Jump to content
William Maley

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

Recommended Posts

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


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see this side by side on the EPA site.

CX5-Diesel_Versus_Gas.png

Share this post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like this CX-5 diesel could outperform the Equinox diesel (if similarly equipped).

Share this post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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.




  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      As we reported last month, Jeep is adding a diesel to the Wrangler lineup.  The 3.0-liter diesel will produce 260 horsepower and 442 lb-ft of torque and be paired only with the 8-speed automatic. Electronic Start-Stop is also standard issue. 
      As for how much it is going to cost, be prepared to shell out up to an additional $6,000 over the base model.  It breaks down like this:  $4,000 for the diesel engine + $2,000 for the automatic transmission.  All in all, it ends up being a $3,250 upgrade over a Wrangler with a Pentastar V6 and 8-speed automatic.   The diesel will only be offered in 4-door trims of Sport, Sahara, and Rubicon.  In the RAM 1500 with the same powertrain, highway fuel economy is rated for 30mpg. Expect the lighter but less aerodynamic Wrangler to match that once EPA numbers are finalized.
      Diesel Wranglers start down the production line in late November, but the order books are already open if you want to head down to the dealer and put your order in. 

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      As we reported last month, Jeep is adding a diesel to the Wrangler lineup.  The 3.0-liter diesel will produce 260 horsepower and 442 lb-ft of torque and be paired only with the 8-speed automatic. Electronic Start-Stop is also standard issue. 
      As for how much it is going to cost, be prepared to shell out up to an additional $6,000 over the base model.  It breaks down like this:  $4,000 for the diesel engine + $2,000 for the automatic transmission.  All in all, it ends up being a $3,250 upgrade over a Wrangler with a Pentastar V6 and 8-speed automatic.   The diesel will only be offered in 4-door trims of Sport, Sahara, and Rubicon.  In the RAM 1500 with the same powertrain, highway fuel economy is rated for 30mpg. Expect the lighter but less aerodynamic Wrangler to match that once EPA numbers are finalized.
      Diesel Wranglers start down the production line in late November, but the order books are already open if you want to head down to the dealer and put your order in. 
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Mazda currently has no EVs or Hybrids in its stable of vehicles, but that will start to change next month at the Tokyo Auto Show when Mazda unveils its first EV meant for production.  Mazda recently announced that it will put a fully electric vehicle into production in 2020 and a plug-in hybrid following later. The plug-in will use a small rotary engine to recharge the battery on the go. 
      What we don't know yet is what type of EV Mazda will be producing.  If it is a small hatchback, we can chalk the potential sales up as "not many". The test mule that Mazda is using has been the new CX-30 with a 35.5 kWh battery and an electric motor good for 141 horsepower and 195 lb.-ft of torque. That battery pack is considerably smaller than the 64 kWh unit the Hyundai Kona uses in North America.  Mazda says that the vehicle will not be based on any of their current lineup, but instead will be all new. It is possible that North America only gets the range extended version due to longer drives on this continent. 

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Mazda currently has no EVs or Hybrids in its stable of vehicles, but that will start to change next month at the Tokyo Auto Show when Mazda unveils its first EV meant for production.  Mazda recently announced that it will put a fully electric vehicle into production in 2020 and a plug-in hybrid following later. The plug-in will use a small rotary engine to recharge the battery on the go. 
      What we don't know yet is what type of EV Mazda will be producing.  If it is a small hatchback, we can chalk the potential sales up as "not many". The test mule that Mazda is using has been the new CX-30 with a 35.5 kWh battery and an electric motor good for 141 horsepower and 195 lb.-ft of torque. That battery pack is considerably smaller than the 64 kWh unit the Hyundai Kona uses in North America.  Mazda says that the vehicle will not be based on any of their current lineup, but instead will be all new. It is possible that North America only gets the range extended version due to longer drives on this continent. 
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...