[batixan]

Hi to everyone,
I am about to buy a CX-30 Skyactive-X but I am very skeptical about the sales numbers of the model especially in Greece.
Is there anybody here, especially from Greece , having this model? Would you recommend this model for Greece?
Thank you in advance.

 

[savcom]

Thank you for joining CX30Talk and posting an introduction.

If you are new to forums, or the format of this forum, then read our introduction here.
For reference, here are our Forum Rules

The main areas of the forum are shown here with a short explanation of how they are used:

• The General Discussion area is for questions and discussions about your CX-30
• The Complaints, Issues And Problems area is for you to address a specific issue with your CX-30
• The CX‌-30 News area for the latest news and updates for the CX‌-30

There are many other forums all of which can be seen by clicking on the Forums icon to the left of your Avatar.
If you want the latest posts on the forum, click on the New icon to the left of the Forums icon.

Quick navigation hints:

• Look across the banner at the top and you'll see three vertical dots on the right. Click there for fast access to the forum sections
• If you click on your Avatar, next to the three dots, you can access your profile, alerts and conversations
• Click the 5 horizontal lines near the banner. Scroll down and you'll find a huge section of info.

Above all - enjoy yourself. And welcome aboard!

Martin (UK SuperModerator)

 

[sc489]

I'm researching whether to buy the G or X version. I'll probably buy the G version based on the following issues noted from various reviews. The main issues for me are that the G appears to have adequate performance and is more refined and I will never recoup the extra spend on the more expensive X version despite its better fuel economy. The X version also costs more to service.

SkyActiv X

• Will take 320000 miles to recover extra cost compared to G in better economy (8000 miles per year)!
• Easier to drive than G engine. Which? prefer X variant. Has GPF. Lower geared than G - ratio 2.791. Engine harsh when cold and at low speeds. Not as rapid as power suggests. Diesel-like clatter at idle and low revs.
• Even the more potent SkyActiv-X engine suffers from a lack of low-down pull, but it's faster than the entry-level petrol when you drive it hard.
• It’s a little gruff at idle and when revved hard, although it’s quiet when you take things easy.
• While this engine is undoubtedly the best option for the CX-30, it’s just a little disappointing that there isn’t much low-down torque, as you have to rev it quite aggressively to be able to perform overtakes or get up to speed quickly.
• It's more vocal than a traditional petrol engine on start up, with a slightly gruff sound, but once moving it's quieter than a diesel. Power delivery isn't as linear as many petrol engines (it's not a smooth acceleration), and to get full power you need to rev it out to around 6,000rpm. Enthusiastic drivers will appreciate this, but for regular chores and commutes it could become tiresome.
• In fact, on a cross-country driving route, the Skyactiv-X didn't seem to offer an awful lot more performance than its slower counterpart. The mild-hybrid system is more noticeable in the slower car, and the little nudge of acceleration it gives when you put your foot down helps it to feel more responsive.

SkyActiv G

• Refined engine, excellent refinement. Ratio 2.618. Honest John says more refined than X. Good driving & gear shift.
• It is very refined, however, and impressively smooth – perfect for long-distance journeys.
• The entry-level Skyactiv-G 2.0-litre engine produces 120bhp and is our pick. - What Car
• Skyactiv-G is better than the sometimes coarse Skyactiv-X. What Car

 

[savcom]

I'm researching whether to buy the G or X version. I'll probably buy the G version based on the following issues noted from various reviews. The main issues for me are that the G appears to have adequate performance and is more refined and I will never recoup the extra spend on the more expensive X version despite its better fuel economy. The X version also costs more to service.

The only way you'll really know is if you test drive both versions - as I did. Indeed, I found the SkyActiv-X manual better suited my needs. Also, I didn't buy brand new, so the extra spend on the SkyActiv-X was easily mitigated in the price I paid. (Mine was 3 months old and 700 miles on the clock, so virtually new).

 

[stratis]

Hello to all,
I think you will not have problem depending how much the car sells.
I have ordered already in Greece.
It's a premium car with a lot of benefits.
It depends what you are looking for...

 

[savcom]

@stratis - Welcome to the forum.

Please take a moment to complete your profile and post your own introduction. Here's what to do.

 

[Rdrokit]

Not sure what models you have in Greece. Here in Thailand only the 2 liter 165hp engine is available, no 2.5 liter engine available. I have had my car for 6 months now and do not regret buying it. I have had no problems during this period and now have driven 10,000km.

 

[jonceebee]

I must admit I am somewhat disappointed with the X engine, especially the low down torque which does appear not to live up to the extra BHP the engine offers and as mentioned earlier does not seem justify the extra initial purchase cost.
My fuel consumption averages 44.1 UK mpg which is better than my previous CX5 at 38.8. However, because of covid my mileage over 13 months in total is only 2350 so I will not pass judgement until I have actually got some usage out of the car.

The engine start up noise does not seem any worse than the CX5 and acceleration noise almost the same. I am also looking forward to the rumoured engine update which looks like a remap and may improve the performance etc, albeit possibly with a lower mpg. I have discussed a remap with a local engine tuner who claims he could increase the BHP to 215 without any issues, but I am not contemplating this as it will invalidate the Mazda warranty.

 

[savcom]

I must admit I am somewhat disappointed with the X engine, especially the low down torque which does appear not to live up to the extra BHP the engine offers and as mentioned earlier does not seem justify the extra initial purchase cost.

Coming from a 3 litre BMW 5-series and owning a 3.2 litre Mercedes SLK, I really miss the power from the older cars, but I've found if I'm driving in a spritely fashion, I drop from 6th straight to 3rd/4th to accelerate when I need to (one of the reasons I chose a manual car!) The CX-30 isn't a sports car, but I agree, for 180hp I expected much better low down performance than the car has shown.

Interesting that an independent tuner reckons a simple remap could raise the available power by almost 20%. Wonder what the expected increase in torque would be?