will buy her a CX5 Turbo-which is a very functional but joyless engine which is also even more sadly the review I’ve read of their new turbo i6 an engine that should’ve been an out of the park home run, can’t help but wonder if they wasted so much money on this diesel that they shortchanged development on their other drivetrains including no hybrid.
My neighbor has one of these, and it is obnoxiously loud starting up on cold mornings! It literally sends a vibration through the house.
Imagine if Mazda had taken the D and X R&D budget and put it into traditional hybrids and PHEVs…
I came here to say this!
I mean, if they really just wanted to waste money they should have put all the diesel development resources into a next-gen rotary.
Is there really any major drivetrain R&D to be done on PHEVs and hybrids? The electric motors themselves are basically commodities at this point. I feel like better/cheaper batteries and charging is what’s holding them back. Not exactly in the wheelhouse of most automakers.
Also I think this article does a good job of pointing out it wasn’t at all clear at the time this was a waste of money. It certainly turned out to be.
It absolutely takes significant money, effort, and time to develop a hybrid and PHEV powertrain
Sure…but you said R&D…I don’t think there’s much Research and Development into new and novel ways to create electric motors. The money is all “how to we package this or do we have to create new platforms to house it”. The article is all about technical innovations in the diesel space like low compression – techniques only really seen in research papers before this.
You’re really taking liberties on the interpretation of single sentence
There are eg most PHEV has a EV motor instead of torque convertor, belt driven starter etc. It is more of part evolution more than R&D, they are commodity off the shelf parts at this point.
Yeah that’s what I mean – i’m not saying it doesn’t take engineering to get a PHEV or hybrid system out there, just that it’s not what you’d think of as R&D. That is, the question of “can this be done at all” is answered. Getting a low compression diesel to be CARB compliant with no after-treatment is very much a “is this possible”. Answer turned out to be no haha
Diesel apparently was a rocking success compared to Skyactiv-x…
I think in the end HCCI requires expensive sensors and also unknown longevity. People especially Americans still want displacement vs efficiency.
It seems that Mazda was late to the party and over budget because they weren’t cheating like VW.
The other thing that made this sell poorly is as Mercedes mentioned, it was only available in the top signature trim level. That, on top of the additional cost for the diesel, made it silly expensive. It’s like Mazda intentionally didn’t want to sell many of these.
Even Honda was talking about bringing diesels to the US too in the mid-2000s which never happened, but Mazda seems to have a tendency to get ahead of themselves talking about future product, kind of like the lead up to the CX-70. I distinctly remember a Skyactiv-D 6 on their website under “coming soon” for the longest time as the C/D link mentions. Certainly seemed like they followed through with the diesel just to say they actually did in fact offer it here after all, knowing it would be a brief run.
GM offered a diesel in the Equinox/Terrain at the same time, but a smaller displacement (1.6L) – thus slower, but also did deliver gains in economy vs. the standard engine.
Much respect for the Japanese culture, they will not release something to production until is proved that it works perfect.
I work for a Japanese supplier that deals with all type of different OEMs and the Japanese OEMs put so much attention to details, everything is perfect, their product has no big issues, they don’t make engineering changes just because they want to.
They took their time to do the right thing releasing a Diesel engine but the market wasn’t there. I see stories about those skyactive engine being so reliable, high miles all over the place with no issues.
I worked with an Englishman who had previously worked for an automotive supplier that worked with Lotus. He didn’t go into too much detail but said it was the biggest shitshow of an automaker he had ever dealt with.
USOEM are the worst lol they dont care about timing of changes, quantity of changes, fixing always their own mistakes.
Haha. The same guy also talked about being cursed out by a woman at a US OEM because he delivered the wrong brake rotors. He drove 4 hours to her place and it turned out her guys had put the crate in the wrong spot.
I guess Takata is the exception?
I’ve spent time in an Austrian friend’s CX-5 diesel, and this drive train makes much more sense over there. Mazda did a great job of isolating the cabin, so you don’t really notice the clatter of a diesel engine up front, even with auto stop/start. The acceleration from a stop isn’t terrific, but the torque actually is nicely suited for highway passing and mountain roads, which is 95% of the driving in rural Austria.
We Americans have the benefit of relatively cheap gasoline and high-displacement turbo gasoline engines. Take that away, and something like a CX-5 diesel makes a lot more sense.
I had read about these back in 2015 and waited until 2016 for them to arrive.
Ended up with a RAV4 hybrid.
I want a car brand to form that buys up unused engine designs and uses them exclusively. This, the Cadillac Blackwing…
4.5 Duramax V8 LMK
Used a lot for one specific platform but discontinued, GM I6 4.2 Atlas engine. That thing runs so smooth.
You mean gliders but for cars?
Just looking at engines only really used for a single model and generation and then discontinued, the Toyota 1LR-GUE , Ford Voodoo V8, BMW S65, whatever the code name for the Audi V12 TDI in the Q7 and the VW V10 TDI in the Touareg…. There is a surprising amount of unique and cool stuff out there that seems incredibly expensive to develop only to be barely used and abandoned pretty quickly.
I know this is about Mazda’s diesel…but what really, really kills me about Dieselgate is that those diesels were still pretty damn efficient when they were fixed to comply with emissions regulations. Apparently the fix knocks about 2mpg off the original, cheating figures, which still results in good numbers. I can get 40+mpg in my Sportwagen (purchased post Dieselgate) even going 80 on the highway and most of my local trips score close to 35mpg. Maybe competition in other markets where diesels were more common is what led VW to chase those last two MPG, but either way, it was a huge, stupid, illegal risk to take for not a lot of payoff. It definitely did more damage to VW’s brand (and all diesel cars, especially in the US) than diesels that got a couple/few mpg less than the cheating versions. I was getting really interested in diesels (like Mazda’s) and their future applications in vehicles destined for the US…until VW went and fucked it all up.
I had a ’15 Golf Sportwagen TDI with manual.
I averaged 46.5mpg (actually tracked) over the ~50k miles I actually logged fuel purchases. It wasn’t rare to get 50mpg for a tank of long highway driving at ~75mpg.
This was all pre-fix. I sold it back to VW so no idea how it would have compared after the fix. That being said, for the ~60k miles I owned it, I think I only filled the DEF once or twice
The thing that kills diesels in my area is the price of diesel fuel. When I owned the Golf, diesel was like $0.20 more per gallon over regular, when regular was in the low $3.00 range. Now diesel is like a good $1.10-1.30 more per gallon, and gas is in the low-to-mid $3 range.
So even if a diesel could still get better fuel economy, the price per mile is higher. Couple that with the more expensive oil (at least in VW case), the regular fuel filter changes, the DEF, and other emissions devices, a diesel is considerably more expensive to operate.
That being said, I liked my Sportwagen a lot. Great car. VW-tex or whatever the vinyl seats were called can burn in hell though. So much swampass.
Yeah, diesel prices are what really suck now. They fluctuate a lot around here, at some points they get to within $0.50 of regular fuel and cheaper than premium, or $1+ over regular. However, my last car was a 2012 VW CC that averaged mid 20s on premium fuel, so I’m still saving money on fuel over my previous ride. But you’re absolutely right, diesel prices have negated a lot of the benefits of owning a diesel. I’ve had issues getting good diesel as well, I used to get it at Kroger but I started getting poor fuel economy, like, several MPGs less on the same trips going the same speed, only difference was where I filled up.
I have the previous generation, a 2014 Jetta Sportwagen manual. I’ve never seen 50mpg on the highway but I have hit 47 on a long drive where I was going close to the speed limit the whole time. Mine also has a DPF so no DEF to refill on mine. Of course the DPFs eventually clog or crack and that can be expensive to fix. When mine gets there I might just delete the DPF.
Interestingly I like the vinyl, but mine is a light beige and isn’t too bad in the summer. It was pretty fucking unpleasant in the summer with the black seats in my CC though.
I found fuel additive improved fuel economy ~5% give or take a bit through my not-very-scientific tests of running with it and without it over various points. I always used Opti-Lube XPD in every tank once I made up my mind it was “better”.
Interior was black, and hot as fuck. Even on cool fall days (50F out) you’d still get swampass if the sun was out.
Interesting, I was wondering about diesel fuel additives just the other day. Might have to give that one a shot and see if it helps any.
It’s been a while, but I remember people that were against them had fears of the DPF clogging, fuel filters clogging, and they argued they were just ineffective wastes of money. Don’t hold me to that though.
Again, my tests were simply trying it and not trying it. I didn’t do same routes or better controls, so it wasn’t scientific. And I might be remember overly optimistically.
I was driving my sportwagen almost 2 years before I found out everything that can go wrong with the DPF and all of that. Panic set in, and I started reading everything I could about managing it, taking care of it, cleaning it etc. I ended up picking Archoil fuel additive. I used it for quite a while, and it did give me a noticeable difference. Slightly smoother idle, the engine felt a little better. It was something like $25 a bottle, and you use it at every oil change. I justified it saying it was way cheaper than just a regular oil change since I was doing the work myself. Did it give me better gas mileage? I don’t think I could honestly answer that, mainly because I was mostly just worried about my DPF cracking. But I would definitely say it helped clean out the engine a bit.
After deleting, I waited until it was time for an oil change, then ran Liqui Moli Pro Line Engine Flush. That shit works. You basically pur that in, run you engine for 30 minutes, drain oil and change the filter, then run your engine another 30 minutes and change the oil again to make sure everything is out of it. It’s pricey, but I 100% noticed a difference when it was done. I don’t think you need to do it that often, but in my experience (admitedly anecdotal) it’s worth doing every 30ish thousand miles
The CX-5 is a great vehicle. My wife had a 2016 for a while and loved it – it drove great, had plenty of space for its size, and gave us ~75k trouble free miles. My only complaints were the wind noise and that it needed more power, which from reviews sounds like they fixed with the 2017 redesign. If we didn’t need a bigger vehicle she likely would be driving another CX-5 today.
All that said I can’t see how it would have been improved by a diesel, even at the original specs they targeted. Getting 40 mpg would be nice, but the extra weight and lack of HP would have really dulled what made the car fun to drive (for a crossover). A diesel Mazda never really made sense to me, at least in the US.
FWIW, it looks like it lives on in foreign market CX-5’s, where there’s still a little more demand for diesel. I do find it funny that my CX-5 still has a blank set aside for the urea refill set aside in filler area, but even if it wasn’t required internationally, it would still possibly not really make sense to reengineer it out.
As well, talking to some people from Mazda a few years prior to this launching, it really did sound like they were baffled by VW diesels, that they were genuinely trying to do the right thing and properly engineer a clean engine, and kept running up against drivability issues. Mazda getting burned by Dieselgate isn’t the biggest tragedy of the whole thing, but they definitely didn’t deserve that.
Indeed and also worth noting that in many markets the standard CX-5 engine is a 2.0 liter gas engine not the 2.5 the US gets. The Diesel version is actually more powerful than the 2.0 gas version. Our 2.5 N/A CX-5 seems underpowered as it is I would imagine the 2.0 is a real slug?
We did get the 2.0 for the first few years of the CX-5 (shared with the Mazda3), and period reviews had the AWD version at like 9.5 0-60. You could also get the CX-5 with a manual, but it was with the 2.0, FWD, and only the Sport trim (lowest trim level)
The CX-5 was offered with the 2.0L/6MT/FWD on base trims in Canada up until 2018. For 2019 they killed the 2.0L and unveiled the 2.5T and diesel engines as upgrades from the 2.5L.
I bought a used 2017 CX-5 2.0L/6MT/FWD last summer to get a bit more space over my 2014 Mazda3 2.0L/6MT/FWD. It accelerates quite slowly once you’re in third gear, but it has returned an average 8.1 L/100km (29MPG) over the last 21000 km (13000 miles) of mostly highway driving. The best fuel economy I see in the summer is 7.4L/100km (32MPG).
I’m pleased with it as an upgrade over my Mazda3, but I do wish I could import a new 2.0L/6MT/AWD CX-5 from Europe.
I had such high hopes for these. My pops got to wheel a diesel powered Mazda sedan at a PR event near Montreal.
Years later I’d actually get to drive a CX-5 for the first time as a rental for a work trip.
The seats in that thing were so awful that after subjecting myself to a total of 12 hours in those seats, I actually sighed in relief climbing back in to my ’16 Sorento. A vehicle I thoroughly hate was made better by comparison to what should have been a better vehicle.
As good as Mazda is with their driving dynamics, for some reason they still have not mastered the “seat”.
Which is unfortunate. The experience has really soured me on the brand.
They’re getting better, but they still seem to be a love-it-or-hate-it thing. The cloth seats in my NC Miata were fine, but the exact same seats in leather in my wife’s NC were as bad as the one’s you described. We now both have NDs, and again, mine with cloth, hers with leather. Mine are fine. Her drivers seat is fine, but not as good. The passenger seat in her car is dreadful. It’s weird.
An old roommate had a couple RX8s, I found them comfortable. My parents also had an ’09 Mazda 6 and that car was made to eat the highway. I’m just shocked to see such a popular model have such terrible seats.
Everybody’s butt is a little different, and you can’t please all the butts all the time I suppose.
Similar setup here – I have a ’18 Sorento SX AWD, partner drives a ’17 CX-5 sport FWD. The Mazda is just too small for me to be comfortable driving it any distance (I’m 6′, 220 lbs). I rented a new one with leather seats and yup, same thing.
Fair to say that the Sorento has wider seats, but the real issue for me was leg room and cockpit size. Just really hard to find a comfortable position to drive long range. Either the wheel position wasn’t right, the seat was too close to make up for not enough telescoping steering, or the armrest is in the wrong position on the door. Also, when I get the seat comfortable for my legs, the B pillar is in line with the side of my head. Side visibility is compromised as a result.
She is 5’5 and fits perfectly in the CX-5 captain’s seat.
I’m really sorry to hear your Sorento experience hasn’t been great. While it’s not an enthusiastic cornering vehicle, mine rides quite well, acceleration is no problem whatsoever (V6 for the win), and aside from several trips to the dealer in the first 400 days of ownership* to fix a number of things, it’s easily the nicest vehicle I have ever had.
If it has the 4 cylinder engine, ye gods that is a terrible lump, both by performance and lack of longevity.
* disclaimer – this Sorento SX was bought new by a private owner, driven to Cali, and repo’d. Found its way back to the East coast, served in a lease pool, then picked up by the dealer where I bought it. So it wasn’t well maintained but had 10,000 miles on it in 2020. The dealer visits were all warranty visits to fix every bug I found.
Mine is a V6 model. I bought it to get the max towing capacity and because the V6 mills are relatively problem-free.
Objectively, there is nothing wrong with the vehicle. It is a perfectly cromulent people mover.
What I’ve learned is that I just really don’t like crossovers. In my brain, SUVs drive like trucks and cars drive like cars. I don’t want what boils down to driving a big, shitty car.
I’m only 5’7″ with a small frame, so I fit in most seats without issue. The problem is I found my backside went numb in that seat. My girlfriend, however, is 6′ with long legs, so that’s good info for me to know since she inevitably ends up driving my vehicles at some point.
On the ’16 V6, if you have not received a letter from KIA on that engine, watch the coolant and temp gauges and if either get weird, you may have the head bolt blues. In the US, KIA extended warranty coverage for repairs/replacement for that specific issue. Not sure how that works in Canada (if that’s where you are), but if you haven’t registered that ’16 with Kia, do so ASAP. This issue was fixed in the 2018s, but KIA sent a letter to me anyway about it.
There’s also a multi-function switch program for it which I did need, because the headlamp switch became occasionally decorative-only and non-functional unless I twisted it back and forth several times.
Captured it on video when it happened, along with a weird cancelling issue (cold weather, it would flash the opposite signal on turn cancel an even number of times – but you can only program in an odd number of flashes for lane changes or momentary signal use, so something was triggering it incorrectly). Dealer swapped it out with no questions. Got the program letter a week later!
I’ve gotten recall notices, so I’m on the list. But I’ve never heard of the head bolt issues. That being said I’m at 227,000km so I feel like if it was gonna happen, it would have.
Re: Mazda: damn. I’m the same size and Mazda is always in my head as a candidate when I break down and get a newish reliablish car. I sat in a Blackwing CT4 last year at Road Atlanta and felt a little tight. But I don’t want the 5!
That said, I drove my gf’s 2019 Escape over the weekend and she said I looked too big and out of place. Sigh.
The moral of the story is that it’s always Volkswagen’s fault
Sounds like the ill-fated Blackwing engine. Confusingly of course, this was not the engine in the Blackwing cars.
VW made Mazda expend enormous resource for a dud, seems to be a modern adaptation of “The Art of War”. I wonder if the reluctance of Japanese brands to adapt EVs have something to do with afraid of getting burnt again.
Japanese corporate culture has always been quite risk-averse, even before this fiasco.
The (generally admirable IMO) focus is on continuous and incremental improvement (kaizen) over moonshots.
I always wonder how the Prius happened. That was some moonshot engineering for its day and I just can’t imagine Toyota doing anything that experimental.
Agreed.
I’d read a book on that topic.
I saw a Prius parked on the Tsukuba Japan campus when I lived there in 1999 and was very impressed despite its strong Toyota Echo vibes. When I returned home from my year there I bought a 1st gen Insight, the Prius’ mortal enemy and soon realized that while I had the better looking and performing one, I also had far crappier batteries.
According to Prius people, the Insight ended up pushing its batteries a lot harder than intended because the Prius was so efficient that Honda couldn’t afford to leave as much safety margin in the capacity. I don’t know how true it is, but that’s the lore on Prius Chat. 🙂
Honda rolled out an ECM “update” in the mid 00’s that severely limited both acceleration and regeneration for “reasons”. It was obvious that they were trying to cut down on IMA battery warranty repairs but it also reeked of fraud as my car got worse than its advertised MPG and became sluggish.
I’ve not owned another Honda since.
In hindsight you really have to feel for those Mazda engineers trying to meet goals set by a cheating competitor. Every day they were probably told by the higher-ups something like “well if VW can get the power and emissions then why can’t we?”
It’s basically every other cyclist saying “why can’t I catch this Lance Armstrong guy?”
I always thought Armstrong gave the vision for blood boys in Mad Max Fury Road.
Maybe a better analogy is that everyone was cheating (building to the test) and lance (VW) was just better at it. Pro cycling in that era was basically the old SNL All-Drug Olympics sketch made real.
Yeah Lance’s edge was that he had the best doctors. His former teammates who went to other teams ended up getting busted. Tyler Hamilton hilariously so.
I want to believe that it’s cleaned up and there’s no drugs now but I wasn’t born yesterday. The incentive is still there even if the cheating is more difficult to hide.
Alberto Contador: “because my team hadn’t hired the right blood mules yet!”