Mazda (finally) confirms a CX-5 diesel this summer

Oberkanone

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Location
NW Indiana
TDI
13 Jetta TDI Premium manual "gone"
Seeing is believing on subject of diesel + Mazda. I've seen the CX-5 diesel on the lot. It exists. Pricing was $42K and change. I did not have time to drive it.
Anyone driven one? Thoughts?
 

soot1

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
Currently none. Formerly: 2010 VW Jetta TDI 6M, 1993 Dodge Ram W250 Cummins 5M 4WD, 1990 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1986 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1980 VW Uabbit Diesel 4M. Currently driving 2018 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4WD.
.....I did not have time to drive it......
I, in contrast, don't have the desire to drive it. Too late for vast majority of former VW TDI owners including myself, no manual tranny, too expensive, first model year. BTW, have they fixed the oil dilution issue? That whole thing somehow fizzled out and Mazda never announced what the fix was, if I recall correctly.
 

tikal

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2001
Location
Southeast Texas
TDI
2004 Passat Wagon (chainless + 5 MT + GDE tune)
Also the fuel economy records in Europe of the Mazda CX-5 diesel do not provide much, let's say 'excitement'.

$42K for a a fairly small CUV/SUV and you end up most likely averaging 30 MPG.

Now if you tell me the same size vehicle and cost is getting in the upper 30's MPG, it is 'torquey' and it looks and feels somewhat semi-luxurious. That's a different story.
 

soot1

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
Currently none. Formerly: 2010 VW Jetta TDI 6M, 1993 Dodge Ram W250 Cummins 5M 4WD, 1990 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1986 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1980 VW Uabbit Diesel 4M. Currently driving 2018 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4WD.
...... it is 'torquey' ......
The turbo gasser Mazda offers in this same model is 20 lb.ft torquier at exactly the same engine speed, it is almost 60 HP more powerful, yet it costs $ 4,000 less than the diesel in the same trim. The advertised fuel economy of the diesel is, of course, somewhat higher than for the gasser, as might be expected. I have the feeling that dropping the diesel in the top trim will turn out to be a humongous dud, and, as someone called it in a different thread "it will fizzle out very quickly".
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
Last edited:

soot1

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
Currently none. Formerly: 2010 VW Jetta TDI 6M, 1993 Dodge Ram W250 Cummins 5M 4WD, 1990 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1986 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1980 VW Uabbit Diesel 4M. Currently driving 2018 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4WD.
Features that I'd want anyway with the extra torque of a diesel, great!
What extra torque? If you check the specifications (which you obviously didn't), you'll find out what has been reiterated here on several occasions: the diesel delivers only 290 lb.ft at 2000 RPM, whereas the turbo gasser makes 310 lb.ft at 2000 RPM.
 

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
Numbers aren't everything. I recently drove a co-workers '18 Tiguan, which claims about the same torque as my stock '15 GSW TDI. But if feels far less responsive on tip in and in traffic than the TDI. It's probably faster overall, but in normal driving if feels less powerful. Sure it weighs more than the GSW, but it also has an 8 speed transmission, which should help. I wonder what people would find with a back-to-back drive of the two cars.

And I maintain that in real world conditions, the diesel will deliver significantly better FE than the turbo gasoline car. Especially if driven hard.

And soot1, the oil dilution issue was caused by Mazda trying to meet emissions standards without SCR. That's what fixed that. These engines have been in operation in Europe for a while, no problems that I've heard.
 

tikal

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2001
Location
Southeast Texas
TDI
2004 Passat Wagon (chainless + 5 MT + GDE tune)
So in this case if real world conditions show the new Mazda CX-5 diesel averaging around 30 MPG (like in Europe) then my bet is that the turbo gasser with 310 lb.ft at 2000 RPM will average no better than 23 or 24 MPG.

That makes the diesel version look 'good' in terms of fuel economy (comparatively).

Numbers aren't everything. I recently drove a co-workers '18 Tiguan, which claims about the same torque as my stock '15 GSW TDI. But if feels far less responsive on tip in and in traffic than the TDI. It's probably faster overall, but in normal driving if feels less powerful. Sure it weighs more than the GSW, but it also has an 8 speed transmission, which should help. I wonder what people would find with a back-to-back drive of the two cars.

And I maintain that in real world conditions, the diesel will deliver significantly better FE than the turbo gasoline car. Especially if driven hard.

And soot1, the oil dilution issue was caused by Mazda trying to meet emissions standards without SCR. That's what fixed that. These engines have been in operation in Europe for a while, no problems that I've heard.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
I'd like to try the different engines back to back maybe at a friendly dealer...

Like Indigo said, numbers aren't everything. Diesel design is often different than gasser so we shall see.
 

soot1

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
Currently none. Formerly: 2010 VW Jetta TDI 6M, 1993 Dodge Ram W250 Cummins 5M 4WD, 1990 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1986 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1980 VW Uabbit Diesel 4M. Currently driving 2018 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4WD.
Numbers aren't everything. I recently drove a co-workers '18 Tiguan, which claims about the same torque as my stock '15 GSW TDI. But if feels far less responsive on tip in and in traffic than the TDI. It's probably faster overall, but in normal driving if feels less powerful. Sure it weighs more than the GSW, but it also has an 8 speed transmission, which should help. I wonder what people would find with a back-to-back drive of the two cars.

And I maintain that in real world conditions, the diesel will deliver significantly better FE than the turbo gasoline car. Especially if driven hard.

And soot1, the oil dilution issue was caused by Mazda trying to meet emissions standards without SCR. That's what fixed that. These engines have been in operation in Europe for a while, no problems that I've heard.
There are several factors that will contribute to the more "sluggish" responsiveness of the Tiguan, despite the fact that the two engines generate about the same torque at about the same engine speed (236 lb.ft @ 1750 RPM vs. 221 @ 1600). As you have correctly pointed out, vehicle mass is one of the most significant ones, and the Tiguan is at a disadvantage here as it is about 500 lbs heavier. The torque curve is the second factor. In case of the CJAA engine, the peak torque remains flat between 1750 and 2500 RPM. I do not know what the torque curve looks like for the Tiguan's gasser, but if it drops off above 1600 RPM, that will also negatively impact the car's responsiveness. Third, the gearing of the transmission and the transmission type will have some impact on how responsive the vehicle is. With manual transmission, the driver decides the shift points. Automatic tranny doesn't give you that freedom, it decides when to shift. And, there are other factors, such as rolling resistance and drag coefficient, both of which put heavier, taller vehicles at an additional disadvantage. When you think about all this, the only fair comparison of these two power plants would be to yank the diesel off the GSW and drop in the Tiguan's gasser. That would eliminate all of the above mentioned factors, and you would really be comparing diesel with gasser.

As for the oil dilution issue - Mazda originally designed the engine with a compression ratio of 13.5 : 1, which was low enough to keep the NOx content in the exhaust gasses below the T2B5 limit, which eliminated the need for injecting urea, simplifying the emissions system significantly. Nitrous oxides are formed when both of the elements are exposed to high temperature and high pressure. The higher these two parameters are raised, the more likely it is that NOx will form. For that reason, NOx are usually not a significant concern in gas engines as their compression ratios and associated combustion temperatures simply aren't high enough to produce them in quantities that would necessitate aftertreatment. That was the reason why Mazda dropped the compression ratio of their new diesel so low. By doing so, they achieved their goal of reducing the NOx emissions below the T2B5 threshold, but they didn't expect that the unburnt fuel would condense on the cylinder walls in such quantities that it would dilute the engine oil. What surprises me is that Mazda supposedly fixed the whole issue by increasing the compression ratio from 13.5 : 1 to mere 14.4 : 1. It would seem that increasing the compression ratio by such a small increment would not have significant impact on the issue at hand. Every other modern on-road diesel engine I know of has a compression ratio around 17.5 : 1. This, of course, necessitates urea injection, but so does Mazda's 14.4 : 1 ratio. So, why not increase the ratio all the way to what everybody else is doing (17.5 : 1) and be done with the whole mess?
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
There are several factors that will contribute to the more "sluggish" responsiveness of the Tiguan, despite the fact that the two engines generate about the same torque at about the same engine speed (236 lb.ft @ 1750 RPM vs. 221 @ 1600). As you have correctly pointed out, vehicle mass is one of the most significant ones, and the Tiguan is at a disadvantage here as it is about 500 lbs heavier. The torque curve is the second factor. In case of the CJAA engine, the peak torque remains flat between 1750 and 2500 RPM. I do not know what the torque curve looks like for the Tiguan's gasser, but if it drops off above 1600 RPM, that will also negatively impact the car's responsiveness. Third, the gearing of the transmission and the transmission type will have some impact on how responsive the vehicle is. With manual transmission, the driver decides the shift points. Automatic tranny doesn't give you that freedom, it decides when to shift. And, there are other factors, such as rolling resistance and drag coefficient, both of which put heavier, taller vehicles at an additional disadvantage. When you think about all this, the only fair comparison of these two power plants would be to yank the diesel off the GSW and drop in the Tiguan's gasser. That would eliminate all of the above mentioned factors, and you would really be comparing diesel with gasser.

As for the oil dilution issue - Mazda originally designed the engine with a compression ratio of 13.5 : 1, which was low enough to keep the NOx content in the exhaust gasses below the T2B5 limit, which eliminated the need for injecting urea, simplifying the emissions system significantly. Nitrous oxides are formed when both of the elements are exposed to high temperature and high pressure. The higher these two parameters are raised, the more likely it is that NOx will form. For that reason, NOx are usually not a significant concern in gas engines as their compression ratios and associated combustion temperatures simply aren't high enough to produce them in quantities that would necessitate aftertreatment. That was the reason why Mazda dropped the compression ratio of their new diesel so low. By doing so, they achieved their goal of reducing the NOx emissions below the T2B5 threshold, but they didn't expect that the unburnt fuel would condense on the cylinder walls in such quantities that it would dilute the engine oil. What surprises me is that Mazda supposedly fixed the whole issue by increasing the compression ratio from 13.5 : 1 to mere 14.4 : 1. It would seem that increasing the compression ratio by such a small increment would not have significant impact on the issue at hand. Every other modern on-road diesel engine I know of has a compression ratio around 17.5 : 1. This, of course, necessitates urea injection, but so does Mazda's 14.4 : 1 ratio. So, why not increase the ratio all the way to what everybody else is doing (17.5 : 1) and be done with the whole mess?
A lot of the common rail diesels (including yours) have compression ratios in the 16.5:1 neighborhood. But Mazda is definitely blurring the lines between gas and diesel in the skyactiv engines- particularly the upcoming skyactiv-x.
 

03GolfTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Location
Atlanta, GA
TDI
'12 JSW DSG and '11 JSW DSG
I honestly don't know why Mazda decided to limit the diesel to the very tip top trim level. I have a feeling these are going to collect dust on the lots, end up discontinued in a year due to poor sales then sold off at major discounts.

Mazda makes amazing vehicles (although I would not own one if I lived anywhere where salt is used on the roads), they are engineered incredibly well with reliability on par with Toyota and they are actually fun to drive. Of all the cars I have owned over the years my 2010 Mazda 3 GT 2.5/6 manual was hands down my favorite, it still drove like new when I traded it ~80k miles.

Let's hope Mazda decides to drop this in some of the lower trim levels and makes it successful. We need more availability of diesel cars, not less.
 

soot1

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
Currently none. Formerly: 2010 VW Jetta TDI 6M, 1993 Dodge Ram W250 Cummins 5M 4WD, 1990 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1986 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1980 VW Uabbit Diesel 4M. Currently driving 2018 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4WD.
I honestly don't know why Mazda decided to limit the diesel to the very tip top trim level.
Perhaps Mazda sought counsel of the same PR company that assured certain unnamed candidate in the last presidential elections she would win a landslide victory. But seriously, there is very little logic in what Mazda did. People who want diesels are a thrifty bunch. None of them are going to drop 42k for a small SUV. In fact, none of them are going to drop 42k for any vehicle, period. Conversely, those individuals who can afford to spend 42k on a vehicle and want luxury don't give a damn about small SUVs and fuel economy, much less diesels. So, it will be a double-whammy for Mazda : diesel enthusiasts (those Mazda should have targeted) will not be able to afford it, and people who can afford it wouldn't get caught dead in a vehicle like that.
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
In Mazda's defense, the premium interior of the CX-5 has received excellent reviews. But I would agree that outside of a small circle of enthusiasts, the Mazda brand doesn't carry the same cachet as a Mercedes or BMW.
 
Last edited:

tikal

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2001
Location
Southeast Texas
TDI
2004 Passat Wagon (chainless + 5 MT + GDE tune)
Perhaps Mazda sought counsel of the same PR company that assured certain unnamed candidate in the last presidential elections she would win a landslide victory. But seriously, there is very little logic in what Mazda did. People who want diesels are a thrifty bunch. None of them are going to drop 42k for a small SUV. In fact, none of them are going to drop 42k for any vehicle, period. Conversely, those individuals who can afford to spend 42k on a vehicle and want luxury don't give a damn about small SUVs and fuel economy, much less diesels. So, it will be a double-whammy for Mazda : diesel enthusiasts (those Mazda should have targeted) will not be able to afford it, and people who can afford it wouldn't get caught dead in a vehicle like that.
Concur. Somehow you have a feeling, after the VW TDI debacle in 2015, the other auto companies bringing diesel vehicles to the US do not want them to succeed. Like some kind of conspiracy, which I do not believe at all in by the way.
 

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
My dad believed that GM had a strategy of taking an automotive design concept and executing it so poorly it discredited the concept. Rear engine? Corvair. 4 cylinder engine? Vega. Front wheel drive? Toronado. If you believe in manufacturer's conspiring to make diesels irrelevant, you could blame Mazda for poor packaging and pricing strategy.

However, I think near luxury and diesel is a great combination. My 335d has the comfort and (some) of the features of a luxury car, but still gets FE in the 30s. And my son's Passat SEL TDI has lots of tech and gets 40+. A lot of people may be willing to pay for that if that's what's important to them.
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
My SIL has a Mazda 3 Speed (2007?) and he is looking at getting rid of it with about 100k miles. He says it's fun to drive but looks like a pile of doggy droppings. Pieces fall off and tires are expensive. He keeps popping them on the Indiana potholes.
 
Last edited:

03GolfTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Location
Atlanta, GA
TDI
'12 JSW DSG and '11 JSW DSG
My SIL has a Mazda 3 Speed (2007?) and he is looking at getting rid of it with about 100k miles. He says it's fun to drive but looks like a pile of doggy droppings. Pieces fall off and tires are expensive. He keeps popping them on the Indiana potholes.
Its a ~13 year old Mazda in a rust belt state and is a short tripper car. Mazda has never been known for their corrosion resistance so 13 years is pretty darn good for a Mazda where salt on the roads is a regular affair. I can assure you the majority of any 2007 make/model that has not succumb to rust anywhere in that region is going to look like rubbish and prob have parts falling off.

I have family in Minnesota and go up there regularly. Trust me it hurts me to see what salt does to cars, if I lived up north I don't know if I could ever justify a new car because they just start rotting away the first winter.
 

MPLSTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Location
Champlin, MN
TDI
06 Jetta DSG
Its a ~13 year old Mazda in a rust belt state and is a short tripper car. Mazda has never been known for their corrosion resistance so 13 years is pretty darn good for a Mazda where salt on the roads is a regular affair. I can assure you the majority of any 2007 make/model that has not succumb to rust anywhere in that region is going to look like rubbish and prob have parts falling off.
I have family in Minnesota and go up there regularly. Trust me it hurts me to see what salt does to cars, if I lived up north I don't know if I could ever justify a new car because they just start rotting away the first winter.
You hit the nail square on the head!

The 12 year unlimited rust warranty on my Jetta seems crazy here in Minnesota.
I had wanted a pickup but looking at all the 7-9 year old 40-50K (when new) trucks that look like crap today seems nuts to buy.
I also have just the other impression when I travel, I look at all these nice older cars/trucks that back home would have parts falling off. Doesn't seem fair.
For me the first thing I consider when buying a new car is how rusted the older versions of the same car are and Mazdas are some of the worst.
 

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
if I lived up north I don't know if I could ever justify a new car because they just start rotting away the first winter.
It's not quite that bad. And some VWs have pretty good rust protection. I invoked the rust warranty on IBW at 11 years 10 months, all it needed was a rocker repair on one side, tailgate, and fenders, which were rusted mostly from mudflaps rubbing on them. Now at 17 years old it is still clean. I keep the car inside, and have it washed (with an underside wash) frequently in winter. Good wax job, clear bra. Here we have the double hit of road salt and ocean air. But if you keep after your VW it'll last.

Subarus, on the other hand...
 

soot1

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
Currently none. Formerly: 2010 VW Jetta TDI 6M, 1993 Dodge Ram W250 Cummins 5M 4WD, 1990 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1986 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1980 VW Uabbit Diesel 4M. Currently driving 2018 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4WD.
The 12 year unlimited rust warranty on my Jetta seems crazy here in Minnesota.
I concur. If there is one thing where VW has no equal, it is the incredible attention they pay to rustproofing of anything they make. Even such pillars of quality as Toyota and Honda could certainly learn a thing or two from VW about how to do it right. However, I have the feeling that the other automakers don't follow VW's lead not because they don't know how to do it, but rather, as a part of the "controlled obsolescence" crap. It really isn't a rocket science to galvanize the sheet metal, do a phosphate dip and then spray some wax in all the nooks and crannies after the painting operation is done.
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
Toyota certainly has some things to learn. I'm worried that my daughter's 05 Corolla will start leaking water through the roof any day. She did reach her goal of 200k miles last week, so I guess a little paint and a lot of rust is worth it. If she'd only find a real job, she can get a new(er) car.
 

da.hs

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Location
SK, Canada
TDI
2010 Golf, DSG, silver (from new). 2010 Audi Q7 (from 2016), 2004 Touareg V10 (from 2018)
Neither of the above seems to mirror my experience: 2010 Golf has orange patches behind the front wheels, in front of the doors - not a replaceable panel. Dealer has sent in measurements for warranty. On the other hand, a 2007 Toyota 4Runner has no trace of body rust, surprisingly. It's on 220k miles. We have salt on highways here though not as corrosive as East Coast or further south. Not needed when temperature below -20C which it usually is in winter.
 

soot1

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
Currently none. Formerly: 2010 VW Jetta TDI 6M, 1993 Dodge Ram W250 Cummins 5M 4WD, 1990 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1986 VW Jetta Diesel 5M, 1980 VW Uabbit Diesel 4M. Currently driving 2018 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4WD.
The rusting of the front fenders is a known issue, and is essentially a design flaw. The design allows dirt, road grime, dust, organic mater and anything else to accumulate between the plastic wheel well liner and the sheet metal behind it. Since this stuff remains permanently moist or even wet, it will cause corrosion of the metal if given enough time. Check the images in this link. When I still owned the 2010 Jetta, I cleaned that area periodically to prevent the fenders and rocker panels from rotting away. I know, it is still covered by the warranty, but if you are aware of this design defect, you can prevent the fenders from rusting thru prematurely. http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=115274
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
Neither of the above seems to mirror my experience: 2010 Golf has orange patches behind the front wheels, in front of the doors - not a replaceable panel. Dealer has sent in measurements for warranty. On the other hand, a 2007 Toyota 4Runner has no trace of body rust, surprisingly. It's on 220k miles. We have salt on highways here though not as corrosive as East Coast or further south. Not needed when temperature below -20C which it usually is in winter.
I'm surprised that you don't oil the car every fall like they do in Ontario and Quebec. Or at least the people I deal with have their cars treated every year.
 

ssamalin

Veteran Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Location
Southern CA
TDI
2015 Mercedes E250 Blutec. Previously: 2006 Jetta TDI
test drive

Plan to test drive diesel CX5 today. Any questions to add? I just want to feel how it drives.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27172486/2019-mazda-cx-5-diesel-photos-info/

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2019/2019-mazda-cx-5-diesel-suv-first-test-review/

Articles say the diesel is low compression, low efficiency and low NOX. Major NOX trapping that hits MPG. Sound clean. Interesting stuff. They compare it to the gassers, but I think gasser MPG is false due to corrosion quickly dropping it. The diesel sounds very durable. If I had a place to park it, I might drive it home, but not yet. Trading in my MB is not an option. Also says the acceleration at highway speeds isn't there. Reviewer said my MB was like a 6cyl 0-30 a 4cyl 30-60 but I rarely floor it or paddle down shift.
 
Last edited:

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
I could see those that are knowledgeable of diesel and don't like hybrids may just make the diesel CX5 and 6 successful. We'll see.

Jaguar tried an excellent Ingenium 4 cylinder diesel which works wonderfully in my wife's car, but 'muricans like their trucks.....
 
Top