|
I'm happy with the xtrails 171 bhp, as i was with the ol
|
|
|
|
Am i having problems due to using EX9?.I am happy with the 71bhp power, as i was with 134bhp from my last xtrail. Its the low end torque i'm after. The SF is on my watch list but its at the moment too heavy, hopefully the new version will be lighter? Also looking at the new Kuga and CRV. The CX5 does have over 300 pound feet of torque, which is perfectly adequate. for my needs.
|
Its the low end torque i'm after
Peak torque doesn't give any indication to low end torque. High torque/low RPM combination is hard on main bearings, clutches, DMFs and the transmission and, hence, is usually restricted.
|
|
Maybe, but max torque is all one can refer too
Edited by xtrailman on 28/12/2011 at 14:07
|
|
|
|
Maybe, but max torque is all one can refer too. I realise torque can be restricted through the gears, but why bother to use a twin turbo? Anyway road testers are saying the engine is strong from 1300rpm upto 5500rpm. So i expecting a flat torque curve, something that the newer diesels seem to have.
|
|
I thought we were talking diesel here! A diesel won't touch 5500RPM!
A twin turbo on a four pot is more likely to be for emissions considerations than anything else. A single VGT will provide all the air across all the RPM that a diesel will need.
|
I thought we were talking diesel here! A diesel won't touch 5500RPM!
A twin turbo on a four pot is more likely to be for emissions considerations than anything else. A single VGT will provide all the air across all the RPM that a diesel will need. Parkers say it goes to 5300RPM, but i think elsewhere I've read 5500rpm, could be wrong.
|
|
Most modern diesels have a maximum governed speed of about 5000 RPM, but since peak power comes in at about 4000RPM, why bother revving it harder?
Peak torque comes in about 300lb.ft. At 5250RPM, torque and hp figurs are equal (in imp units). Since the max power is about 175hp, not 300, you can see how far the torque curve has fallen off. The useful power band is always from about 1500-3500RPM on a small diesel.
Still looks pretty good though.
|
|
I might add that the xtrail engine quite easily hits the red line at around 4.5K revs, it revs just like a petrol engine!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes got that wrong mazda site says max revs 5200rpm.
I've sorted the ex9 problem, needed this site adding to the compatibility settings under tools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The iX45 is unlikely to be much lighter than the current Santa Fe - but then it's bigger than XTrail, Kuga, CRV etc as it seats 7 with ease. If you only need a 5-seater then Hyundai's iX35 is more comparable with those.
If you're towing a 1565kg caravan you'll need something substantial anyway to get a decent towing ratio.
|
|
My present xtrail is only 20mm shorter than the current SF, so there's very little in it. The CRV is 4530mm long, which is around the same as my previous xt T30 at 4530mm. The new Kuga will be longer, so really any car over 4500mm should meet my requirements. I am at present towing at 91%, and am prepared to tow upto 99% ratio. Not ideal granted, but i want to keep running costs down to the bone, so that's less VED, and more MPG.
|
My present xtrail is only 20mm shorter than the current SF, so there's very little in it. The CRV is 4530mm long, which is around the same as my previous xt T30 at 4530mm. The new Kuga will be longer, so really any car over 4500mm should meet my requirements. I am at present towing at 91%, and am prepared to tow upto 99% ratio. Not ideal granted, but i want to keep running costs down to the bone, so that's less VED, and more MPG.
Trying loading the two cars and see the difference - spaciousness is all about interior size, not external footprint.
According to What Car, the load space lengths are 120cm Kuga, 142cm CRV, 168cm iX35, 174cm XTrail and 186cm Santa Fe. The Santa Fe load space is wider than the others too.
But if you're paring your costs down to the bone you're better going for something smaller.
|
|
I'm not after a larger boot, or load space, its surplus to requirements.
But as it is the Kuga is too small, the next version may fit the bill, while the present CRV and xtrail are perfectly adequate, it only got to carry my fishing tackle, were the rod holdall is the most problematic for loading, as that goes through the ski hatch.
It appears the thread is getting boged down with people telling me what i should have, rather than what i want.
As i said the Sf will be considered. But i'm hopeing someone with practical experiences of Mazda ownership will contribute.
As you can see from the link , modern diesels are nothing like the old ones, yes i'm sure the twin turbo is for emissions, but a by product of that is improved economy, mainly due to the low end torque available, which allows less gear changes.
|
|
Type in 'Mazda 2.0 Diesel' to see their Mazda owners' diesel experiences. Their parent company, Ford, has had a few diesel headaches too...
|
|
Apologies, Xtrailman: Nissans and Mazdas are both more reliable than Microsoft. If you have a problem again with posting on here, use Google Chrome or Firefox.
|
|
I have a petrol Mazda 6. I've never pulled a caravan with it though. I've had it about 18 months and I couldn't be more happy with it. It's rolled past 98k on the clock recently (it's 6 years old) and it handles very nicely indeed. Reasonable tax, insurance and fuel economy. Cheap servicing and parts (not that I've had anything beyond a headlight bulb).
There are many stories about DPF failure on the Mazda 6 diesels, but if you're going for a very new one I find it hard to believe they aren't sorting that out. Having said that., I run my petrol one very large distances and probably should have a diesel for fuel economy but I've got what I've got.
|
|
|
|
|
|
