This is a huge risk for Mazda

This is a huge risk for Mazda.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Mazda has a 2900lb~ car pulling 39mpg with 190hp and 5 start crash ratings all around. They're nearing godlike levels of efficiency for internal combustion engines, likely will be the last great ICE cars on the market. They're elevating the shitbox to art form.

They expect to reach a higher plateau with their future Skyactive engine releasing sometime around 2025. What kind of figures will they attain with that? 200hp+ from a 2.0L with 50mpg? A 2.5L with 300hp hitting 40mpg?
Ford and Chevy sure as fuck aren't pushing R&D where it matters like Mazda is.

so what makes this special? looks like a regular 1nz toyota 4banger

Im going to wait to see how well this engine ends up being. Ive never considered buying a Mazda but if this engine is reliable I will definitely consider buying one and if they put pic related into production with this engine...hory fug.

Mazda increased the compression ratio to the point where their gasoline engine engages is capable of compression ignition like a diesel. They have a hybrid system that can switch from spark ignition to compression ignition depending on engine load. What really interesting is how the computer controls the system. It brings moderate increases in efficiency at cruising highway speeds, but in testing the city driving numbers shot way up too.

Its a pretty big step forward for ICE.

Mazda don't do reliability, anymore.

Is the compression ratio that big of a deal? Outside of that it doesn't seem that much better than the other japboxes. Don't they already have skyactive engines?

the sparkless ignition tech allows mazda to run the mixture incredibly lean, obviously the less fuel you need to run the more efficient the engine will be

The current engines hit 13 or 14:1. Right on the edge of where pre detonation knock would begin if it were any higher, and its entirely spark controlled.
They're moving to this new SPCCI and pushing compression even higher because it burns the fuel injected into the cylinder more completely. Better burn means more power and better fuel economy.

They have a way of preventing knock from happening, and seamlessly transitioning between compression and spark ignition. They can switch on the fly to maximize efficiency, not have any issues with cold starts, and perform better all around.

Higher compression ratio means higher thermal efficiency, fuel mileage, and lots more power and torque across the whole rpm range. On average, 1 point of compression equates to 15-20 horsepower and torque at the exact same fuel consumption. The limiting factor has always been the octane rating of fuel as to avoid detonation. With a compression ignition it’s not much of an issue, and direct injection helps a lot to combat detonation

now imagine this
>mazda spcii
>koengisgsgeggsefsfd camless tech
>niiiisan variable compression with turbo

one can only dream. that engine would cost insane amounts of money, but it would be damn near perfection.

Going by what Egghead himself has shown of the tech, I think their Free Valve could be a game changer.

pretty neat but im going to bet its longevity will be shit seeing as ICE engines loose compression as they age.

Its true that friction will always take its toll on any moving parts with a lot of contact. Cylinder walls and pistons are always going to get beat up as time goes on, but we're dealing with lean burning engines that aren't particularly high revving.
The actual forces inside of the cylinder are tame. Friction reducing coatings keep getting better, as do piston heads and rings.

It's huge yes but not even a risk, it is pretty much guaranteed to be extremely popular. It hits heavy on both sides of the market. The mechanically inclined will appreciate the tech at work while they save money on fuel while still having an engine with good power. The clueless section of the market will buy it for the mpg rating they love to brag about. If it works it is going to be a major game changer, they will be getting higher sales and better epa kickbacks than the competition until they can catch up.
>pic related other manufacturer's faces when they see the first year's sales

Only if you have valve blowby. Carbon buildup has been shown to increase compression or negate its loss, but they have gapless compression rings

Why don't they just use a fucking turbo like everybody else? I can't wait till these things shit the bed after 4 years and bankrupt Mazda.

A 650hp Corvette gets 40mpg with 3x the displacement. The new DOHC with cylinder deactivation will excede that. Your average shitbox now gets almost the same mpg's. You guys need to get your head out of Mazda's rusty ass.

That corvette is rated at 29mpg highway, and only gets decent mileage when its operating on 4 cylinders at super low RPMs, and isn't making anywhere near that peak figure. Peak engine output there is totally irrelevant because it'll suck down 8mpg if you actually open the throttle up on that V8.
Don't be a disingenuous twat.

Hope it fails to be honest, Mazda is a relatively small auto company it will be catastrophic. Dumbasses should invest in turbos.

It doesn't matter what it's rated for. It easily gets 40mpg at 70mph on flat ground. How the shit do you think Mazda and everybody else tests their engines? They test them under no load. Lets see the real world results on those "50mpg" Mazda's driving like a white person. Put your foot down in a Mazda and it'll drink as much gas as a comparable turbo engine.

>this old bullshit again
Buddy, if you reset the trip computer while you're already cruising at highways speed you're going to get insane mpg numbers.
That isn't indicative of actual fuel economy, its just fucking stupid.
You've got to be a legit bus rider to think you're making an argument here.

The facts are that a Corvette is not ever going to be efficient, even when cruising on 4 cylinders, because its still pulls a piddly 17mpg city. Stop and go traffic, even on 4 cylinders, it still drinks gas like a full sized pickup.
The SPCCI Mazda 3 showed 39mpg in real world testing, not resetting the trip computer while already cruising at highway speed.

Fucking bus riders. I swear.

do us all a favor and chug some fuckin bleach.

Freevalve is a meme, 99% of what it can do can be achieved with Multiair. Guess which system is actually in production, working in millions of engines around the world.

Nissan's variable compression system is a mess for performance engines. The rotating (reciprocating?) assembly is sodamn heavy you'd be lucky to get it above 5500RPM, nevermind the reliability.

Mazda and FCA are already working together, they might as well combine the two currently most significant improvements in engine development, unlike those two memes that will never get into significant production.

You can get good highway mpg out of literally anything if you gear it high enough. Those Mazda's sure as fuck aren't getting 50mpg in the city. I can tell you've never driven anything so lay off the busrider bullshit. Keep regurgitating that Jalopnik shit.

I'd be dead and Mazda would still be a fucking joke. Keep drinking that kool aid.

>inb4 hurr durr no replacement for displacement meme

Why no turbo? Because if you put a turbo on 18:1 CR, it blows up. Mazda doesn't have the Ford budget anymore to develop an amazing head package with state-of-the-art injection AND a turbo system at the same time. The 2.3 DISI is still being used in Ford vehicles now, but with an Ecoboost badge on them. Also, turbo's get worse real world MPG's.

A 650hp Corvette gets that MPGonly if you baby it. Average consumption is much higher.

>How the shit do you think Mazda and everybody else tests their engines?
By doing a standardized test procedure dictating the exact amount of acceleration and braking required to simulate the average city driving. For example: acceleration to 50 in 10 seconds, coast for 5, brake to 20 in 10 seconds, accelerate to 80 in 5 seconds, etc. The exact test program varies, but it's standardised in Europe and the US.
Again, turbo engines use more fuel. Most manufacturers design them so they don't spool during government fuel test, but they do spool during power tests of course. That way you get maximum power, but your engine doesn't have to throw fuel at all that boost to keep it from going lean during fuel economy testing. In the real world, turbo's do spool because people put their foot down, resulting in significantly worse MPG's.

>You can get good highway mpg out of literally anything if you gear it high enough.
Which is exactly what GM does to the Corvette. They tell boomers it gets great highway MPG, because it's got three overdrive gears in it (for the manual), or a 2.43:1 rear gearing for the auto.

Meanwhile, those new Mazda's really are getting 45+MPG city in real life testing, not even EPA testing.

Mazda is dumping their money into basically 2 engines
the 2.0L and the 2.5L
those two are planned to run their entire line of cars.
it's a neat plan to develop cutting edge motors while keeping costs down.

as for the MPG claims, I regularly exceed the ratings for the 2.0L Skyactiv G, mixed driving is about 38MPG.

Or they just lower the compression and not make shitty engines. Mazda used to be my favorite but this shit is just going to make boring cars.

small note, the tech in the Skyactiv X can be used in a new dorito to make it emissions friendly while adding torque.

A supercharged engine that gives MPGs that compete with hybrids while still increasing horsepower is boring to you?

Now imagine this: the 4th gen Hemi, by FCA and Mazda:
>Based on existing 3rd gen architecture
>Aluminium block with a lowered deck
>4.04" bore with a 2.96" stroke = 304ci/5.0 (exactly like the old Trans Am cars)
>Single cam-in-block, but no more pushrods
>Instead, hydraulic valve actuation, modulated by Multivalve 3
>16 valve head designed by Mazda, including their new injection/ignition tech
>With radial valves (Apfelbeck with the crazy ports) of course
Theoretically, with this low piston speed and no more reciprocating valvetrain inertia (byebye pushrods), it should have no problem going to 9000RPM if the rotating assembly is properly designed.
>They put a 90 degree V6 version of this in the front-midengined NE Miata & Fiat 1500 Spider
HNNNNNNNNNG

More boring than a turbocharged engine for sure. They were on the right track with their Mazdaspeed turbo cars but man they really lost the way.

Of course, hes one of the resident GM fanboy shitposters. Hes posted that some bullshit line about magic Corvette fuel economy a dozen times.
The sad thing is that its not even copypasta, just autism.

Defending a shitty company with equally shitty hipster technology is just as autistic.

Mazda has done nothing but improve since they left Ford, what are you on about?

I'm not the one defending the Corvette, everyone knows it only gets good mpg because cylinder deactivation and multiple overdrives.

Doesn't stop me from thinking Mazda wasting time on this shit is dumb.

Lowering the compression would make it less efficient: less MPG and less power. You could add a turbo then, but that's lose even more MPG while not making any more power since the rotating assembly would then be overpowered.

>Boring
Have you driven a car with a 2nd gen Skyactiv yet? Nevermind that, a 1st gen? How can it be boring when it's bringing n/a throttle response and revs back to the commuter car, combined with Mazda's great exterior and chassis design?

>increasing efficiency outright in ICEs is for hipsters!
Thats just a retarded nonargument.

Getting rid of the camshaft is the next step

Then comes plastic polymer engines

How much is Mazda paying you? Drove a Mazda3 and it's just a weak sedan. Mazda been a shit since like 2013.

He has a point since EVs exist.

the issue with plastic is long term wear. if you lubricate it with oil they also tend to break down.

None of these Skyactiv engines are designed to replace the old MPS models, but to replace the base models. The MPS series isn't coming back sadly, because Mazda doesn't have a Ford budget to piggyback off anymore.

Once you start comparing apples to apples, the new Mazda's are a lot more fun to drive than the Ford-era ones. If you want a true MPS, wait untill they slot the 2.5T from the CX-9 into the 3.

EVs aren't yet comparable direct replacements to gas or diesel powered cars. The disparity in range and practicality is still enormous.
Even if we get reasonably priced good looking EV sedans with a 400-500 mile range they still can't be charged like one can fill up a gas tank. Chick charging tech is getting there, but its not comparable.

Mazda is the king of fun shitboxes right now. also
>since 2013
did you like Ford-era Mazda? you clearly haven't compared maintenance of them

Haven't you heard of the robutt though. 20,000 sits in a week

Thank you Ford

I wonder how that Polimotor dude did it. He had an engine in fucking IMSA back in the GTP days and it only broke down once iirc.

Mazda isn't paying me a dime, they just make nice cars to drive. The old 3 was even worse if you didn't go for the MPS.

EV's are even worse then VW diesels in terms of pollution, we need advancements in petrol engine development if we want a cleaner automotive industry.

Why get rid of the camshaft? It can provide a perfectly good hydraulic/pneumatic base signal to modulate. Freevalve generates it's own pressure, which is exactly why it's so expensive.

Polymer engines on the other hand are already happening, and it's be practical if it weren't for the high price of PEEK. I've used FDM for making a functional intake on an SAE racecar, which is great in terms of thermal properties. The rest of the engine is just a matter of time, we're already mass producting engine parts out of plastic, where an engineer 30 years ago would have said that it's impossible to do so.

all the wear points were made of metal, likely coated the plastic parts to prevent breaking down in the hot oil

Mazda isn't shit right now, like I said hopefully this fails.

I'm excited but it's definitely a risk. Who wants to gamble on buying the first generation of all this new technology? Skyactiv X is very, very complicated. The engine will be running on the razor edge of grenading itself, it will have a brand new (for Mazda) hybrid system, a low boost supercharger, and a bunch of complex software witchcraft.
I don't know how they're getting such a lean burn to pass emissions with the NOx this engine must make.

Well said. Mazda is best at doing whatever they want and getting away with it. Domesticucks just can't deal.

>Mazda doesn't have the Ford budget anymore to develop an amazing head package with state-of-the-art injection AND a turbo system at the same time. The 2.3 DISI is still being used in Ford vehicles now, but with an Ecoboost badge on them. Also, turbo's get worse real world MPG's.

Um sweetiepie, the MZR was a Mazda design, as was the 2.3 DISI. Ford never owned more than ~30% share in Mazda, and the R&D relationship was pretty one sided. Basically, Ford gave Mazda enough capital to maintain their business sector so they wouldn't have to fire everyone. Mazda was then able to buckle down on R&D and developed the C platform, among other things.

This underpins the Focus, Mazd3, and Volvo S40. Ford is STILL using a variant of the MZRs today, and still using the research from the MZRs to develop their Ecoboost line. The Ecoboost series are a direct product of Mazda development.

Everyone makes boring cars now you fucking clod. 90% of them are just appliances, aside from sports/muscle cars. Even trucks are just boring appliances with the smallest engines they can get away with.

>be Toyota
>have amazing 4.0L 1GR-FE in Tacoma
>hey goys let's replace it with this complicated faggotfuck Atkinson engine
>sure it lacks torque, power, and responds to throttle input like Helen Keller to Riverdance
>but it's more FUEL EFFICIENT HUE HUE HUE

from what I understand the prototype they showed to journalists a year back would begin to knock right before switching from compression to spark. I am very interested to see this thing on a dyno and the weird spike at the conversion point

>You can get good highway mpg out of literally anything if you gear it high enough.
My Tundra still only gets 16mpg going 44mph chugging along in a locked up 6th gear at 1000rpm. Maybe it needs a 7th gear and at 700rpm it would get 20mpg? At 300rpm I could get 40!

Every car is an appliance.

Oh and it has always been this way, your old shitboxes are just old shitboxes not some amazing special machine.

you might be bogging the engine at such a low RPM, you might see better milage at 1500RPM

Um sweetie, that is literally what I said. Ford sorted the budget to keep Mazda pretty much alive and thriving, while Mazda did amazing R&D work that's still cutting edge in today's Fords. They have moved on to newer and greater things though, despite the brilliance that was that 2.3 DISI.

Lugging down the engine will just burn more fuel. It's engine load that determines the mpg's not the rippems. You just paid $70k for a shitty engine, that's all. Most domestic trucks manage to pull good highway mpg's.

But that's objectively wrong and easily verified with even a modicum of automotive history knowledge.

Cars were not always appliances, though there were always some cars to function as appliances. They sure started out that way, but after a while they became status symbols, leisure vehicles, art pieces, science projects, nationalistic tools, and more.

I know there are a lot of faggots here with literal shitboxes that think they're the bees knees, and a 1999 Honda Accord certainly is an appliance, but your blanket generalization is wholly incorrect.

wtf what year is your Tundra? my dad has a 2015 TRD Offroad and it gets about 20-22 with normal driving.

maybe you are using shitty nigger gas?

Bruh, cars are just machines made for transportation. No matter how someone views them they're still an appliance.

You're saying they don't have the budget to make anything different/"better" than the Skyactiv line.

They've invested a literal shitton of money into the Skyactiv research.

They could've EASILY just ported the MZR tech into some newer variant and strapped cheap turbos to all of their engines.

Ford is literally running a tuned version of old Mazda3/Mazda6 engines (2.0 and 2.3) in its current-year vehicles.

Your post is nonsensical. Forced induction results in higher temperatures and stresses than a higher compression ratio. High comp will have higher temps than low comp, but the way modern vehicles are running turbochargers like it's nothing but an FM transmitter...it's setting them up for failure. You honestly can't expect a kike-tier company like Ford to properly sleeve and build their engines to withstand the stresses of constant boost. No one with an Ecotoot car is driving it with a light foot, they're driving like a typical retard normie slamming the accelerator and racing to every stop light.

It'll be interesting to see all of these turbo cars start shitting the bed in 2-3 years when they hit 140-150,000.

Nigger fuel*

Meanwhile I have a 30 year old turbo car with 230k miles that runs fine after 6 owners. Not everyone is as retarded as you.

It's like your posts are a deliberate attempt to incite hatred or anger.

No, I'm just stating facts. Cars aren't and never have been anything special. It's annoying when people start saying shit like "THEY DON'T MAKE CARS WITH SOUL ANYMORE!". It's a car they never had soul.

Is it a Ford econobox with a bulk-order turbocharger made of chinese pigiron?

If so, congrats. You're in possession of a statistical anomaly.

Its like you're purposely ignoring car culture and history just so you can say "cars are just machines" as if your point has any meaning.

>goes on auto enthusiast forum
>starts shitposting about how cars are just appliances
>surprised when people react less than positively

Maybe you should head over to /p/ and tell them art is a meaningless waste of time and resources. When you're done you can pop on in to Veeky Forums and tell them food is nothing but a basic necessity to exist, and serves no further purpose than the production of ATP so we can continue this futile and useless existence on a drifting rock in an endless cosmos.

why are you even here? go back to your busrider thread in /n/

>"THEY DON'T MAKE CARS WITH SOUL ANYMORE!"

No one is saying that you brainlet, stop being so melodramatic. But to argue that cars have always been a simple appliance and absolutely nothing more is completely retarded.

Not only retarded, but objectively wrong.

No, it's a Mazda shitbox.

People want to pretend cars are something more than machines but that isn't true.

>Maybe you should head over to /p/ and tell them art is a meaningless waste of time and resources.

Art is for entertainment.

>When you're done you can pop on in to Veeky Forums and tell them food is nothing but a basic necessity to exist

Are you trying to imply it's anything else?

>No one is saying that you brainlet

>Everyone makes boring cars now you fucking clod. 90% of them are just appliances,
>Cars were not always appliances

Lol

>People want to pretend cars are something more than machines but that isn't true.
Great no one said that, you seem to be so autistic you can't seem to understand car culture at all. Why people do what they do with their cars, why they drive them, the historical significance of certain cars and what cars have become today.

you can say the same of anything that serves a purpose, it dosen't mean that all examples of that thing are your samsung dishwasher.
engines alone have soul, even in the most boring of cars. they vary from unit to unit, even off the production line there's usually 5-10 different tunes for the ECU depending on how the engine behaves. they prefer certain fuels and lubricants over others, they sound different, they die different.

>No one said that

Are you too autistic to pick up on implications? Sure sounds like.

Machines don't have souls. Cars are literally on the same tier as that dishwasher.

...

what is a soul? I was being more metaphorical but if you're being more literal I totally agree with you.

Kek, leave this place kike.

You don't sit inside your dishwasher, it isn't designed to appeal to your creature comforts and bring you enjoyment.
Cars do just that, good ones anyway.

Stop being autistic. They aren't mere appliance.

Can't have soul if it isn't alive. Emotional energy doesn't exist in objects.

>it isn't designed to appeal to your creature comforts and bring you enjoyment.

Then why was it invented? Surely not to make an easier (more enjoyable and comfortable, maybe even faster) way to wash dishes. Like how a car was invented for easier way to get from place to place.

>They aren't mere appliance.

They are, being enthusiastic about them doesn't change that. I'm sure there's a dishwasher enthusiast out there going on about the soul of his 1978 Hotpoint and how modern dishwashers are just boring appliances because they're not as loud.

Imagine if we reach a point where we have Android people, these people look, behave and think like Humans with their own desires and goals now imagine if HowToBasic just ordered one off Amazon and smashed its fucking humanoid head in. Would that be "Murder"? could you be charged for some kind of cruelty? i wonder where we will draw the line between a new race of individual situations.

It's an auto, it isn't me lugging the engine, it's programmed to get into 6th as fast as possible.
2011. They all get about 14mpg if you have 4x4 and the 5.7l

ah, so more literal then. then this argument is just a misunderstanding.

holy fuck that damage control.

in my opinion it doesn't matter wether some manufacturer achieves claimed fuel economy by cylinder deactivation, changing gear ratios, clutched supercharger, putting fuckhuge battery, variable compression or by spending hundreds of million of dollars on new coatings.

i mean sure having first production hcci engine is cool and all
however
mazda isn't first with making first hcci engine

we don't know how much will it increase the price? $1000? $1500? $3000? meanwhile other methods are much more "mature" and bigger manufacturers have moch wider variety of engines used by the same model.

we do know real fuel economy or efficiency across the range. besides memes or plain shilling like "50+ mpg" or "45/50/way over 50% efficiency"


also i find it really funny how they talk about "marketability" of their cars when most of them boring disposable commuter cars

>Art is for entertainment.

>implying cars aren't for entertainment too

Nigga I will choke you with my penis.

Cars are for transportation.

>It's an auto, it isn't me lugging the engine, it's programmed to get into 6th as fast as possible.

My FJ does the same thing, the transmission tune is disgusting. I'm thinking of getting a sprint booster to reduce the throttle lag, but I might chip it to set the shift points higher too.

Stupid Toyota, I know it gets shit gas mileage and I don't care. Stop trying to appease the eco-jews with your fuckin MPG ratings and idiotic shift points.

You made me think, what if they achieve a diesel dorito? Diesel fuel lubricates better than petrol.

You know I've never been a huge fan of mazda but seeing that one guy sperg out makes me like them just a little bit more.

mazda was never reliable, even in the 90s

i dont see any 323s 626s or even the millennia, maybe a protege

Bullshit. First protégés were bulletproof.

oh yeah and 929s, people bought mazdas too, they were fucking everywhere

mazda is basically mitsubishi with more money

>rotary with compression ignition
muh dicc

I like it

I see some 626s out there. Pretty sweet cars.

problem is apex seals don't like detonation, and mazdas sparkless ignition system is prone to it