RE: 180hp and 52mpg from Skyactiv-X Mazda 3

[rb_89]

Max_Torque said:

havoc said:

Some of us don't like the low-rev torque focus that a lot of the turbo-petrols are now afflicted with, so while a free-revving petrol of any kind is to be applauded, a n/a one is especially welcome.

But i know that the vast majority of non-enthusiast drivers, the sort of people who buy Mazda SUVs are going to feel that this new engine is "flat as a fart" and will never rev it hard enough to find the (reasonably decent but not that special) power at the top end.

It makes 225 Nm, a typical 2.0tdi is making 400 Nm these days. So in any given gear, that's half the performance.........

(BTW, i haven't checked but assume the 225 Nm is without the eAssist which may help level the playing field somewhat)

Made me laugh, a friend just bought a 4 year old mazda 3 said "feels a bit slow for a 2 litre" (he's not a car enthusiast) , which considering he had just come from a 1ltr yaris made me chuckle a bit. He was changing gear at 2000 rpm, I said ring it out to the max... "ohh that's better". I had to explain its not got a turbo so you need to give it the beans a bit to extract the power.

[havoc]

greenarrow said:

...anyone not doing the majority of their miles on motorways where the lack of a turbo becomes an issue.

What need is there for rapid in-gear acceleration on a motorway?!?

Sorry...don't get that at all...

[sandys]

I was thinking the same, I commute Bristol to Maidenhead and when I am sat in the m4 traffic train the car is rarely on boost perhaps a squirt on the slip road when feeling juvenile or the odd overtake but generally speedy progress is impeded by other commuters.

Edited by sandys on Friday 7th June 11:37

[Zajda]

greenarrow said:

I went from a Mazda 6 2.0 petrol to an Insignia because I was doing a lot of motorway miles and a n/a engine with a modest torque curve wasn't cutting it.

I cannot imagine what's the problem, more so in the UK with 70 MPH speedlimit.

[greenarrow]

havoc said:

greenarrow said:

...anyone not doing the majority of their miles on motorways where the lack of a turbo becomes an issue.

What need is there for rapid in-gear acceleration on a motorway?!?

Sorry...don't get that at all...

Really? I'd have thought the motorway is the one place you appreciate rapid 5th and 6th gear acceleration. I certainly appreciated the instant torque punch of my turbo diesel when as frequently happens a lorry pulled with little notice into my lane up ahead and I needed to escape being boxed in during the melee of people scrambling into lane 3!!

..you've ignored the rest of my post which is clearly in favour of the new Mazda!.

[underphil]

By all accounts the new 3 is an excellent car

Hopefully we'll get the saloon too, which to my eyes is a very attractive car

[cossey]

It looks interesting technology but it is 5 years too late to make any real impact.

The fleet average CO2 rules mean that this is already above the average target for next year for one of the smallest cars they make (even as a mild hybrid). So they will be forced to electrify it further which defeats a lot of the point of the work they have done.
Maybe the production cost of no turbo is low enough that with more electric boost it will be a good overall solution but I do not see what this offers over the Atkinson cycle Toyota NA engines to justify all the research money.

[Zajda]

cossey said:

The fleet average CO2 rules mean that this is already above the average target for next year for one of the smallest cars they make (even as a mild hybrid).

Sadly they have not beaten physics yet, unlike regulators.

[Water Fairy]

If this is using compression ignition what does it sound like?

[TomSpecs]

dukebox9reg said:

I get over 50mpg out of my Leon FR Sport 190 petrol which has a much more user friendly 236lbft and 7 spd DSG.
Just this morning on my commute I got 51.8mpg.

26 miles of backroads, M40/M42 and a bit of town. Average 42mph.

I'm guessing the Mazda with that little torque etc making half decent progress and 50mpg would be very hard.

How are you measuring that? Brim to brim? Computer?
I’m not trying to be a dick here but to meet current emissions requirements and state 52.3 on the wltp cycle (I’m assuming that’s the combined phase) is mighty impressive.

Chances are it’s possible to better that in the real world too.

[DP33]

Seriously impressive. Will be interesting to see how it stacks up. Petrol sporting character coupled with diesel grunt and economy could be really compelling.

Having had my diesel model "confiscated" for recall-related fun, I've just spent 5 weeks with a petrol variant of a model where you'd normally expect a diesel lump to be - God you don't have notice the economy differential, (had forgotten how costly 23-25mpg really is, felt like I was sticking juice in it every other day). Having said that petrol is smoother and so much nicer to be sat behind. Best of luck to Mazda, if they can pull off their "pro-cake, pro eating it" trick they'll be away to the races.

[Niffty951]

This is pretty superb news. I'm currently stuck with a commute of ~1000miles per week and it sadly necessitates doing it in a dull and dirty diesel. I get a long term mixed average of 52mpg and peak of 63.5mpg but I could live with 52.

I still unnecessarily toe and heel my way to work every day, trying to hit the perfect apex. I'd dearly love a free revving petrol that would match the 650-800miles per tank.

I've considered 3-cylinder petrols Toyota Aygo stylee that are a lot of fun to drive but they do offer a big reduction in performance and comfort. No heated seats or overtaking up hills.

I had an S3 2.0t that was pretty amazing, would return 35mpg for 365hp but just too much to be filling three times a week at £75 a tank of 99ron.

This kind of engine may just bridge the gap for petrol

[LarsG]

51mpg on a good run in my Mondeo bi-turbo diesel. That Mazda is just not in proportion.

[Jimmy Recard]

TurboHatchback said:

I think this is quite interesting, I'd like to give one a try. I'm not a diesel fan and I've always preferred NA engines so it's great to see effort being put into developing them. Couple this with Mazdas efforts at making their cars light and they have a recipe that appeals more than pretty much any other manufacturer.

Misleading username!

[steveb8189]

Niffty951 said:

This is pretty superb news. I'm currently stuck with a commute of ~1000miles per week and it sadly necessitates doing it in a dull and dirty diesel. I get a long term mixed average of 52mpg and peak of 63.5mpg but I could live with 52.

I still unnecessarily toe and heel my way to work every day, trying to hit the perfect apex. I'd dearly love a free revving petrol that would match the 650-800miles per tank.

I've considered 3-cylinder petrols Toyota Aygo stylee that are a lot of fun to drive but they do offer a big reduction in performance and comfort. No heated seats or overtaking up hills.

I had an S3 2.0t that was pretty amazing, would return 35mpg for 365hp but just too much to be filling three times a week at £75 a tank of 99ron.

This kind of engine may just bridge the gap for petrol

New fiesta ST would be worth a look surely?

[Niffty951]

steveb8189 said:

New fiesta ST would be worth a look surely?

I feel some discomfort over the image. I think I'm a little too mature in years (over 21) but it's a superb suggestion. I can't argue with logic

[sideways sid]

the article said:

Wonder if it'll go in an MX-5?

and

DanielSan said:

2 litre and 180bhp... Dear Mazda, please put that donkey in the MX5, Kthanxbye

Not sure why you would want this engine in a sports car when the one currently in the MX5 is more powerful and delivers that power at higher revs.

This engine, whilst an amazing achievement, sounds like it is much more suited to a hatchback like the 3.

[clarki]

sideways sid said:

Not sure why you would want this engine in a sports car when the one currently in the MX5 is more powerful and delivers that power at higher revs.

This engine, whilst an amazing achievement, sounds like it is much more suited to a hatchback like the 3.

Better mpg, lower emissions, less weight??

Nice looking car that 3.

[bodhi]

sandys said:

I was thinking the same, I commute Bristol to Maidenhead and when I am sat in the m4 traffic train the car is rarely on boost perhaps a squirt on the slip road when feeling juvenile or the odd overtake but generally speedy progress is impeded by other commuters.

Edited by sandys on Friday 7th June 11:37

Us folks a bit further north get lots of opportunities to give it a boot on the motorway, especially if you live near a moderately famous Private Road that goes round Birmingham

However I've been commuting for 5 years now in an N/A car, albeit with a bit more capacity, and don't really find it too much of a problem. Which begs the obvious question - have Mazda any plans to offer this engine with the correct amount of cylinders?

[havoc]

clarki said:

sideways sid said:

Not sure why you would want this engine in a sports car when the one currently in the MX5 is more powerful and delivers that power at higher revs.

This engine, whilst an amazing achievement, sounds like it is much more suited to a hatchback like the 3.

Better mpg, lower emissions, less weight??

Nice looking car that 3.

Depends on the character though - a lightweight roadster deserves a free-revving and ideally tuneful n/a lump.