@derv321 - I'm in Malta not the UK and believe me, used diesels often command a 30% premium over their petrol equivalents here. Insurance premiums are based on engine capacity here so yes the diesel will cost a bit more than the petrol to insure.

@AlexT - My initial inclination was to go for the petrol, I only started considering the diesel after reading HJ's comments (see links above). Motorbike is not an option for me.

So far it seems that nobody is as confident as HJ on the new Skyactiv diesel's potential reliability.

Absolutely no experience of the sky activ diesel, and never will have, being a former victim of mazda diesels and mazda's "legendary" customer service and honesty ("no sir, we've had no other reports of rising oil levels, shock absorber failures and premature inner edge tyre wear"). I imagine they would be great as a company car ie someone elses problem.

Basing a decisonpon which car to buy solely on its expected value in 8 years' time seems an exercise for accountants only (I speak as an ex accountant!).

So much can change: the price of diesel, the expectations of motorists of diesel vs petrol, legislation etc etcetc.

Given Mazda as a company have a history of abysmal service to customers - factual, proven and indisputed - the OP should choose to buy neiethr car.. and buy from some maker which does look after its customer even after years after manufacture. Especially if running a diesel in a less than favourable regime of mileage.

That specificially excludes: Ford, GM , all French makers, all German makers, .. and really only leaves Honda and Toyopta. Honda have a better releiability record on engines.

Edited by madf on 12/04/2014 at 15:44

if you must go petrol get one with a turbo,

Not a Mazda but June last year I bought a Seat Leon 1.4 TSi, its a petrol with a Turbo.

Superb car, no regrets. It replaced a BMW 118D that did 37,500 miles in 5 1/2 years with no DPF issues. Its doing 45 mpg, after factoring in the differnce in price between petrol and diesel that becomes almost 48 mpg, exactly what the BMW averaged.

but expect to pay more for VED and fuel.

So as I said above my fuel bill is unchanged as is my annual VED, still £30.

I am not a person that has worries about DPF's but why risk it when there are petrols about that actually drive better than diesels and cost the same to fuel and tax. It was also £2000 less to buy than its diesel eqivalent.

@Hamsafar - True, GBP 300 may not be too much for a DPF but it's inconvenient to have it replaced multiple times regardless of cost.

@Xtrailman - Nice to hear you've had positive experiences with Mazda. I may very well end up getting a turbo petrol because the other car on my shortlist is the VW Golf with the 1.4 TSi 122 PS engine. It costs GBP 600 more than the Mazda but unlike the Mazda has a manual transmission, no bi-xenon lights and no leather seats. Not such an easy decision especially since I prefer saloons.

@Skidpan - Very encouraging to know that you like your Leon as I might end up getting a Golf with the same engine. In my case, I don't have to pay a cash premium to get a diesel instead of petrol Mazda 3, however the diesel lacks the leather interior.

So why do they sell so many?

Mazda can't be trusted with when it comes to diesel engines

Wow - with that statement you don't appear to mind getting sued! In Mazda's defence, the previous set of diesels used were jointly developed between Ford and PSA, as far as I recall, and Mazda just bought the right to use them. Not the first time that the Japanese makes have got their fingers burnt co-operating on design issues with their european 'partners'.

Hopefully the new ones are their own work, or at the very least more thoroughly tested than seemed to be the case before.

As to whether the OP should buy a diesel or petrol, cost is a factor, but one issue that hasn't been pointed out is (forgetting any reliability issues for either engine doing lots of short trips only) that diesel engines are only (as far as I know) fuel effecient after they've warmed up, which is unlikely to be the case after just 6 miles. I've read some posts on this website stating that fuel efficiency on diesels is sometime worse than petrols over the first few miles, so it may be still worth getting the petrol version anyway.

I don't think the mzcrd engine was a ford/psa derived unit either. The mazda 2.0 is a belt driven cam and the ford/psa are all chain driven.

As a victim of the mazda diesel design flaws, I too would never trust a mazda diesel. A short trawl through the internet would suggest I'm not alone, but worse than the problem was the "deny everything Baldrick" attitude of dealers and mazda uk.

However, my Korean and German diesels have been beyond reproach and the dealer service was satisfactory, though I've been advised on my last MoT test that my 6 year old 95,000 mile Passat will soon have to have new rear brake pads.....(wistful, but slightly sarcastic sigh) how i wish I still had that legendary mazda reliability and japanese customer care.

So, why do mazda sell so many cars (if you consider a less than 2% share of the market constitutes "so many")? Ignorance and hefty fleet discounts perhaps (after all, when you drive a fleet car it wont be your problem for long)?

Looking at the offerings from the next T52 Xtrail i don't expect to be returning to them any time soon, having had four in the past.

Time for a name change, I think! ;)

As to the question of why so many people buy them, I don't think it's a stretch to say that a majority of car buyers are ignorant of what's under the bonnet. They buy on colour, styling, brand image, price etc and are largely unaware that engines do need an occasional check of levels, and don't like doing 2-mile trips to the shops.

Very, very few motoring websites or magazines ever caveat their "the diesel engine is the best of the range" descriptions with "but only if your driving style and mileage allow you to use the engine to its best".

madf, I think this is largely down to journos not having to run a car themselves for a few years (with a few notable exceptions such as James Ruppert).

It annoys me when they cite a dashboard to be "fussy and hard to use" when they have lots of buttons.

A few weeks in your own car and you know it like the back of your hand.

Those multi function touchscreens are just warranty/repair work waiting to happen.

Edited by groaver on 13/04/2014 at 17:13

HJ answer 1

HJ answer 2

HJ answer 3

HJ answer 4

After looking at these 4 answers I can only conclude that Honest John must be paid by Mazda. Answer 3 is totally bizzare in recommending that a person doing under 2000 miles a year should consider a diesel and will have no DPF problems. He has made this assumption because he did 14,000 miles in 10 months with no issues.

Edited by thunderbird on 14/04/2014 at 16:03

xtrailman

We have a diesel with a DPF. Its done about 33,000 miles in the last 3 1/2 years with no issues, did a regen on Sunday afternoon. We have saved a pot of money on our fuel bills which will have more than covered the extra purchase cost plus we have save some money on our VED. But if we do have a DPF issue any savings immediately dissapear, its a gamble. But at least our diesel drives way better than the petrol equivalent.

But would I buy a diesel if I only did 6,000 miles a year, most definetely not. My annual savings would be about £150 at best and even after getting some extra back at trade in time with diesels being between £1500 and £2000 more than a petrol the economics don't quite add up.

Would I buy a diesel if I only did 2,000 miles a year, in that case it would probably be cheaper to use taxis and hire a car for holidays.

The present Mazda i've got brings the engine temp up to operating temperature under 2 Miles, probably around 1 mile, its very quick.

That is what the gauge is telling you but temp gauges will say what the manufacturer wants them to. On every car I have owned in recent times the gauge is little more than a warning light to appease owners who are used to a gauge. It climbs quicly to normal (after 5 miles get out and check the top hose, its still cold) and stays there even when the fan switches on, on most cars thats at about 110 degrees.

We have had diesels since the mid 90's but I suspect this will be our last. With the excellent reviews and mpg the new generation of turbo petrols are getting it looks like a change back to petrol is on the cards.

The CX-5 has no temperature gauge, only a blue dash light that comes on when the engine is cold, and goes off when its not.

As most modern temperature gauges are electronically fixed to read the same with in set perameters they have become largly meaningless.

i'm happy with the set up, and also happy with the fuel economy, not really happy having a DPF though as it uses fuel, and reduces overall economy.

I would certainly return to turbo petrol if and when they produce a engine that returns over 420nm of torque, in a four pot configuration.

Towing a caravan, my priority is a engine with enough pull to tow a heavy caravan, whether a diesel is the best financial choice doent really determine my choice.

So what does it mean, as you seem to think you know more about my car than myself.

So what does it mean, as you seem to think you know more about my car than myself.

According to the manual you posted the link to it means (in Mazda's words):

"The light illuminates continuously when the engine coolant temperature is low and turns off after the engine is warm."

It does not mean that the engine is up to operating temperature like you said in your original reference, your exact quote was:

"The present Mazda i've got brings the engine temp up to operating temperature under 2 Miles, probably around 1 mile, its very quick."

Your second quote in a later posting was correct:

"The CX-5 has no temperature gauge, only a blue dash light that comes on when the engine is cold, and goes off when its not."

My dad had a Honda Jazz some years ago. It had a blue light and a red light. The blue light would go out before the car was off the drive, the car was definitely not up to temperature.