Mazda 3 2.2 150bhp

MuppetCheck · 23-07-2014 10:23am

There were also timing chain problems on the 2.2s that weren't serviced by the book (for the most part).

Old diesel · 23-07-2014 10:30am

would it really be that hard for Mazda to change the DPF on Skyactive engines to eliminate the raising oil levels issue once and for all.

Won't be possible to retrofit to existing cars - but at least if they fixed the DPF once and for all on new cars coming off the production line - they could move on from the issue once and for all.

Both Renault with the Laguna - and Scania with the 4 series range of trucks - have both publically admitted that mistakes WERE made with Laguna II - and with the 4 series trucks. They both did this at the launch of replacement models.

So time for Mazda to get Skyactive Mk 2 with PROPER DPF to development and to market

Old diesel · 23-07-2014 10:33am

Just on clarification - the last post ASSUMES that they haven't addressed the early CX 5 reported issues on the 3 or the 6 versions - i think given their history - assuming they HAVEN'T fixed the issue - is a reasonable assumption - until we start seeing evidence of the 3 or 6 NOT HAVING the issue.

Outsourcing the DPF development to another manufacturer - especially as part of a joint venture would be no shame at all - the shame is in consistently NOT addressing the issue.

Old diesel · 23-07-2014 10:39am

Im disappointed that this issue is popping up again for Mazda on Skyactive - hopefully it may be just confined to early CX 5s - but as an enthusiast it bothers me that Mazda are POTENTIALLY dropping the ball like this.

Their new products in the 6 and 3 seem to be cars with LOTS OF potential - and i think the industry NEEDS Mazda on full form delivering products that work.

If Skyactive was to prove reliable long term - it would be a great addition to the market - and the industry - we need something more then just - KIA and Hyundai driving the pace with - nice enough stuff - but nothing to move the game on.

Not a happy car enthusiast right now

JohnBoy26 · 23-07-2014 2:53pm

No Pants wrote: »

How old are we talking? I've recently got rid of a 03 Mazda 6 1.8 that didn't have any rust issues. My Da had a Mazda 626 from the late 90s that he put over 250,000 miles on, with no rust issues. I've a 08 Mazda 3 now and he has a 06 MX-5. No rust anywhere on mine that I can see, although I haven't checked under it since March.

Way back to the late 90's, previous Mazda's to this had a tendency to rust too but were more resistant than later cars for some reason. The 626 from the late 90's along with the 323 (and all Mazda's really) had very poor rust protection and they rusted badly underneath with some rusting on the sills and arches too. It was the same story with the later generations of Mazda's including the 6.

Often you won't see it on the outer body with most of the rust lurking on the chassis underneath. Many 6's though develop rusty arches too. I've yet to see a 4-5 year old 6 with out some degree of rust underneath. Other cars of the same age seem to be able to resist rust far far better.

OldMrBrennan83 · 23-07-2014 4:40pm

This post has been deleted.

Old diesel · 23-07-2014 4:59pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I heard the one about the weld too - but the way I heard was that it wasn't the weld - it was the "anti rust treatment" or paint or something around the weld area.

What mileage did yours have on it when it went bang???

Tea 1000 · 23-07-2014 5:13pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Apparently some in the UK have had issues with rising oil levels on these engines which appears to be more than just down to a badly calibrated dispstick.

None of those reported are the new Skyactiv units so far as I can see.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Not exactly concrete I know but given Mazda's efforts in the CR diesel department over the past ten years I wouldn't be one bit surprised if this engine also turned out to be the same.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=102168

CX5 came out without the Skyactiv engine, so I'd say that might be the older unit.

Old diesel wrote: »

Stop the lights - Old diesel in a lets call for a balanced look rather then get the boot in at Mazda diesel reliability statement :D:D - Tea 1000 would spill his tea with the shock

Yes some have had issues - from reading it it appeared the worst affected were early ones.

It seems to be a lot of AUSTRALIAN spec cars that are reporting the issues - did Oz get the CX 5 before Europe????.

The buyers guide I mentioned earlier - STILL RECKONED the CX 5 was a very reliable car - they noted the issue as something that had cropped up - and thus watch out for but doubt they would say it was very reliable if it was happening left right and centre.

What id like to know is what UK forums are saying about it because - ba_barabus says hes done a lot of research and not found much evidence - and IF it were me - id be inclined to look towards Uk forums for info rather then US or Oz forums.

In relation to the link I published earlier today - I think the guy in the magazine alluded to the fact that the owner was in subsequent contact to say the car wasn't doing the raising oil thing anymore (ie it was fixed???).

I also find the fact that ROR notes that early versions of the new 6 have been trouble free is interesting.

Mind you I am indulging in a big of wishful thinking with the above I think - clutching at straws you might call it :eek:

In addition - there may will be lots of Skyactive diesels out there that are giving no issue with raising oil issues or anything else for that matter - we don't get to hear about those if they are out there - because their owners will just consider - RIGHTLY - that the cars are doing no more then what they expected. You will always hear of the bothersome ones.

Would be interested to know of actual owner experiences here in Ireland - friends/family etc

My tea is well and truly spilt!
The number of issues on the older 2.2 unit were fairly few. The previous 2 litre was a hit and miss engine for sure. I'd suspect that the CX5 with the issue on Honest John might be an older unit.
In any case, I wouldn't worry about it. The new 3 is probably the nicest car in it's class to look at and drive. And a decent bit of poke too.
Had a Leon rental earlier in the year for a couple of weeks and while it's a nice car, it was far too crashy over rough roads with the typical VAG feck-all-feedback from the steering or chassis. Drove a previous model 3 immediately afterwards, and apart from the coarse by newer standards PSA engine and too little in the way of good sound insulation, the chassis was leaps and bounds ahead of the Leon, it was much nicer to drive.
Pity for the Leon, they're a nice car alright. Interior is reasonably good in them, which couldn't be said about the previous one.

Old diesel · 23-07-2014 5:19pm

So your saying Tea 1000 that early CX 5 diesels WEREN'T skyactive????

Genuinely didn't realise that

Tea 1000 · 23-07-2014 5:54pm

Old diesel wrote: »

So your saying Tea 1000 that early CX 5 diesels WEREN'T skyactive????

Genuinely didn't realise that

I don't think they were. I'll need to check though, could be wrong.

OldMrBrennan83 · 23-07-2014 5:58pm

This post has been deleted.

JohnBoy26 · 23-07-2014 6:00pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

None of those reported are the new Skyactiv units so far as I can see.

CX5 came out without the Skyactiv engine, so I'd say that might be the older unit.

My tea is well and truly spilt!
The number of issues on the older 2.2 unit were fairly few. The previous 2 litre was a hit and miss engine for sure. I'd suspect that the CX5 with the issue on Honest John might be an older unit.
In any case, I wouldn't worry about it. The new 3 is probably the nicest car in it's class to look at and drive. And a decent bit of poke too.
Had a Leon rental earlier in the year for a couple of weeks and while it's a nice car, it was far too crashy over rough roads with the typical VAG feck-all-feedback from the steering or chassis. Drove a previous model 3 immediately afterwards, and apart from the coarse by newer standards PSA engine and too little in the way of good sound insulation, the chassis was leaps and bounds ahead of the Leon, it was much nicer to drive.
Pity for the Leon, they're a nice car alright. Interior is reasonably good in them, which couldn't be said about the previous one.

Incorrect, The cx5 was built on the sky active platform and came with skyactiv engines from the beginning.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/mazda/cx-5/estate/

Also the old 2.2 was just as bad as the previous 2.0 as far as issues are concerned and that was far from "hit and miss", it was an outright disaster of an engine.

Your also being very harsh on the Leon. The new Leon and golf are both very quiet and refined and are defiantly better cars on the road than the old Mazda 3 and both are more refined than the new Mazda 3 too. Id wager that they will age better than the 3 also.

The 3 is the sharper handling car though but driving dynamics isn't the most important thing to most people buying a car in this sector.

JohnBoy26 · 23-07-2014 6:04pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've seen plenty of rusty petrol 6s too. Imo it's just as much down to poor quality metal as it is down to poor rust protection.

Old diesel · 23-07-2014 7:31pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Okay no worries - so the faulty injector seals caused diesel in the sump.

I assumed when you said diesel in the sump that it was DPF

OldMrBrennan83 · 23-07-2014 9:56pm

This post has been deleted.

Tea 1000 · 24-07-2014 11:26am

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Also the old 2.2 was just as bad as the previous 2.0 as far as issues are concerned and that was far from "hit and miss", it was an outright disaster of an engine.

Incorrect. The 2.2 was nowhere near as bad as the 2 litre.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Your also being very harsh on the Leon. The new Leon and golf are both very quiet and refined and are defiantly better cars on the road than the old Mazda 3 and both are more refined than the new Mazda 3 too. Id wager that they will age better than the 3 also.

The 3 is the sharper handling car though but driving dynamics isn't the most important thing to most people buying a car in this sector.

I'm not being very harsh on the Leon. I'm stating a fact that most buyers are ignorant to because if you stuff the doors with fluff to deaden the sound they're fooled into thinking they own a better car. A better car constitutes better design and build quality in my books. You're always overly hard on Mazda's, I'd say VAG cars are just as poorly built. Look at the history of engines in each, VAG have a longer list of shít engines.
Better cars on the road is down to one thing. How it copes with the road itself. The old Mazda 3 copes better than the new Leon. That's a fact, and if you prefer fluff in the doors than fair play to you.
The old 3 didn't age fantastically, but the Golf is a bland design and the Leon isn't a patch on the previous one when that came out. The new 3 is leagues ahead in design stakes.
But I suppose there's no changing a VAG head from their opinions!

HandsomeDan · 24-07-2014 3:21pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I'm stating a fact that most buyers are ignorant to because if you stuff the doors with fluff to deaden the sound they're fooled into thinking they own a better car.

A lot more to marking a car refined than 'stuffing a door with fluff'.

Everything from frame torsional rigidity to the type of paint used on the body contributes.

It's a huge area and is important to buyers.

Tea 1000 · 25-07-2014 10:59am

HandsomeDan wrote: »

A lot more to marking a car refined than 'stuffing a door with fluff'.

Everything from frame torsional rigidity to the type of paint used on the body contributes.

It's a huge area and is important to buyers.

The difference in torsinal rigidity between cars these days won't be noticed by 99.9% of buyers and owners. And no one does cheap paint like the Germans these days. VW Passat paint is stupidly thin these days and dulls far too quickly. And compare Lexus paint quality beside BMW and the difference is night and day.
People just don't know the difference. Why do you think the Mk 4 Golf sold so well? Horrible petrol engines, terrible chassis, wooly steering, but good quality plastic interior and plenty of door and enginebay fluff and everyone thought anyone who didn't have a Golf was a fool, and a Corolla was "just tin".

JohnBoy26 · 25-07-2014 2:26pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Incorrect. The 2.2 was nowhere near as bad as the 2 litre.

It seems that they are, not only are there reports of oil rise issues but also of leaking injector seals causing sludge and engine failure, and they also reportedly stretch their timing chains.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I'm not being very harsh on the Leon. I'm stating a fact that most buyers are ignorant to because if you stuff the doors with fluff to deaden the sound they're fooled into thinking they own a better car. A better car constitutes better design and build quality in my books. You're always overly hard on Mazda's, I'd say VAG cars are just as poorly built. Look at the history of engines in each, VAG have a longer list of shít engines.
Better cars on the road is down to one thing. How it copes with the road itself. The old Mazda 3 copes better than the new Leon. That's a fact, and if you prefer fluff in the doors than fair play to you.
The old 3 didn't age fantastically, but the Golf is a bland design and the Leon isn't a patch on the previous one when that came out. The new 3 is leagues ahead in design stakes.
But I suppose there's no changing a VAG head from their opinions!

I'm no "VAG head" but the Leon and golf for that matter are better cars than the old and new 3 imo. It's more than just "fluff" in the doors. From a refinement and comfort point of view they are better and I'd wager that they are better built too going on past examples. They can also be got with decent petrol engines and decent spec whereas with the 3 if you want a petrol you are left with only one option, a 1.5 na unit in an overpriced and underspecced car.

Now I'm not saying that vag is the holy grail of build quality because IMO they are not, years back Mazda made better cars than them but nowadays vag make some very good cars and are ahead of Mazda imo.

One positive with the mazdas is that, unlike their diesels, their petrol engines have been consistently reliable.

As for the design the new 3 is an extremely good looking car but the golf is also a good looking car even if the styling is more reserved but that could end up being a good thing further down the road.

The Leon I must say I'm not a great fan of its styling though.

JohnBoy26 · 25-07-2014 2:38pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The difference in torsinal rigidity between cars these days won't be noticed by 99.9% of buyers and owners. And no one does cheap paint like the Germans these days. VW Passat paint is stupidly thin these days and dulls far too quickly. And compare Lexus paint quality beside BMW and the difference is night and day.
People just don't know the difference. Why do you think the Mk 4 Golf sold so well? Horrible petrol engines, terrible chassis, wooly steering, but good quality plastic interior and plenty of door and enginebay fluff and everyone thought anyone who didn't have a Golf was a fool, and a Corolla was "just tin".

The mk4 golf in 1.4 petrol form was a poor car imo. The engine was underpowered, soft, and imo the interior plastics were far from high quality, even if they did give the illusion of quality. They did come with a decent diesel engine however, superb rust protection, and the design though understated at the time compared to the much hyped focus, has aged very well imo.

The corolla of the time was of course a better built car though. Back then I think many jap cars were better made products compared to their European rivals.

Tea 1000 · 25-07-2014 2:50pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

It seems that they are, not only are there reports of oil rise issues but also of leaking injector seals causing sludge and engine failure, and they also reportedly stretch their timing chains.

It's definitely not. It's not flawless, but the numbers with the oil sludge issue are paltry in comparison with the 2 litre.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

I'm no "VAG head" but the Leon and golf for that matter are better cars than the old and new 3 imo. It's more than just "fluff" in the doors. From a refinement and comfort point of view they are better and I'd wager that they are better built too going on past examples. They can also be got with decent petrol engines and decent spec whereas with the 3 if you want a petrol you are left with only one option, a 1.5 na unit in an overpriced and underspecced car.

Now I'm not saying that vag is the holy grail of build quality because IMO they are not, years back Mazda made better cars than them but nowadays vag make some very good cars and are ahead of Mazda imo.

One positive with the mazdas is that, unlike their diesels, their petrol engines have been consistently reliable.

As for the design the new 3 is an extremely good looking car but the golf is also a good looking car even if the styling is more reserved but that could end up being a good thing further down the road.

The Leon I must say I'm not a great fan of its styling though.

I can't see how the Leon is better than the new 3. And the chassis is further away than I actually thought it was going to be from the old 3.
Engine choice alright is better with all German brands than it is with all Japanese brands. Years ago that wasn't the case funnily enough.
And in no way is the Golf a better looking car than the 3. It's a disimprovement over the average looking Mk 6. The interior is decent in the Mk 7 though.

Tea 1000 · 25-07-2014 2:53pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

The mk4 golf in 1.4 petrol form was a poor car imo. The engine was underpowered, soft, and imo the interior plastics were far from high quality, even if they did give the illusion of quality. They did come with a decent diesel engine however, superb rust protection, and the design though understated at the time compared to the much hyped focus, has aged very well imo.

The corolla of the time was of course a better built car though. Back then I think many jap cars were better made products compared to their European rivals.

The Focus is much hyped alright. It was fresher looking in 3dr form than the Golf, but the Mk4 has aged sightly less poorly. The interior plastics might not have been high quality, but they looked a lot better than the Focus or any of the competition really. But the electronics problems plagued all VAG cars since the 98 Passat.
The 1.6 petrol wasn't much better than the 1.4. The 1.8T GTi really wasn't a GTi. The 1.9 diesels were decent for their time alright, but they strung that 1.9 along for too many years.

ba_barabus · 25-07-2014 3:11pm

To be honest this thread is full of histeria. There are far too few reports of any consistent and common failures in SkyActiv engines to gauge a consensus on their reliability. So suggesting they've made a substandard engine is jumping the gun by a considerable margin.

Zubeneschamali · 25-07-2014 3:23pm

ba_barabus wrote: »

So suggesting they've made a substandard engine is jumping the gun by a considerable margin.

Not the way I look at it. The diesel 6 design was mad.

When Mazda come out and say it was mad, that they are sorry, and that their new diesel does not use a similar DPF system, maybe I'd think about one.

Does the skyactiv use the same DPF system which dumps fuel in the sump? Even one case of rising oil levels suggests that yes, it does.

ba_barabus · 25-07-2014 3:39pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even one case of rising oil levels suggests that yes, it does.

I assume you're referring to the Oz case where a recall was issued for the dipsticks and that no more reports of oil rising has occurred.

I've little issue that the older engines were shyte but there isn't enough known by anyone here that's posting about this one. Some information has been downright wrong, others have posted opinion and others have misrepresented problems to prove their own points. Some posting in this thread are completely over the top bashing the engine and using baseless and non factual information to back up points. It's like reading the Daily Mail.

I went and researched the engine and found very little actually being reported as going wrong. And until more data is available its very hard to categorically state otherwise.

JohnBoy26 · 25-07-2014 3:54pm

ba_barabus wrote: »

I assume you're referring to the Oz case where a recall was issued for the dipsticks and that no more reports of oil rising has occurred.

I've little issue that the older engines were shyte but there isn't enough known by anyone here that's posting about this one. Some information has been downright wrong, others have posted opinion and others have misrepresented problems to prove their own points. Some posting in this thread are completely over the top bashing the engine and using baseless and non factual information to back up points. It's like reading the Daily Mail.

I went and researched the engine and found very little actually being reported as going wrong. And until more data is available its very hard to categorically state otherwise.

Well there are owner reports of skyactive units suffering from rising oil issues in the UK. The honestjohn link I posted earlier in this thread is one such example and the dipstick was replaced on this example beforehand.

ba_barabus · 25-07-2014 4:22pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Well there are owner reports of skyactive units suffering from rising oil issues in the UK. The honestjohn link I posted earlier in this thread is one such example and the dipstick was replaced on this example beforehand.

As you said in that post "not exactly concrete" and I refuse to accept referencing to HonestJohn as ANTHING more factual than opinion and hearsay.

We've only had one post from what I'd consider an informed source in this thread who reports nothing of worry with the cars.

Tea 1000 · 25-07-2014 4:23pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Well there are owner reports of skyactive units suffering from rising oil issues in the UK. The honestjohn link I posted earlier in this thread is one such example and the dipstick was replaced on this example beforehand.

Honest John has many reports of the 2 litre with issues, but hardly any with the 2.2, yet you're saying it's just as bad as the 2 litre. That's before we even start mentioning the Skyactiv engines.
If I were in the market for one, I wouldn't hesitate.

Zubeneschamali · 26-07-2014 5:12pm

ba_barabus wrote: »

I've little issue that the older engines were shyte but there isn't enough known by anyone here that's posting about this one. Some information has been downright wrong, others have posted opinion and others have misrepresented problems to prove their own points.

Simple question so: does the Skyactiv engine use the same mad DPF system as the old 2.0?

Until someone can demonstrate that it does not, I would be staying well away.

Old diesel · 27-07-2014 7:44pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Simple question so: does the Skyactiv engine use the same mad DPF system as the old 2.0?

Until someone can demonstrate that it does not, I would be staying well away.

I was under the impression that even the older 2.2 didn't use the same DPF system as the 2.0 - even still the issue of raising oil levels still happened - but my understanding was - the old 2.2 was less prone to the issue.

I think there was something about a closed loop system on the old 2.2???

Without Mazda diesel bashing - in all fairness your right that a system that allows fuel get into the sump is MAD.

But id still like to know what the exact system is on Skyactive - we are clutching at straws without knowing that :eek:

Mazda 3 2.2 150bhp

Comments