Can It Be? Mazda's Long-awaited CX-5 Diesel Gets California Green Light

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

We’ve been talking about the Mazda CX-5 diesel for a long time, and with good reason. It’s been a long time coming. Originally promised for a U.S. introduction in the second half of 2017, a quick scan of of Mazda’s consumer website reveals no mention of a popular compact crossover with a 2.2-liter Skyactiv-D four-cylinder under the hood.

This could soon change. The California Air Resources Board has certified the engine for sale in that ecologically sensitive state, making a similar thumbs up from the Environmental Protection Agency a near certainty.

The news, which should provide much-needed hope and reassurance for lovers of Kodo-bodied diesels, comes by way of Green Car Reports. A reader provided a copy of the engine’s April 13th certification document, which gives Mazda the ability to start selling it in the Golden State.

More likely, though, the automaker wants a nationwide launch, in which case it first needs to get the green light from the EPA. That certification process has reportedly not yet begun, and Mazda isn’t able to provide an educated guess on when we’ll finally get our hands on what promises to be a very fuel efficient crossover. As an automaker with no hybrid or electric vehicles, the diesel’s promised “hybrid-like” fuel economy would go a long way towards satisfying environmental regulators.

So far, there’s no EPA fuel economy rating for the CX-5 diesel.

Mazda, as you know, loves the internal combustion engine. The brand’s next step in meeting corporate average fuel economy targets involves the variable compression Skyactiv-X engine, appears next year in the new Mazda 3.

Mazda seemed pretty bullish on the diesel’s U.S. future (at least, they did a year ago), speculating that 10 percent of CX-5 sales could come from the Skyactiv-D model. A tall order, for sure. The CX-5 is by far the brand’s best-selling U.S. model, moving some 16,138 units in March. That tally represents a 90.5 percent year-over-year sales increase, and volume over the first three months of 2018 show a 75.7 percent uptick over the same period last year.

Suffice it to say, the CX-5 is Mazda’s meal ticket. It remains to be seen whether the addition of an oil burner makes the model even more appetizing to buyers.

[Image: Mazda]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 29 comments
  • Rcx141 Rcx141 on Apr 25, 2018

    Why on earth do Americans want diesels? In the UK they were foisted on drivers by a non-driving Chancellor of the Exchequer for political reasons. Although they get slightly better gas mileage they are no use for lots of short runs from cold which tends to clog up the super complicated emissions equipment, which has a nasty habit of failing completely after a few years. They have been a disaster. Now the UK is moving away from them - many cities will ban all but the very latest models - so as a final kick in the teeth to consumers, used values are now plunging.

    • Kenn Kenn on Apr 25, 2018

      "Why on earth do Americans want diesels?" Maybe because such a large percentage of Americans' beliefs are based on ignorance of what's happening around the rest of the planet.

  • FormerFF FormerFF on Apr 25, 2018

    Thank goodness. I'm sure the 43 people who were waiting to buy a diesel powered compact CUV from a niche manufacturer will be so relieved.

  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Next