Probably some of you guy's already "google it" but here is what i found today:


CorkSport Mazda Performance – Blog » CorkSport Welcomes the CX-5 to the Family!

 

That's the exact trim/color we own.

 

I say good luck with improving what Mazda engineers have already done to the 2.0 liter engine. Its going to be tough to improve on what they have already done without some compromise. From my experience those intake systems hurt low end torque in lue of a few top end horsepower and create a lot more noise. I've proven that on the dynomometer with other vehicles. I know manufacturers do there own dyno testing and post the graphs on line to fool unsuspecting novices but I guarantee that the graph will be truncated, and not show what happens below 3500 RPM where it counts in everyday driving.

 

When you look at the stock cold air intake on the CX-5, it's pretty obvious it was engineered and integrated well. No substantial benefit would come from a intake that sucks in hot underhood air versus cooler outside air.

 

That's exactly what SHIPO would say! Oh no, not again. You did say it better though. Although I do agree with most of what you say except the part about Mazda Engineers. Here is a prime example of very poor Mazda Engineering: https://www.mazdaforum.com/forum/maz...-design-28940/ . They also were supposed to put the 4-2-1 header exhaust in the Mazda 3 with that new Skyactiv engine, but failed as well.
Back to the topic at hand. I'd rather have top end power than spin my wheels at bottom end. However, with a 2.0 liter that probably isn't happenning. As far as loud is concerned, I love that sound of a good open air filter. 1 big flaw to a SRI is heat soak. While driving all hot air generated by the Radiator gets pushed in to the air filter of the SRI by the Rad Fans. This causes power loss (not seen on DYNO with hood open). If you install a SRI you must build a baffle and isolate it from the hot engine air and get to outside air. I did this on My Mazda 6 . The aftermarket intake I have has also better smoother bends just before the throttle body compared to the poor stock design (3rd example of Mazda poor engineering--accordian tube intake which also cracks after a few years, mine will never crack). Outside air intake temps are better than under hood intake temps.

This is a pic of my SRI = CAI. It's not pretty, but it works. It is sealed to hood as well.




I'm quite sure this DYNO Run was done with hood open as the results would be worse with hood closed and engine warmed up. The Fan from the Rad would push hot air over to the air filter hurting performance especially in the lower to mid rpm's.
FROM: http://www.corksport.com/index.php?d...oduct_id=32802

 

The 4-2-1 header not being in the Mazda 3 was not a matter of poor design, it was the matter of not fitting. The original Mazda 3 body and chassis did not have the room to fit the new Skyactiv header as used in the CX-5 which has a much bigger engine compartment.

 

Sounds like an engineering issue to me! It's a good excuse. It was too costly. Maybe they'll tweak the next model. Pray!

 

Sounds like it was mainly a business decision.

Yes, with the goal of profitablity in mind, reengineering the entire platform this early in product life cycle was not cost-effective. It was a business decision mainly. Agreed, no reason new model can't accomodate the header, with it goes higher compression and more torque across wider range.

 

EXCELLENT
It's amazing that they have room for a turbo in a Mazda 3, and can put in a 2.5 ltr engine, yet can't put in a 4-2-1 header for a 2.0 ltr!

 

The reason is the 4-2-1 header takes a lot of space at back of engine near firewall. The CX-5 with a much deeper engine compartment (and longer hood/front end) easily accomodates the bulky header system.

The larger bore/stroke of a extra 0.5L (both 2.0L and 2.5L are in-line 4 cylinder engines) does not add that much bulk or take up that much more space under hood.