By on September 12, 2014

450x337xphoto-31-450x337.jpg.pagespeed.ic.KUFvwTIKfO

The Mazda6 diesel, long awaited as the first major competitor to the Volkswagen Passat TDI, is being delayed due to difficulties meeting emissions standards without the need for after-treatment. TTAC has learned that Mazda is changing their strategy to incorporate an after-treatment, to help meet both emissions and performance benchmarks.

According to our source, the after-treatment free Skyactiv-D diesel engine was unable to meet stringent US diesel emissions standards. When engineers finally produced a compliant package, the power output was reportedly considered too low to meet consumer expectations, leading to a major re-think of the diesel program.

The solution will apparently be an unspecified after-treatment, with the first diesel car slated to debut in one year’s time. While the Mazda6 is the first candidate for a diesel engine, our source said that its success could mean diesel variants of other vehicles like the Mazda3 and CX-5.

Mazda’s diesel engines previously came under scrutiny for reliability issues in Australia, which led to speculation that the diesel’s delay in our market was due to this issue. Perhaps these issues (of which there is no true solution) will be ironed out as well when the diesel arrives in North America.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

92 Comments on “Mazda 6 Diesel Delayed Due To Need For After-Treatment...”


  • avatar
    dal20402

    Very relieved that the issue was emissions compliance rather than, as rumored, engine reliability problems. These days urea is just part of the cost of driving a diesel.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      I suspect it was something of both. Mazda’s previous strategy was to inject extra fuel during part of the engine cycle. Problem was, this caused cylinder wash and oil dilution at lower operating speeds, and even then it’s effectiveness as an emissions scheme was marginal. For better or worse, urea after-injection has been settled on as an industry standard, so Mazda might as well take that route.

      • 0 avatar
        Onus

        All new diesel inject fuel when the exhaust valve is open. Nearly all can be susceptible to fuel oil dilution. My guess is Mazada’s low compression ratio and light weight rings did them in.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Agreed. No after treatment is less positive than not having a diesel is negative.

        Mazda needs to just get it out there, and it has to compete with VW without presenting reliability issues. The after treatment thing is minor.

      • 0 avatar
        NOPR

        Urea + SCR is definitely the most common in the US, but some small engine applications manage with a NOx trap (no urea). In Europe I’d say the split is closer to 50/50 between NOx trap and urea SCR.

    • 0 avatar

      My 2014 SportWagen does not use a urea after-treatment, but they’re getting ready to discontinue that engine, and I believe that the new one *does* use urea.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Correct. The rest of the TDI lineup will have urea injection starting soon. The MDB (Modular Dusseldorf Bratwrust?) TDI engine has the urea injection and a huge power bump over the current TDI.

      • 0 avatar
        Adam B.

        Kyree,let me give you this info which might amount to useless information : I am the owner of a 2015 Jetta SE TDI sedan. Believe it or not, it came equipped with the DEF urea injection ( adblue) reservoir in the trunk. I cannot get anyone at VW to tell me if this arrangement makes the car compliant with EPA regulations. Online sources indicate that this is the solution to the problem.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Japanese companies seem to have difficulty fielding competitive diesel motors in passenger vehicles, for whatever reason, based on my recollections* (Mazda & Subaru seem to have problems in Europe & Oz in this regard).

      *Although when I made a similar comment a week ago, a TTACr mentioned a solid diesel motor of Japanese design origin used in such an application; I just can’t remember which one at the moment.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @DeadWeight,
        I think you are correct regarding the Japanese, or even all of the Asian manufacturers in designing diesel engines. Mazda I do think with the Skyactive diesel is the first to attempt to be more innovative.

        Kia/Hyundai range of diesels are of German design. Toyota has an almost agricultural range of diesels, from the RAV4 2 litre, 3 litre D4 in the Hilux to the Landcruiser V8 diesel.

        Even Mazda’s light commercial diesels were based on Perkin diesels.

        Izuzu do make some good diesels, but not in the same league as the EU.

        I did read an interesting article concerning a deal cut between BMW and Toyota. Toyota will use BMW diesel tech in exchange BMW will use Toyota hybrid tech.

        But, also Japan and to a slightly lesser extent the Asian market overall for light vehicles is gasoline orientated. The Japanese, like even Australia until our closer alignment to the UNECE model have been very gasoline biased in policy.

        I suppose this indirectly supports the US and US exported Japanese vehicles. But the global market is changing and the US influence, even in Asia is reducing.

        • 0 avatar
          Roader

          I think it has more to do with Tokyo’s particulate regulations, which are strict. The few times I’ve been there I was struck by the lack of diesel vehicles and the cleanliness of the air. It makes Hong Kong or London or New York City seem almost Medieval in comparison where breathing is concerned.

  • avatar
    RHD

    That *$#%@#&! Allstate commercial is bloody annoying!
    They can be sure I will never buy insurance from them.

    • 0 avatar
      MattPete

      That ad is making me reconsider visiting TTAC. I may have stay away from TTAC until that ad is removed or I’ve found a way to keep it from automatically playing.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        Adblock.

        I try not to use it because it really is unfairly poaching content without compensating the site, but sometimes a brother’s gotta do what a brother’s gotta do.

        That said, you can configure certain browsers (Chrome, FireFox with FlashBlock and/or NoScript) to filter or at least not autoplay content. GreaseMonkey (for Firefox) works wonders, too.

        • 0 avatar
          jpolicke

          I wasn’t sure what RHD was talking about – what Allstate ad? Then Mattpete talked about TTAC and I put 2 & 2 together. That’s because I have Adblock running at all times. Sorry, WordPress, but since you have an anything goes policy as to your paid content I have to go nuclear. I don’t miss those annoying banners blocking the bottom of pictures, or the way the content doesn’t load until all the ads are in place (the “no dessert till you finish your vegetables” approach).

      • 0 avatar
        kvndoom

        Step one: use any web browser besides internet explorer, which is the most featureless garbage ever to sully the web with its presence.

        Step two: install Adblock Plus and/or Flashblock.

        Step three: sit back and enjoy a faster, quieter, saner internet experience.

        Personally I use Pale Moon (a Firefox derivative) and I have no idea what ad you are talking about.

      • 0 avatar
        Rick T.

        Chrome and Adblock Plus. What ad?

      • 0 avatar
        RangerM

        Edit your “hosts” file. Best all-in-one solution I know of (provided you have some technical acumen), especially because it’s free.

        Follow the link (and read):

        http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

    • 0 avatar

      I *do* have Allstate, but that commercial wouldn’t have made the difference if I didn’t. And yes, I do have ad-block installed.

      • 0 avatar
        tankinbeans

        So do I, and my premiums have never been lower especially for a 26 year old, single male paying full coverage on one and liability+comp on another. After January they should be going down some more because my minor accident from 5 years ago will drop off.

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          Parents had Allstate—dropped them after 26 years with no accidents, tickets, DUI’s or claims because they kept raising the premiums every year.

          GEICO turned out to be the cheapest (less than a 1/3) of what Allstate wanted, and had better coverage.

          So I don’t mind blocking Allstate ads :o)

          • 0 avatar
            jpolicke

            Let me tell you a story about Allstate. A year ago I succumbed to all the TV advertising and went online for some comparative rates. I’d been with Allstate for about 20 years, mostly satisfied with the service. Progressive was a lot cheaper, but Geico was less than half of the $4000 I was paying for my 3 cars. Sold. Signed up right then and sent an e-mail to my Allstate agent informing him of same.

            The following day I got a call from Allstate, asking why the switch. I told them because they’re not $2100 better than Geico, and by the way, how come I’m not getting all the benefits and features I hear Dennis Haysbert pitching in your ads? Ah, well, you’re insured with “The Other Allstate”. You see, there’s the “Allstate” that I had (the expensive one) and there’s “Allstate Fire & Casualty” (the one that advertises on TV). They’d be happy to switch me over and I’d be paying nearly the same as Geico for better coverage. So, even though I had a bad taste in my mouth knowing that if I hadn’t made the first move I’d be overpaying by 2 grand till forever, I made the jump. Three policies in 2 days. No matter how well a company treats you, you have to stay on your toes to keep them honest.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            That’s why I use a broker that regularly shops out my policy.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      I heard that commercial start from another room while I was in a hotel in Beijing. Scared the hell out of me, and I had no idea where it was coming from at first! By the time I got to my computer, it was already over.

    • 0 avatar
      MattPete

      I have ad blockers (and flash blockers) on Safari, but apparently it’s still getting through.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Wonder what the improvement will be, mileage wise.

    The Mazda3 i already gets about the same gas mileage as the Jetta TDI. I do hear it’s a bit of a dog down low with a lack of torque AND long gearing though. But I still think I would rather go that route.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      The Mazda folks I’ve spoke with said to expect something like 43 mpg EPA hwy. However, that was before they ran into problems with the engine, so it may be less now.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        I’m guessing they’ll beat the gasser more convincingly at more realistic out west freeway speeds.

        Or, at least I’d hope so. I’m feeling sorry enough for those afflicted with Diesel disease as it is….

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmm torque.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    Delay.
    Delay.
    Delay.

    Cancel.

  • avatar
    whynot

    Huh, and here I was thinking they were delaying it over and over because they never had any intention of bringing it over and just wanted to get auto journalists (and enthusiasts) to pay positive attention to them…

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    Mazda SKYACTIVE Diesel:
    http://www.mazda.com/technology/skyactiv/engine/skyactiv-d.html
    Their emissions approach turned on a 14:1 compression ratio where the usual is 21:1.
    The solution will be expensive but less than a large recall.

    • 0 avatar
      Onus

      Diesels haven’t been 21:1 in a LONG time. They were in the Indirect Injection days. Normal for direct injection engines is about 16:1 – 18:1 ratio.

      • 0 avatar
        RogerB34

        The DD60 series 12.7L OTR tractor engine is indirect meaning injection into a precombustion chamber. End of production 2010. True directs are lower in compression. The DD 60, 15L is direct.

        • 0 avatar
          Onus

          That’s a bad example. Sure great OTR trucks have indirect injection. Until recently they also had the most lax emissions standards as well and still do. No need to spend more when the old stuff works and meets emissions. Indirect injection tends to burn cleaner due to the precombustion chamber and thus less nox. But, the combustion processes is less controllable as in direct injection.

          But, most engine people are familiar with haven’t been indirect injection in a very long time.

          • 0 avatar
            RogerB34

            A bad example?
            California has draconian emissions standards. After 2015 don’t meet them don’t drive your Class 8 truck here. Rest of the country some have emissions snap tests most nothing. The older trucks before ECM were operated without regard to emissions because maintenance was expensive and diesel cheap. Most consumer engine people don’t know squat.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @RogerB34
      In US diesel the cetane value is to low to run at the Mazda’s 14:1 compression.

      I do know my diesel runs at 15:1, but our diesel has I think 54 cetane to the US’es 41 cetane.

      The higher the compression the more heat, the more heat the more NOx.

      It’s odd that the US is imposing rigid emission standards for diesel but yet your diesel is of a lower ‘quality’.

      • 0 avatar
        RogerB34

        EU cetane number is minimum 51.
        Typical USA 42 – 45, California minimum 53.
        Doubt Mazda would propose an engine which wouldn’t run on available fuel.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Actually, RogerB34, Mazda knew they would have trouble with this engine, considering the lower quality US low sulphur diesel.

          Manufacturers are having problems running any diesel at the lower EU compression ratio’s in the US.

          If the US is serious about NOx emissions they should improve the quality of US diesel to that of the EU.

          Higher scar rate, lower cetane, 50% more sulphur than EU diesel.

          The oddity of all this is the US does refine EU diesel to sell to the EU.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        US Diesel emission standards is not that strict for many of those who are, in this instance, more equal. Just for passenger cars. And the more equals wants cheap.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    I’m curious to drive, perhaps own a diesel, one day as I’ve always thought they were interesting.

    Yesterday I did see a 2002ish Jetta Wagon (last of the boxy Jettas) and it sounded like a tired school bus, and smelled like one too. Is this a common problem with aging diesels? I have no experience with the passenger car variants as my family has never had one.

    • 0 avatar
      redliner

      No, that is not a common problem with aging diesels. Those early 2000s Jetta diesels sounded and smelled like that from day one. Some people find it endearing, others, not so much. As far as I know, all of the older diesels with mechanical injection systems sound and behave like that.

      The new generation of “clean” diesels with electronic injection starting in the later half of the 2000s is much more refined, much less clattery and produce nearly imperceptible amounts of visible smoke/smell.

      My father purchased a Jetta TDI 6spd manual. The reliability has been pretty dismal, (a.k.a. typical VW) but he still likes the car in general, although it will never save him any money. He likes the power characteristics of the diesel engine. He drives 40-50k miles a year.

      • 0 avatar
        RogerB34

        New diesels are cleaner by electronics, an engine control module.
        The fundamental difference gasoline to diesel is that gasoline engine emissions are controlled on the fly by the oxygen sensor and the engine control module. Diesel engine emissions are controlled after ignition. The diesel has no ignition quality sensor hence the mashup of emissions mitigation systems. Become wealthier than Gates by inventing a diesel emissions sensor.

      • 0 avatar
        lzaffuto

        I saw a BMW 335d yesterday on the way home from work that was belching black smoke and had a black stain on the rear bumper above the tailpipes. I don’t know if it was modified or just had some sort of problem, but I thought it seemed like too new a car to be putting out black smelly diesel smoke like a school bus or one of those lifted heavy duty pickups that “roll coal”.

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          I think a BMW diesel modified to roll coal would be “The Ultimate Asshole Machine”.

        • 0 avatar
          Brian P

          It has almost certainly been “straight-piped” with the ECU tuned. There is a fairly substantial cottage industry involved in removing the emission control systems from modern diesels … until the EPA finds out and shuts them down, which has happened.

          Given the poor reliability of some of the emission control systems, I can’t say I completely blame the owners for ditching the system, but personally I’d wait until the stock emission controls crapped out and warranty wouldn’t pay for fixing them before going to that step …

          Friend of mine just had the DPF replaced under warranty on a 2010 Golf TDI, 95,000 km on it.

  • avatar

    I gave up on seeing the diesel. They may as well just put out a good turbo-four gas mill as a premium engine, like everyone else is doing.

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      Basically, this is it. A modern diesel costs too much, requires too much maintenance and is too expensive to fix when it breaks. You might as well just go with the turbo 4. The difference between 35 mpg on the highway and 50 mpg on the highway doesn’t add up to enough gallons of fuel to make up for the modern cost of a diesel.

      • 0 avatar
        Chocolatedeath

        Honestly I dont know. If they were to introduce a 6 cylinder variant for the CX9 and it was to get 15 more miles per gallon that what I get now. I would trade it in in a heart beat. As long as it drove the same or better.

        • 0 avatar
          Dan

          Yeah, but the CX-9 you have now probably has trouble breaking 20 to begin with. 15 more miles per gallon there would pay for a lot of headaches – but the 6 or so that the diesel would actually give you wouldn’t.

  • avatar
    redav

    Part of their strategy to get a competitive advantage with diesel was to reduce cost & weight associated with the aftertreatment. That was one of the their original CTQs for the project. Now, their diesel is (almost) just like everyone else’s. That means they’ve missed their cost target and possibly spent a bunch on development that never panned out.

    On the flip side, I’m thinking about emissions in other countries where they sell the car without aftertreatment. I saw a study about diesel emission & cancer, and this emphasizes to me how out of whack countries are that have cracked down so hard on CO2 but let particulate emissions go.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    I’ll trade you a diesel 6 for a wagon 6.

  • avatar
    3800FAN

    Face it Mazda and diesel fans…the diesel 6 is never coming. I said this from the start when it wasn’t released with the 2014 model and now its delayed for the 3rd time..its never coming..period.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Sure. I guess that’s why they’re spending all that money on racing a diesel. Why make such a big deal out of it (and how it’s over half stock) if they didn’t intend for people to buy it?

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      Mazda diesel is the sorriest diesel “success story” I have heard of. Just follow the progress of the Mazda diesel prototype in the United States Sports Car Championship. They said their goal is to go to Le Mans, but so far the prototype has difficulties keeping up with GT cars.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    I just can’t see the advantage over a gasoline engine in a car the size of the Mazda 6. From a quick look at VW, it appears that the diesel price differential is about $2200, I’ll assume the difference for Mazda will be similar. Looking at Fuelly on the Passat, I’d guess if you do mostly highway driving you’d buy about 20 percent fewer gallons, but each one will cost about 7 percent more if you’re in the US. If you do mostly town driving the difference is less.

    I haven’t driven a recent diesel passenger car, is the driving experience better than for a gasoline fueled one?

    • 0 avatar
      RogerB34

      The EU advantage is a diesel subsidy making the fuel cost differential an economic reason for diesel. USA has a higher tax on diesel than gasoline.

    • 0 avatar
      1998redwagon

      diesel torque is addicting. i’ve only owned my tdi passat for 13 months but love the acceleration. i live in a place where i can use it often and i drive 90% hwy miles. it made some sense for me. i also did not want leather, or nav or sunroof or auto so i spent ~2.2K on a diesel option.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      About a year ago, Mazda Canada brought over a couple Euro-market diesel Mazda6s and let the public have a go at them (along with several gas 6’s and the competition) – the diesel felt like it pulled stronger than the gas-engined 6’s.

      The math doesn’t really add up, but it’s a more CAFE-friendly substitute to the V6 (once they get it through CARB – I’ve heard that’s been the real hurdle for the SKYACTIV-D, and California and the other states that adhere to that represent a big enough population to negate selling it elsewhere).

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      Re the driving experience: Gasoline engines that are tuned for maximum economy need really tall overdrive gearing so that the engine is in a decent place on the BSFC map during highway cruise, but this leaves it with little torque reserve for hills, acceleration, etc without requiring downshifting – sometimes, lots of it. Generally the highway gear will have the engine RPM well below the engine’s torque peak. If you breathe on the accelerator pedal, the auto tranny will downshift.

      Diesels aren’t like that. Highway cruise in a VW diesel has the engine spinning right in the torque-peak RPM range.

      Of course, you can gear the gas engine shorter or run it in a lower gear to spare all the downshifting in hilly terrain … but then the fuel consumption will not be competitive.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      The purpose of the diesel was not for improved gas mileage, and anyone buying it for that purpose is probably a dolt.

      No, the purpose of the diesel was for an upgraded engine that wasn’t a V6. This engine exists for the torque, not the mpg.

    • 0 avatar

      2012 TDI. I refer to the car as fast but not quick. Around town you have tire spinning torque, so any city driving is done with lotsa powah. Up on a highway, you choose your passes. On a two lane road, with cars ahead of you, you dream of a real v8 with a 4 barrel….

      The car will roll all day at 100 mph….it will just get there…deliberately.

      I put cetane boost in because US diesel ranges between good and junk, but there is no way to tell. Shell, BP, Hess, Valerio good, Gulf, Mobil not so good.

      Would I do it again ? probably, because the high torque is great on the highway and the car is very, very calm running 1500-2700 rpm all the time. You learn to keep the engine at that 2k sweet spot and use the transmission for road speed.

      Diesel, fairly priced, is the price of midgrade around here. I describe the car as 40 mpg at 80 mph. Urea would be no issue to me if the car needed it.

      • 0 avatar

        “On a two lane road, with cars ahead of you, you dream of a real v8 with a 4 barrel….”

        I don’t know. If I knock my Jetta SportWagen TDI into “Sport” mode, it accelerates pretty briskly. I’ve never felt that it was short on power. At city speeds, you will sometimes mash the accelerator and catch it off-guard, causing the DSG to hunt and scramble for the right gear.

  • avatar
    sacamano

    Altogether, say it with me: “Diesel Miata.”

  • avatar
    nickoo

    I’m also in the “add a turbo to the gas engine” camp. Twin scroll or small turbo for low rpm torque would sell way more than he diesel option.

    • 0 avatar
      RogerB34

      Explain why the USA has traditionally had displacement over turbo’s.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        More displacement is the best option. But it would cost too much to develop a new engine and package it in the car. A turbo would be more feasible. USA has displacement because it is more reliable and cheaper to do and we don’t have taxes based on arbitrary metrics like Europe does.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Roger, the US doesn’t tax gasoline as heavily as most other countries in the 1st world and higher octane gasoline costs significantly more than regular gasoline. Excise tax on fuel varies from state to state, but averages close to $0.50/gallon. More on the coasts and less in the middle of the country.

        http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/industry-economics/fuel-taxes/gasoline-tax

        The higher octane gasoline most turbocharged engines required typically costs $0.30/gallon more than regular. Diesel fuel used to be less expensive, but the low-sulfur fuel typically costs $0.40/gallon more than regular.

        Besides requiring expensive gasoline, turbocharged engines used to suffer from turbo lag which was annoying in stop-and-go driving. The third problem was that turbo engines didn’t last as long as normally aspirated engines. The fourth is turbocharged engines lose power at higher temperature.

        I’m not aware of any place in the US that taxes engines based on displacement. With no penalty other than fuel costs, Americans like their engines relatively large. Having smoother power delivery with a nice engine sound, more cylinders, is considered to be a “premium” feature.

        • 0 avatar
          RogerB34

          Some turbocharged engines require premium gasoline. High performance sporty cars. Most use regular gasoline like this:
          “Due to a design, manufacturing, or assembly defect in Ford’s 3.5-liter V6 EcoBoost engines’ Charge Air Coolers, or “intercoolers,” affected Ford vehicles are subject to sudden shuddering, shaking, a rapid loss of power, and an inappropriate transition to “limp mode”—a potentially dangerous defect that Ford knew of or should have known of when it began to advertise and sell its vehicles containing this type of engine.”
          Turbo problems in a Class action lawsuit.
          USA in the past has opted for cubes over turbo because they were simpler, cheaper to make and more reliable. My opinion still true.

      • 0 avatar
        pragmatist

        1) More torque (passing, hill climbing etc) is available without turbo lag and without a downshift. Just hit the pedal and go.

        2) Enlarging the NA engine carries virtually a zero reliability price (often a reliability improvement because the engine is less stressed). With a turbo you have a complex, extremely lubrication dependent (much more so than the engine itself) extra cost item with a complex set of controls.

        3) A larger displacement engine has the same number of parts, additional costs are mainly for additional materials. Not a high price increase.

      • 0 avatar
        Jacob

        Because petrol has always been relatively cheap here. And the large displacement tradition has ended in the 00s anyways thanks to latest EPA standards.

  • avatar
    Ashy Larry

    The real problem with adding a urea system is cost — not just because you are adding another complicated subsystem to the emissions system, but because I expect this process is patented and cannot be had without licensing fees payable to someone. Which increases the cost of the diesel Mazdas. Which decreases their marketability.

  • avatar
    mn_test347

    Where is Ashley? – going on and on about how the delay had nothing to do with emissions and urea injection?

    I think this current “delay” is actually a pre-cancellation notice.

  • avatar
    3800FAN

    So another year of waiting?? 2.5 years into the current model nobody will care by then.

    Mazda has never gotten the 6 right. The first gen was too small (body styles kept its sales up) second gen came out 1-2 years too late, and this gen is too small too loud and not engaging as past models and too close in size to the 3 (3 is stealing 6 sales) and then there’s the diesel that Mazda promised but then kept delaying delaying delaying..to the point where customer don’t take them seriously and look elsewhere.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    The national average price of gasoline right now is just above $3.40 a gallon. I heard an analyst on the Larry Kudlow show today say, with compelling arguments as to why, that that’s going to go down to $3.00 a gallon, and then below, possibly as low as $2.50 a gallon. In my neck of the woods, gas today is $3.05 and diesel is $3.45.

    One of his arguments was that worldwide there is far greater demand for diesel than gas.

    Just throwing that out there (and feeling more and more content with my purchase of a 5.0 powered F150 earlier this year).

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Aside from the obvious oil component, pre-tax gas prices are largely a function of the economic cycle (people drive more in good times, less in bad times) and refinery capacity (a refinery taken offline can produce a short-term price spike.)

      Diesel gets all of that, plus a lot more exposure to the business cycle. Whereas gasoline is used almost exclusively for cars and the like, diesel is also used in trucking and agriculture.

      In other words, there are more reasons for diesel to see a price spike than gasoline. There is less competition for buyers of gas, which is a good thing if you’d like to pay less.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @SaulTigh,
      What you stated is true, actually there will be a drop in oil price since demand has fallen.

      Many blame taxation for the higher price of US diesel. Another significant factor is the oil refiners want to sell diesel to the EU as they are making more profit from the stuff.

      Also, US diesel is of a lower quality than EU diesel, this is causing the Mazda 6 Skyactive to have ‘teething’ problems in the US.

      US diesel can’t support the low compression ratios required for the Skyactive diesel to work.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    So much intellectual energy wasted making the diesel appealing. After two years of waiting, this is clearly going nowhere. Dear Mazda, instead of wasting your time on the diesel, give us petrol turbo engines. Just get us some 250 HP and torques out of a 2.0L engine in a midsize car or SUV. This is no longer a rocket science, you know.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Jacob,
      With a statement like this;

      “wasting your time on the diesel, give us petrol turbo engines”

      Hmmm…

      You must be a school kid.

      Here’s a link, wherever PETROL is sold you will have already received the Skyactive diesel for a couple of years now.

      http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring-services/reviews/car-reviews/mazda/mazda-cx5-skyactiv-diesel.htm

  • avatar
    DieselOx

    I went from a Diesel Golf mkIV to a 2012 Subaru gasser, and I hate the power. Have to wind it up to 4-6 grand to get any kind of power, downshift to from 6th to 3rd to pass on a hill, and the fuel economy is crap at 45k miles and getting worse.

    Diesels are just easier to drive. Quieter at the same torque, no downshifting. Need to speed up? Just push the throttle a half inch.

    In the US, we are totally ignorant to the advantage of diesel, but we are waking up. The holy grail is diesel hybrid AWD, 130+ MPG. We have the tech to do this right now, and it’s criminal that we don’t. Seriously criminal, like half the oil industry needs to be in jail for life.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Bark M., United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic

Get No-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners Automotive News in your Facebook Feed!

Already Liked