Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Fuel Economy Figures Come Out On CX-5 Diesel... And it Isn't So Good

      Not much of an improvement over the gas engine

    It seems like ages since Mazda announced plans to bring over a diesel engine. Many things have transpired since then with various delays and the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal. While the company said the diesel engine was still in the cards, we started to think it was as real as bigfoot or the loch ness monster. But the engine is one step closer to reality as the EPA has posted the fuel economy figures for the CX-5 diesel.

    For the front-wheel variant, the CX-5 diesel will return 28 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. All-wheel drive see a slight drop to 27/30/28. Major improvement over gas model, right? Not really. The FWD gas model does trail the diesel in the city by three, but there is only a one mpg difference in the highway and the combined figure is the same. The AWD gas model is pretty much the same story; three mpg difference in the city, two mpg difference on the highway, and the same figure for combined.

    It gets even worse if we compare it to the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain Diesel. In FWD guise, EPA figures stand at 28 City/39 Highway/32 Combined. AWD models return 28/38/32.

    We're guessing that new emissions equipment and harder testing likely affected CX-5 diesel's fuel economy figure. Mazda might sell the diesel engine as a performance upgrade - the 2.2L turbodiesel produces 170 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. 

    No timeframe has been given on when the CX-5 diesel will finally go on sale.

    Source: EPA

    Edited by William Maley




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Holy sh*t that's bad. I would have expected Mazda to have gotten 40+highway on the FWD version. 

    This only makes me more curious as to what they'll return in the real world because diesels tend to do better than their ratings in passenger vehicles(not trucks made for work). 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Unfortunately, few extra mpg are not going to compensate the higher cost of diesel.

    I wish Mazda would just cut the losses and not waste money and resources bringing the diesel to US.  

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Time for Mazda to stop wasting R&D dollars on a dead animal. Diesel is dead and at those figures dead on arrival in this market. They would do much better to bring in a Plug-in Hybrid with this engine as a tuned generator for that and would get a much better MPG rating and probably sell. 

    This stupidity is what will kill Mazda.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Wait, 310 lb-ft of torque? That's probably also at a very low RPM.... that thing will feel fast

    That's more than just about all naturally aspirated V6es, and even more than the 2.3T Ecoboost in the Mustang.  

    Yes, this will be the performance option. That's the real story here.  Performance upgrade without a fuel economy penalty. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Wait, 310 lb-ft of torque? That's probably also at a very low RPM.... that thing will feel fast

    That's more than just about all naturally aspirated V6es, and even more than the 2.3T Ecoboost in the Mustang.  

    Yes, this will be the performance option. That's the real story here.  Performance upgrade without a fuel economy penalty. 

    Somehow I doubt it will be substantially faster than NA CX-5

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Just now, ykX said:

    Somehow I doubt it will be substantially faster than NA CX-5

    Why? The current CX5 isn't all that fast.   But even still, it will feel faster.  It probably has more torque than any other crossover in the class, and even classes above it. 

    It is only 5 ft-lb less than then 2014 Suburban 5.3 V8 with a lot less bulk to haul around. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    45 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    and even more than the 2.3T Ecoboost in the Mustang.  

    That is not correct, sir. The 2.3T in the Mustang makes 310hp and 350lb-ft. 

    The pre-refreshed 2.3T in the Mustang was 320lb-ft. 

    The 2.3T in the MKC(I know it's a more pricey class) puts down 305lb-ft, FWIW. 

    The numbers are significantly higher than the Terrain's 1.6T diesel making 137p and 240tq. That's slow as balls so hopefully this should be a lot better AND achieve pretty dang good fuel economy. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    performance upgrade, or actual towing ease?

    i think these are class 2 rated....nvm, 1 ton towing. but anyway... much easier towing.

    aren't the gm twins... using a smaller displacement and more gears?  can't compare apples to apples, but i understand, intended market and such.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    310 lb-ft is a lot, especially in this segment, so it should be the performance vehicle of the class but what will it cost?  It will probably have a 0-60 time in the high 6’s, we aren’t talking massive speed and I feel like that diesel will add $3,000 in cost.  Could have got better mpg with a mild hybrid system.

    Keep in mind the Mercedes GLK diesel had 369 lb-ft and did 0-60 in 7.4  or 7.2 seconds, it wasn’t really fast despite all the torque.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    29 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    310 lb-ft is a lot, especially in this segment, so it should be the performance vehicle of the class but what will it cost?  It will probably have a 0-60 time in the high 6’s, we aren’t talking massive speed and I feel like that diesel will add $3,000 in cost.  Could have got better mpg with a mild hybrid system.

    Keep in mind the Mercedes GLK diesel had 369 lb-ft and did 0-60 in 7.4  or 7.2 seconds, it wasn’t really fast despite all the torque.

    Yet faster than most auto's that are in the 10 sec range. I think many will think it is fast. I just think it is too little too late for the added cost.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    310 lb-ft is a lot, especially in this segment, so it should be the performance vehicle of the class but what will it cost?  It will probably have a 0-60 time in the high 6’s, we aren’t talking massive speed and I feel like that diesel will add $3,000 in cost.  Could have got better mpg with a mild hybrid system.

    Keep in mind the Mercedes GLK diesel had 369 lb-ft and did 0-60 in 7.4  or 7.2 seconds, it wasn’t really fast despite all the torque.

    We've gotten a really distorted view of what is "fast" anymore. 7.3 seconds the old Impala SS  0-60 time and that is more than most people can even handle. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    15 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    We've gotten a really distorted view of what is "fast" anymore. 7.3 seconds the old Impala SS  0-60 time and that is more than most people can even handle. 

    That is true, most of these small crossovers are in the 8-9 second range 0-60 so if the diesel CX-5 does it in 7 seconds it will seem fast compared to them.   But when a Camry V6 can do 0-60 in 5.8 seconds anything over 6 seems slow to me.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 8/10/2018 at 12:03 PM, smk4565 said:

    That is true, most of these small crossovers are in the 8-9 second range 0-60 so if the diesel CX-5 does it in 7 seconds it will seem fast compared to them.   But when a Camry V6 can do 0-60 in 5.8 seconds anything over 6 seems slow to me.

    Most Camrys aren't V6s... they're 2.5 liters or hybrids in the 7.9 second range. You always want to gravitate to the fastest version of a car when in reality most people buy the base engine. 

    But here's stat for you... the Pacifica Hybrid does 0-60 in 7.4 seconds and feels ridiculously fast for what it is. 

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    34 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Most Camrys aren't V6s... they're 2.5 liters or hybrids in the 7.9 second range. You always want to gravitate to the fastest version of a car when in reality most people buy the base engine. 

    But here's stat for you... the Pacifica Hybrid does 0-60 in 7.4 seconds and feels ridiculously fast for what it is. 

    I find it interesting that we have gone from a society of people that were used to pretty much everything being a 12 to 15 seconds to 55 mph to a under 10 seconds but above 8 seconds is slow when in reality, auto's that can get to 60/65 in mid 7 seconds or less is very fast and more than enough for most people as the 5 seconds and below is scarry to allot of drivers.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    11 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    I find it interesting that we have gone from a society of people that were used to pretty much everything being a 12 to 15 seconds to 55 mph to a under 10 seconds but above 8 seconds is slow when in reality, auto's that can get to 60/65 in mid 7 seconds or less is very fast and more than enough for most people as the 5 seconds and below is scarry to allot of drivers.

    Yeah...back in the day I thought my 5.0 Mustang was quick at 0-60 in 6.2 seconds.  It was certainly quicker than other cars I had in the 80s-90s (Escort diesel, Bronco II, Mustang LX 2.3).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Yeah...back in the day I thought my 5.0 Mustang was quick at 0-60 in 6.2 seconds.  It was certainly quicker than other cars I had in the 80s-90s (Escort diesel, Bronco II, Mustang LX 2.3).

    That escort diesel 0-60 was listed as "maybe", the Mustang 2.3 was measured with a sundial. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    That escort diesel 0-60 was listed as "maybe", the Mustang 2.3 was measured with a sundial. 

    Yeah, both were slugs.   The Escort was a 5spd manual, the Mustang a 4spd manual, and the Bronco II a 5spd manual.    The GT is a 5spd manual.   A bit of trivia...my first 4 cars were '84, '86, '87 and '88 model years, and all Fords w/ manuals...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×