2013 Trailblazer 4x4 AT vs 2012 Mazda CX9 4x2 AT -amazingly similar cost of ownership

[ano727]

Lol! Now I wont be able to sleep! What you said sums it up perfectly.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

Was in the same dilemma 2 weeks ago...

Practical choice was the TBZ primarily because it is diesel-fed and high clearance, in the end chose the CX9 for many reasons I have previously shared.

Santa Fe was good as well, but did not make my final two because:
1. it is too small to be a proper 7-seater (for my requirements);
2. too many new gadgets is good and bad - good for toys, but also bad as feedback from motoring purists is that the more gadgets, the more electronics that could go wrong.

If you can wait for Santa Fe Long Wheel Base, I think much better.

[IMm29]

:confused:

Could be if they offer that facelift at the current promo rates!


Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

In that case, 1 option off the list...

[bjreyesmd]

Do you have data on the 0-100kms acceleration on the vehicles you mentioned? Just curious on who will win in case mag drag race mga SUVs na ito, hehe.

[bjreyesmd]

The cx9 will win hands down from a standing start. This is coming from a former cx9 owner. The cx9 outguns the Santa fe by at least 80 hp and the trailblazer by

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

Lets exclude the CX9, lets make the fight diesel to diesel. Include the fort and monty to make it more interesting, hehe

[d_mac]

The cx9 will win hands down from a standing start. This is coming from a former cx9 owner. The cx9 outguns the Santa fe by at least 80 hp and the trailblazer by about 100hp.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

Chief, that's because petrol-fed vehicles can rev way farther out compared to diesel ones. And where is the CX 9's peak horsepower located along the rev-range - is it at 6000 rpm rated at 280 hp? How about the peak torque, at 4000 rpm or 4500 rpm, rated at 367 Nm?

With the crank rotation at 6000 revs a minute granting you manually rev-out the powerband for the most hp prior to upshifting your gears just imagine how much speed rotation your crank turns the wheels at - a lot i think compared to diesel engines reving out anywhere between between 3800 rpm to 4500 rpm the most.

However, when it comes to pulling force (hauling, towing, hillclimbing, drag racing in power-sapping soft sands) be it at low. mid and high revs, the diesel feds will feast on the gasoline ones, especially the Trailblazer's rated at 470 Nm torque starting at 2000 rpm.

[IMm29]

Agree, the diesel torque curve heads down when speeds/revs rise. So the cx9 should take the drag race. High torque low rev applications will be the turbo diesel's specialty.

[d_mac]

I think he was saying drag race from with a standing start. The cx9 is probably sub 8 sec 0-100. The Santa fe probably in the 9's. The Tbz which I flogged real hard doesn't feel fast. Maybe 10s to the century mark. It has lots of torque but that torque drops off rapidly as the revs climb. So for pulling at low speeds its good. But you need the revs to climb for the transmission to do its work turning those wheels faster. That's where the gas fed v6 of the cx9 will win. The torque curve of those diesels is like a downhill line. High at low revs and drops off the higher rpm you go. That's why I like turbo gas engines. Flat torque all the way to the red line.

But yeah the torque of diesels make them better for everyday usability and in real manila traffic , the diesels will feel faster. I should know hehe check my avatar.

Is it the 2.5 TBz or 2.8 you've pushed hard? I know how V6 gasoline ones are chief, in fact i have one, a Grand Vitara 2.7 MFi 4x4. Also, not all turbocharged petrol-feds maintain their peak torque throughout the rev-range; the Subaru Forester 2.5 turbocharged, for one, feels a bit sluggish from bottom-up when you floor the pedal, not so in the case of V6 of course, since there are more sequential up-and-down strokes to cover a cycle.

However, there are lots of diesel fed out there that maintain their peak flat torque over broad rev-range, to name a few amongst the 4-cylinder e.g., Toyota Fortuner 3.0 D-4D at 343 Nm from 1400 to 3200 rpm, 2012 Philippine-issue Fortuner 2.5 D-4D at 343 Nm from 1400 to 2400 rpm, Toyota Prado ar 410 Nm from 1600 to 3000 rpm, Philippine-issue Isuzu Alterra at 294 Nm from 1400 to 3400 rpm (same thing goes to its D-max equivalent), Thai-spec Alterra (MU-7) at 360 Nm from 1800 to 2800 rpm, new Isuzu D-max at 380 Nm from 1800 to 3000 rpm, perhaps even the Santa Fe 2.2 R-eVGT may qualify, rated at 437 Nm from 1750 rpm to 2500 rpm.... lemme also include the 5-inline Ranger 3.2 TDCi rated at 470 Nm beginning 1500 to 3000 rpm, where 95% of that 470 Nm is already tappable by 1200 rpm.... How much more the straight 6 and V6 diesel feds, coming from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Renault-Nissan, Volkswagen, VM Motori etc?

Practicality-wise though, if that is the primary question of the thread-starter, a 4-cylinder diesel-fed SUV like the Trailblazer 2.8 that is already producing a peak 470 Nm torque at such a relatively low-rev of 2000 rpm (compared to a gas-fed, more so a V6 one) sipping way less fuel for even a higher torque. 90% of that 470 Nm on the TBz is already available by 1700 rpm. The peak torque on the TBz starts to dwindle gently down-dip past 2000 rpm, BUT it does not dive drastically as the ones you see in a Monterosport 3.2 Di-D, and or the Navara 2.5 with the high-power YD25TTi engine. It's a different story on the peak torque of the all-new Ranger 3.2 5-inline though as it is broad, and 470 Nm is 103 Nm more than the CX-9's that is seeping more fuel and needing to rev way higher. Inherently also, even commercial ones, diesel engines have higher compression ratios (16.5 to 17.9 : 1) compared to their petrol-fed counterparts/ and equivalent-displacements (around 9.5 to 10.5 : 1) that's why even at low revs they make more power and torque....

Certainly, i won't need a V6 gasoline-fed that is only producing 367 Nm torque if i'm after practicality/ functionality/ and after a responsive engine, Won't need one that is seeping way more fuel and just because by virtue of having the ability to rev way higher than diesels engines, YET producing lesser torque, they are able to achieve 277 hp. But that's just me though....

Cheers chief!

[ano727]

Is it the 2.5 TBz or 2.8 you've pushed hard? I know how V6 gasoline ones are chief, in fact i have one, a Grand Vitara 2.7 MFi 4x4. Also, not all turbocharged petrol-feds maintain their peak torque throughout the rev-range; the Subaru Forester 2.5 turbocharged, for one, feels a bit sluggish from bottom-up when you floor the pedal, not so in the case of V6 of course, since there are more sequential up-and-down strokes to cover a cycle.

However, there are lots of diesel fed out there that maintain their peak flat torque over broad rev-range, to name a few amongst the 4-cylinder e.g., Toyota Fortuner 3.0 D-4D at 343 Nm from 1400 to 3200 rpm, 2012 Philippine-issue Fortuner 2.5 D-4D at 343 Nm from 1400 to 2400 rpm, Toyota Prado ar 410 Nm from 1600 to 3000 rpm, Philippine-issue Isuzu Alterra at 294 Nm from 1400 to 3400 rpm (same thing goes to its D-max equivalent), Thai-spec Alterra (MU-7) at 360 Nm from 1800 to 2800 rpm, new Isuzu D-max at 380 Nm from 1800 to 3000 rpm, perhaps even the Santa Fe 2.2 R-eVGT may qualify, rated at 437 Nm from 1750 rpm to 2500 rpm.... lemme also include the 5-inline Ranger 3.2 TDCi rated at 470 Nm beginning 1500 to 3000 rpm, where 95% of that 470 Nm is already tappable by 1200 rpm.... How much more the straight 6 and V6 diesel feds, coming from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Renault-Nissan, Volkswagen, VM Motori etc?

Practicality-wise though, if that is the primary question of the thread-starter, a 4-cylinder diesel-fed SUV like the Trailblazer 2.8 that is already producing a peak 470 Nm torque at such a relatively low-rev of 2000 rpm (compared to a gas-fed, more so a V6 one) sipping way less fuel for even a higher torque. 90% of that 470 Nm on the TBz is already available by 1700 rpm. The peak torque on the TBz starts to dwindle gently down-dip past 2000 rpm, BUT it does not dive drastically as the ones you see in a Monterosport 3.2 Di-D, and or the Navara 2.5 with the high-power YD25TTi engine. It's a different story on the peak torque of the all-new Ranger 3.2 5-inline though as it is broad, and 470 Nm is 103 Nm more than the CX-9's that is seeping more fuel and needing to rev way higher. Inherently also, even commercial ones, diesel engines have higher compression ratios (16.5 to 17.9 : 1) compared to their petrol-fed counterparts/ and equivalent-displacements (around 9.5 to 10.5 : 1) that's why even at low revs they make more power and torque....

Certainly, i won't need a V6 gasoline-fed that is only producing 367 Nm torque if i'm after practicality/ functionality/ and after a responsive engine, Won't need one that is seeping way more fuel and just because by virtue of having the ability to rev way higher than diesels engines, YET producing lesser torque, they are able to achieve 277 hp. But that's just me though....

Cheers chief!

Nosebleed! Hehehe.

And thanks for some technical insight.

When TS chose the CX9, it's not about practicality but pure driving experience (ride, handling, safety with 6 airbags, feel of elegance and luxury inside) + a bit of frustration with Chevy dealers. TBZ no doubt is a great car as well.

[d_mac]

While the diesels have way more torque and you can get the pull in most any gear, for the gas engines its a simple matter of downshifting to get into the power band

YUP chief, the petrols need to be played at the right gear to bump up the rpm to keep them singing at their ideal powerband. Whilst prolly your Forester 2.5 XT turbocharged comes with auto-tranny/ or semi-auto gate-type, thus you can't downshift freely as you would in a cock-and-bolt style of a pure manual-tranny, just like i get out from my Suzie Grand Vitara 2.7 V6 manual transmission.... i also have had series of dirt bikes and what it means to be singing within the right rev-range to get the meat of the powerband is true in gas fed engines, and THAT IS at relatively HIGH-REVS unlike in diesel-fed engines.... LAKAS kumain ng fuel ng gas-fed hehe

Re: modern gas turbos. I have flogged my forester turbo ( sold that already ) and legacy turbo ( still enjoying ) many times. These units only have 350nm of torque. But that's 350nm of torque from 2000 rpm all the way to your next shift point at 6000+. It will eat the vaunted rvgt Santa fe (420nm) alive.

Aside from the fact that the Forester 2.5 XT turbocharged makes only 320 Nm of pulling-force at 2800 rpm (not 350 Nm), that is around 236 lb_f-ft. The 2.5 XT makes 226.85 bhp or 230 metric-hp at 5200 rpm, according to Subaru Motor Image Phils.

Therefore chief, it is IMPOSSIBLE to hold that 236 lb_f-foot of torque from 2800 rpm all the way to 6000 rpm granting that the 2.5 XT maintains it peak horsepower from 5200 rpm to 6000 rpm. To be able to do that, its pulling-force should drop to 198.57 lb_f-ft or 268.92 Nm by 6000 rpm. 320 Nm to 268.92 Nm is NOT peak flat torque chief, and the LESSER the torque gets along the way IF the peak power of 230 metric horses can't be maintained up to that 6000 revs, which can't be of course anyway....

However chief, the peak torque of the Subie 2.5 XT slightly drops from 236 to 229.12 lb_f-ft from 2800 to 5200 rpm ;)
....2800 rpm however is already mid going top-end rpm for diesel engines, where much earlier below 2000 revs (some even starting at 1200 rpm) they were already producing sizeable broad-spread of pulling-force that is tappable even at a much greater amount of output than equivalent displacement gasoline engines, or even say just a 4-cylinder 2.2 to 3.0-litre common-rail Di turbocharged against a 3.8-litre V6 gas-fed, the latter as the case of the CX-9's 367 Nm peak torque.

When it comes to engine where torque is provided in a radial manner, this is the basic equation, which of course you also know of anyway chief:

hp = (lb_force-foot x rpm)/5252

We can check certainly the CX-9's peak 367 Nm if it can be maintained up to 6000 revs by just using that basic equation and derived assumptions from there on.... Kindly just check on my units as i might have goofed out earlier plus didn't check them anymore, just for the heck of it haha!

Cheers chief!

[renzo_d10]

Basta mabilis silang lahat.

Sent from my GT-P7310 using Tapatalk 2

[d_mac]

I can't say I can argue with your math hehe.

All I know ( from having owned and driven these ) is that a cx9 will win in a drag race vs the Tbz or Santa fe. The forester turbo is in a different league altogether in terms of speed.

My personal preference is turbo direct injected gas > high reving high output NA gas > turbo crdi diesel > normal aspirated normal output gas .

But for practicallity the crdi wins. Its a different story if you're talking about a 535d. But then that's also a whole lot more of money.

That's my personal preference.

Chief, we're not arguing naman po in reality, we're just discussing on things like this, which i personally only think it's also for the betterment of those who really want to know more about the TBz 2.8 Duramax over the others....

As to the discussion on speed and power, we may go back to our high school Physics. And for simplicity's sake, say in general vector form nalang:

Power = force x velocity
Force = mass x acceleration

Therefore:
Power = mass x acceleration x velocity

Granting:
Power = watts
Mass = kilogram
Acceleration = metre/sec²
Velocity = metre/sec

In the case of the TBz 2.8 Duramax:

watts = kg_weight x m²/sec³

To get how many seconds the TBz will cover say a 1/4 mile (400 metres) at different rev-range, say 2000 rpm, 2800 rpm, 3800 rpm

sec = [(kg_weight x m²)/watts]^1/3

Power in watts at an assigned rev-range as exampled above can be derived from brake-hp, where bhp = (lb_force-ft x rpm)/5252

And rpm, kilometre per hour, and the gear you're at can be had from calculating the engine-rev with the gearing ratios and tire specs, which gives an estimate on the following as a summary on the TBz 2.8:



For simplicity's sake, assuming a linear relationship of torque vs. rpm, estimates are:



Doing the same procedure on say the Forester 2.5XT and CX-9 3.8 V6, we can surely make a comparison at 2000 rpm, 2800 rpm, 3800 rpm, 4250 rpm granting that the auto-trannies are to shift up at these rev points. With the manual-tranny no doubt we can short-shift and rev up to the redline at any one-time we want to. There is no doubt of course chief if these gasoline-fed CX-9's and Forester 2.5XT are to rev-out anywhere between 5000 rpm and up, and the TBz only able to rev-out between 3800 to 4250 rpm, arguably, they would eat the TBz at any point in the gears....

You may provide me the gross vehicle weight, peak power, peak torque, gear ratios and tyre specs of the CX-9 to have the same type of estimate and we can then compare, chief.

The gross vehicle weight by the way of the TBz 2.8 Duramax 4x4 is 2750 kilograms.

There might be some wrong values specifically on the conversion from English to metric system, or even perhaps, the whole analogy itself ---- just bear with me chief.

Cheers!

[arsen]

Chief, we're not arguing naman po in reality, we're just discussing on things like this, which i personally only think it's also for the betterment of those who really want to know more about the TBz 2.8 Duramax over the others....

As to the discussion on speed and power, we may go back to our high school Physics. And for simplicity's sake, say in general vector form nalang:

Power = force x velocity
Force = mass x acceleration

Therefore:
Power = mass x acceleration x velocity

Granting:
Power = watts
Mass = kilogram
Acceleration = metre/sec²
Velocity = metre/sec

In the case of the TBz 2.8 Duramax:

watts = kg_weight x m²/sec³

To get how many seconds the TBz will cover say a 1/4 mile (400 metres) at different rev-range, say 2000 rpm, 2800 rpm, 3800 rpm

sec = [(kg_weight x m²)/watts]^1/3

Power in watts at an assigned rev-range as exampled above can be derived from brake-hp, where bhp = (lb_force-ft x rpm)/5252

And rpm, kilometre per hour, and the gear you're at can be had from calculating the engine-rev with the gearing ratios and tire specs, which gives an estimate on the following as a summary on the TBz 2.8:



For simplicity's sake, assuming a linear relationship of torque vs. rpm, estimates are:



Doing the same procedure on say the Forester 2.5XT and CX-9 3.8 V6, we can surely make a comparison at 2000 rpm, 2800 rpm, 3800 rpm, 4250 rpm granting that the auto-trannies are to shift up at these rev points. With the manual-tranny no doubt we can short-shift and rev up to the redline at any one-time we want to. There is no doubt of course chief if these gasoline-fed CX-9's and Forester 2.5XT are to rev-out anywhere between 5000 rpm and up, and the TBz only able to rev-out between 3800 to 4250 rpm, arguably, they would eat the TBz at any point in the gears....

You may provide me the gross vehicle weight, peak power, peak torque, gear ratios and tyre specs of the CX-9 to have the same type of estimate and we can then compare, chief.

The gross vehicle weight by the way of the TBz 2.8 Duramax 4x4 is 2750 kilograms.

There might be some wrong values specifically on the conversion from English to metric system, or even perhaps, the whole analogy itself ---- just bear with me chief.

Cheers!

Nice try but I think need more effort and new years mastering your extra curricular activities.

What is your initial kph?

If zero, you only covered 200m

If your initial kph is the same as final, you are not accelerating so you are not using your 180hp of power * 3800rpm.

To know the power that you need at certain rpm/vehicle speed, you need to know the rolling resistance of the tire and the drag coefficient of the trailblazer. Kindly search for it and I would like to help.

Once the vehicle is at speed, what needed is the power to overcome the rolling resistance and the wind.

This is the main reason why hybrid is the future. You need high power engine to launch/race the vehicle from stand still and a smaller electric motor to maintain the cruising speed. Just enough to overcome the resistance.

Happy New Year!

[ano727]

Congratulations to present owners and new owners of brand new CX9 and Trailblazer. Both great cars!!!

Happy New Year to all! Let's keep Tsikot as informative and as helpful to all as possible.