How does SkyActiv engine compare to the 2.3L and 2.5L performance-wise?

[TheAnswer_03]

The SkyActiv is similar to the previous 2.3L (horsepower/torque-wise); anyone know if there's a notable difference of overall power or acceleration? Or does it feel identical with the big difference in fuel economy?

If one was looking for a new 2012 Mazda 3, is the performance of the 2.5L GT worth it over the SkyActiv in your opinion?

[Kiyomi]

yes! :D but imo, i think the 2.5l is gonna get the boot since there is already the speed 3. and the 2.0 skyactive has almost similar power.

[TheMAN]

as the old saying goes... "there's no replacement for displacement".... it couldn't be anymore true... the skyactiv engine doesn't make as much low end torque as the 2.3l or 2.5l MZR engines... it takes getting used to the honda-like reving to get the car going... but that being said though, the engine's powerband is very linear and responsive... it also truely provides 40 US MPGs unlike the competition who had resorted to tricks to get the theoretical MPGs (such as those closing louvers in the grilles, and other motorised aerodynamic mods)

but I'd take the skyactiv any day because it is a much better engineered motor than the MZR ever could be

[Kessly Snipes]

as the old saying goes... "there's no replacement for displacement".... it couldn't be anymore true... the skyactiv engine doesn't make as much low end torque as the 2.3l or 2.5l MZR engines... it takes getting used to the honda-like reving to get the car going... but that being said though, the engine's powerband is very linear and responsive... it also truely provides 40 US MPGs unlike the competition who had resorted to tricks to get the theoretical MPGs (such as those closing louvers in the grilles, and other motorised aerodynamic mods)

but I'd take the skyactiv any day because it is a much better engineered motor than the MZR ever could be


7.) There's no substitute for cubic inches.

Suggested By: Wake up and Wankel

Why it's so completely wrong: I'm not going to dispute the pleasures of a big motor. I'm also not going to think that's the ONLY rational answer to going fast. Forced induction? Totally. Lots of revs and breathing? Definitely. Wankel? Whoa.

That GTO up there displaces all of 2.8 liters. It's adequate.
http://jalopnik.com/5884022/ten-automotive-stereotypes-that-need-to-die/gallery/5



That said, I do like the SkyActiv. Is it fast, no. My 94 MX6 had more balls, but it does its job. It will pull in second, and it will allow you to pass in 6th (not blinding soeed, but gets the job done). The gas mileage is good. I am getting 7.6 L/100km right now, and that is with the break in period and a ton of city driving. I also only have 17xx km on the car. Once I get 10k or so, it should get better. Add in extra warm up in winter and all the other factors, I am happy. I also hear the auto gets better MPG, but I wanted the 6 speed.

If you want fast go with the Speed3, if you want a kind of peppy car with good mileage, get the SkyActiv. Oh and the blue interior lights look way better than red in IMO.

I don't think the extra 12HP would make the 2.5 much faster(155HP and 148TQ vs 167HP and 167TQ), and I am going to assume the 2.5 weights a few LBS more.

The one beef is that the power band is all above 4,100 RPM. I almost never drive in there unless I am feeling like some fun. Normally 2,500 - 3,500 range.

[Kiyomi]

If you want fast go with the Speed3, if you want a kind of peppy car with good mileage, get the SkyActiv. Oh and the blue interior lights look way better than red in IMO.

I don't think the extra 12HP would make the 2.5 much faster(155HP and 148TQ vs 167HP and 167TQ), and I am going to assume the 2.5 weights a few LBS more.

The one beef is that the power band is all above 4,100 RPM. I almost never drive in there unless I am feeling like some fun. Normally 2,500 - 3,500 range.

Just to put it into real comparisons. down the 1/4, a 2.5l will be 2-3 car lengths ahead of the 2.0 stock.

[TheMAN]

http://jalopnik.com/5884022/ten-automotive-stereotypes-that-need-to-die/gallery/5



That said, I do like the SkyActiv. Is it fast, no. My 94 MX6 had more balls, but it does its job. It will pull in second, and it will allow you to pass in 6th (not blinding soeed, but gets the job done). The gas mileage is good. I am getting 7.6 L/100km right now, and that is with the break in period and a ton of city driving. I also only have 17xx km on the car. Once I get 10k or so, it should get better. Add in extra warm up in winter and all the other factors, I am happy. I also hear the auto gets better MPG, but I wanted the 6 speed.

If you want fast go with the Speed3, if you want a kind of peppy car with good mileage, get the SkyActiv. Oh and the blue interior lights look way better than red in IMO.

I don't think the extra 12HP would make the 2.5 much faster(155HP and 148TQ vs 167HP and 167TQ), and I am going to assume the 2.5 weights a few LBS more.

The one beef is that the power band is all above 4,100 RPM. I almost never drive in there unless I am feeling like some fun. Normally 2,500 - 3,500 range.

so what? the only way you can make low end torque AND power is with a bigger engine
otherwise for small engines, the only way to even get going is to wind it up.... a rotary engine and honda engines are testaments to this

[Kessly Snipes]

Just to put it into real comparisons. down the 1/4, a 2.5l will be 2-3 car lengths ahead of the 2.0 stock.

2.0 or 2.0 skyactiv?

[Kessly Snipes]

so what? the only way you can make low end torque AND power without resorting to expensive forced induction parts is with a bigger engine
otherwise for small engines, the only way to even get going is to wind it up.... a rotary engine and honda engines are testaments to this

Look at most true race cars, most are well under 4 litres.

[Kessly Snipes]

I do wish they could have used the 4-2-1 header and kept the 14:1 compression.

[Kiyomi]

2.0 or 2.0 skyactiv?

id be willing to go against a skyactiv to c what the difference was, then minus 1-2 car lengths for my mods.

[TheMAN]

Look at most true race cars, most are well under 4 litres.

and do most race cars spend their time below 5000rpm? no! :rolleyes

[zzz3]

Just to put it into real comparisons. down the 1/4, a 2.5l will be 2-3 car lengths ahead of the 2.0 stock.

i can verify that this is true lol :blush

[Kessly Snipes]

and do most race cars spend their time below 5000rpm? no! :rolleyes

I am a little confused by your disdain of revs.

[TheAnswer_03]

S2000 and RX-8 rev a lot too.

[Kessly Snipes]

I for one hate high reving engines...:P


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJnyJyBxzCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvk_4z0elBM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKR4IXU9WFA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRU2lDCSfBU

[Kessly Snipes]

some more awesomeness


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c7XutwrMaf0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RXINKDKrpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_QyUD6V5_I

[Kessly Snipes]

Beyond all those awesome videos, the SkyActiv has proven the no replacement for displacement argument.

A 2.0, making same or more power then a 2.3 from the manufacture. Technology can over come engine size.

[TheMAN]

you don't get it
fact of the matter is, the skyactiv engine still has less torque at very low RPMs compared to the MZR 2.3 or 2.5
why has honda engines always been laughed at for being weak torqueless monsters? Because Honda always focused on race track needed high RPM power, and take away all the low end torque... the K20A is an awesome engine with lots of power, but has crap torque compared to other 2.0l engines... the rotary engine is the same way, that's why people call the RX-8 slow!

the fact that you have to rev it in order to get it going proves my argument that the engine is still a compromise and you can't get low end torque and high end power at the same time out of a small engine... variable valve timing and higher compression only helps so much, but at the end of the day, you're still dealing with limitations of how much air the engine can pump at any given RPMs

the internal combustion engine is one big air pump and all the science in the world can't overcome its physical limitations of how much air it can pump... so you have to compromise between low speed air velocity which adds low end torque and sacrifice high end power, or you sacrifice low end torque for high end power.... VVT only helps compensate and smooth this out to a degree

the only true replacement to this limitation so far is the electric motor, but we all know all the crap against it that makes it unfeasible

[TheAnswer_03]

as the old saying goes... "there's no replacement for displacement".... it couldn't be anymore true... the skyactiv engine doesn't make as much low end torque as the 2.3l or 2.5l MZR engines... it takes getting used to the honda-like reving to get the car going... but that being said though, the engine's powerband is very linear and responsive... it also truely provides 40 US MPGs unlike the competition who had resorted to tricks to get the theoretical MPGs (such as those closing louvers in the grilles, and other motorised aerodynamic mods)

but I'd take the skyactiv any day because it is a much better engineered motor than the MZR ever could be

Waiting for the 2.5L SkyActiv version :D

[Kessly Snipes]

you don't get it
fact of the matter is, the skyactiv engine still has less torque at very low RPMs compared to the MZR 2.3 or 2.5
why has honda engines always been laughed at for being weak torqueless monsters? Because Honda always focused on race track needed high RPM power, and take away all the low end torque... the K20A is an awesome engine with lots of power, but has crap torque compared to other 2.0l engines... the rotary engine is the same way, that's why people call the RX-8 slow!

the fact that you have to rev it in order to get it going proves my argument that the engine is still a compromise and you can't get low end torque and high end power at the same time out of a small engine... variable valve timing and higher compression only helps so much, but at the end of the day, you're still dealing with limitations of how much air the engine can pump at any given RPMs

the internal combustion engine is one big air pump and all the science in the world can't overcome its physical limitations of how much air it can pump... so you have to compromise between low speed air velocity which adds low end torque and sacrifice high end power, or you sacrifice low end torque for high end power.... VVT only helps compensate and smooth this out to a degree

the only true replacement to this limitation so far is the electric motor, but we all know all the crap against it that makes it unfeasible

I completely disagree.

Yes big V8s will make more tq down low, but there is something amazing about revving up to 10K in an FD, and when the turbo kicks in it is a hell of a feeling. You seem to have a very linear way of looking at things, that there is one way and one way only to do it. If that were true then we wouldn't have any advances, it would just be big bore V6 and V8 engines.

The fact of the matter is engines now rev higher than they ever have and make more power with less displacement than they ever have. Technology plays a big factor. you can have the same size engine and make more power with better efficiency than ever before.

But you keep your big engine with low end tq, and I will enjoy running revs to the sky. Power is power and it doesn't matter how it comes.

There is a replacement for displacement and it is advances in technology. Turbos are a great start, and it just keeps going from there.

[TheMAN]

yeah it's amazing to rev the car up.... then you'll get mad at how bad the gas mileage is... as bad as what V8s gets.... if you want to go fast off the line, you have to really wind it up just to get going.... so why do you think people say RX-8s are slow and have bad gas mileage? :rolleyes if you don't rev it up with then your acceleration really sucks, like any honda... sure your gas mileage is great, but there are those occasions you NEED to get going and you're annoyed that the power is not instantly there

turbos are great, but it costs MONEY... factory turbo cars are more expensive than non-turbo cars, and they are also more expensive to maintain

the so-called "replacement for displacement" are technologies that add mechanical complication and cost to the engine.... no doubt they work and work great, but some people need something simple for ease of road side repairs and downright reliability... like people driving trucks in 3rd world countries for example


you are infatuated with high reving gutless engines and can't see the reason for anything else out there.... if high reving torqueless engines are so wonderful, why do big rigs not have them? You don't see the fact that different engines have different purposes, and small engines are NOT the answer to everything out there..... it's an answer for most, but not all... the "no replacement for displacement" statement still holds true.... turbos and superchargers artificially increases engine displacement....variable valve timing systems only shift the powerband around so that the engine is more efficient at a certain RPM in order to flatten the powerband, but it only does so much... fuel + air + spark = power... if your engine can't pump much air, then you don't get much power... and as I said, engine power bands are always compromises because you can't have both high end power and low end torque.... HORSEPOWER is a function of torque... you need torque to create power, and if your torque is all in the low end, your high end power suffers... and if everything is in the high end, your low end suffers as I already said.... forced induction adds power and torque all around, but you are still limited by the mechanical design of the engine, thus you will never have a V8-like powerband nor response... so again, why do big rigs have big engines with globs of torque but not much power? because torque gets you moving, horsepower keeps you moving only... and race cars have globs of power with little torque... because they don't spend their time at low speeds much and don't really need the acceleration

I am really looking at things objectively, while you are not... in fact, it seems you have little understanding of the relationship between horsepower and torque as well as the principles behind the internal combustion engine
larger displacements have a place in this world, and they are especially useful where acceleration is important.... I'm honestly not a fan of V6s and V8s, but they have their uses and are not obsolete for the proper applications... and I never said I hated the skyactiv engine, I love it.. I simply stated the fact that it has very little low end torque (compared to the MZR engines) and drives much like a honda, which at times is impractical on the street

that's great if you love to rev the engine to get going.... but you don't drive on the race track and most of us don't either.... it's fun but don't kid yourself that you're really accelerating fast

I suggest you google and read articles about torque and power

[Kiyomi]

lol. i say we have a track day! :D

[Mr Wilson]

There's a reason the AP2 S2000 has a 2.2L over the Ap1's 2.0L.

[Kiyomi]

There's a reason the AP2 S2000 has a 2.2L over the Ap1's 2.0L.

touche! 3.5l 350z vs 3.7l 370z. who wins? :D

[Sebi]

To me, the 2.5 seems faster and smoother than the SkyActiv. At 4k rpm, the SkyActiv I drove was noisier than the 2.5. In general, I'm all in for new technology, but in my humble opinion the 2.5 is nicer, even if it's old design.

[xxSlidewaysxx]

I did the comparo and found the skyactive slower than my 09 2.3 GT. That said, the low end torque was definetly lower. I tested both the manual and auto. I almost felt like the auto was ready to stall as i slowed up to leave the parking lot. On the highway, you will need to be in the right gear if you wish to pass with the same speed as in the 2.3<< I have the PRM intake, so add that to the equation.
The engine and transmission felt solid enough that I could get what I wanted out of the car, allbeit higher in the rev range. However, the car did rev much lower in 6th gear on the highway than in the 2.3 GT manual that I have. Of course the GT is geared for performance so that is expected.
All-in-all the Skyactive should give you most of what you need and a little fun factor as well. I have to admit that if I do switch, I'll miss the torque of the 2.3.

:)

That's my 2 cents, keep the rubber side down.

[Kessly Snipes]

yeah it's amazing to rev the car up.... then you'll get mad at how bad the gas mileage is... as bad as what V8s gets.... if you want to go fast off the line, you have to really wind it up just to get going.... so why do you think people say RX-8s are slow and have bad gas mileage? :rolleyes if you don't rev it up with then your acceleration really sucks, like any honda... sure your gas mileage is great, but there are those occasions you NEED to get going and you're annoyed that the power is not instantly there

turbos are great, but it costs MONEY... factory turbo cars are more expensive than non-turbo cars, and they are also more expensive to maintain

the so-called "replacement for displacement" are technologies that add mechanical complication and cost to the engine.... no doubt they work and work great, but some people need something simple for ease of road side repairs and downright reliability... like people driving trucks in 3rd world countries for example


you are infatuated with high reving gutless engines and can't see the reason for anything else out there.... if high reving torqueless engines are so wonderful, why do big rigs not have them? You don't see the fact that different engines have different purposes, and small engines are NOT the answer to everything out there..... it's an answer for most, but not all... the "no replacement for displacement" statement still holds true.... turbos and superchargers artificially increases engine displacement....variable valve timing systems only shift the powerband around so that the engine is more efficient at a certain RPM in order to flatten the powerband, but it only does so much... fuel + air + spark = power... if your engine can't pump much air, then you don't get much power... and as I said, engine power bands are always compromises because you can't have both high end power and low end torque.... HORSEPOWER is a function of torque... you need torque to create power, and if your torque is all in the low end, your high end power suffers... and if everything is in the high end, your low end suffers as I already said.... forced induction adds power and torque all around, but you are still limited by the mechanical design of the engine, thus you will never have a V8-like powerband nor response... so again, why do big rigs have big engines with globs of torque but not much power? because torque gets you moving, horsepower keeps you moving only... and race cars have globs of power with little torque... because they don't spend their time at low speeds much and don't really need the acceleration

I am really looking at things objectively, while you are not... in fact, it seems you have little understanding of the relationship between horsepower and torque as well as the principles behind the internal combustion engine
larger displacements have a place in this world, and they are especially useful where acceleration is important.... I'm honestly not a fan of V6s and V8s, but they have their uses and are not obsolete for the proper applications... and I never said I hated the skyactiv engine, I love it.. I simply stated the fact that it has very little low end torque (compared to the MZR engines) and drives much like a honda, which at times is impractical on the street

that's great if you love to rev the engine to get going.... but you don't drive on the race track and most of us don't either.... it's fun but don't kid yourself that you're really accelerating fast

I suggest you google and read articles about torque and power

Without going into to much detail, I am not saying high revving, turbos and new technology is the only way. What I am saying is that displacement isn't the only way to go fast. Yes large displacement can be fast and can be down right awesome, but it isn't the only way to go. You seem to have an irrational hate for anything but a big engine.

I get very frustrated when muscle heads start going on about how big V8's are the only way, only to get their ass handed to them by something with an engine half the size or with a blow dryer attached.

You have used excuses such as expensive, complicated, artificially increase power. There is nothing artificial about it, they are a power adder, bottom line. I am not saying it isn't expensive to add a SC or turbo, but it is far cheaper than an engine swap. Yes more pieces make things more complicated, but if that was the argument a rotary engine would end that pretty quick.

You seem to think I am against large engines, that is not the case at all. My entire point is technology can and does create better more powerful engines. the 2.0 SkyActiv makes more power and TQ than the old 2.0, end of argument.

The fact you think I have little knowledge is beyond laughable. When in fact I have great knowledge but am very open and excited about new and improved technology. Being complacent with what you have will get you no where. Technological advancements are a great thing, and apparently something you do not embrace.

[Aitch]

Kessley Snipes, TheMAN, the e-pissing match has gone on long enough. I'm not deleting anything yet as there is some decent debate in there as well, but any further personal bashing will not be tolerated.

If you want to debate this further, keep it friendly.

[Kiyomi]

then what we need is an older 2.0 vrs a 2.0 skyactive on the 1/4 mile to settle things. curious to who would win. :D

[zzz3]

then what we need is an older 2.0 vrs a 2.0 skyactive on the 1/4 mile to settle things. curious to who would win. :D

lol i think skyactiv would win because of the new tranny, even with my mods. im down to find out though!

[Kiyomi]

lol i think skyactiv would win because of the new tranny, even with my mods. im down to find out though!

you might be surprised. thats why im curious as well.

[TheMAN]

Without going into to much detail, I am not saying high revving, turbos and new technology is the only way. What I am saying is that displacement isn't the only way to go fast. Yes large displacement can be fast and can be down right awesome, but it isn't the only way to go. You seem to have an irrational hate for anything but a big engine.

I get very frustrated when muscle heads start going on about how big V8's are the only way, only to get their ass handed to them by something with an engine half the size or with a blow dryer attached.

You have used excuses such as expensive, complicated, artificially increase power. There is nothing artificial about it, they are a power adder, bottom line. I am not saying it isn't expensive to add a SC or turbo, but it is far cheaper than an engine swap. Yes more pieces make things more complicated, but if that was the argument a rotary engine would end that pretty quick.

You seem to think I am against large engines, that is not the case at all. My entire point is technology can and does create better more powerful engines. the 2.0 SkyActiv makes more power and TQ than the old 2.0, end of argument.

The fact you think I have little knowledge is beyond laughable. When in fact I have great knowledge but am very open and excited about new and improved technology. Being complacent with what you have will get you no where. Technological advancements are a great thing, and apparently something you do not embrace.
numbers alone don't mean anything... go drive a skyactiv and mzr 2.0 back to back.... there is more low end torque in the MZR 2.0... from idle to 3000rpm.... you have to rev the skyactiv to get going... MZR more driveable for around town, skyactiv not... plain and simple.... hell, the honda K20A makes more power and torque than either of these engines, but is it more driveable? NO... numbers are not the end of all be things in engine performance and driveability!

as I already said many times, the difference here is the powerband... it is shifted up in the skyactiv whereas the MZR 2.0's is biased towards the lower RPMs (and thereby less efficient for power)

nobody here was talking about engine swaps or modifications... this whole thread was just about MZR vs skyactiv, and in turn became a thread about big vs small engines... the fact remains, turbos and superchargers still cost a lot of money in factory setups, because of emissions, reliability requirements, and engineering involved... these power adders artificially increase engine displacement by adding more air to them... why do people call non-turbo engines "naturally aspirated"?

I never disagreed with you that small engines couldn't make big power... I simply disagreed with you that small engines could replace big engines... it is hard to do so when power band and torque band needs come to play... heavy duty (truck) applications will continue to need larger displacement engines, both for reduced engine stresses for reliability, and also for low end torque while having power, something that can't be done with small engines

I have no hate for small engines nor do I have any love for big engines... as I already said, I don't like V6s or V8s and I like the skyactiv very much.... but I can't help but objectively state that the skyactiv has little low end torque compared to mazda's older 2.0l engines... stop thinking that I'm a V8 only guy.... I'M NOT

this whole argument lies in the fact that I have a problem with jalopnik's statement regarding "replacement for displacement"... you whole heartedly bought into it, which is only half true... if it was really all that, why haven't all cars and trucks have little engines running around? why have compact cars get bigger and bigger engines in the past 20 years instead of still having little 1.6l engines that have 170hp and 130lbs/ft of torque at 7000rpm? Yeah, it makes a lot of power and decent torque... it's only great for the track and useless on the street... the Honda way... do you honestly think it fits the tastes of North Americans? This all comes back to my point.... numbers don't mean everything... and if you do think that is all there is to it, then you're making the auto maker's marketing departments very happy because that's what the "horsepower wars" have always been about... numbers

so yeah, technology is great and improved engine performance immensely... but it isn't the only answer to replacing large engines (at this time)... forced induction and/or variable valve timing and other fancy technologies in small engines can't ever provide the response, smooth power delivery and high torque of a big engine... you are still dealing physics at the end of the day

then what we need is an older 2.0 vrs a 2.0 skyactive on the 1/4 mile to settle things. curious to who would win. :D

the skyactiv wins of course (probably not by much) because it truely does have more torque and power.... up top!
power wins races at the end of the day, but torque is what gets you moving

[Kiyomi]

i would agree with everything you said but that power wins races at the end of the day. drivers win races at the end of the day. :D you could have the fastest car at the track, does not mean ur gonna win. :D

[Sebi]

So in day-to-day driving, shifting below 3000 rpm, the 2.5L is better performance-wise, but mileage is worse... right?

[Kessly Snipes]

I never disagreed with you that small engines couldn't make big power... I simply disagreed with you that small engines could replace big engines... it is hard to do so when power band and torque band needs come to play... heavy duty (truck) applications will continue to need larger displacement engines, both for reduced engine stresses for reliability, and also for low end torque while having power, something that can't be done with small engines


Mr F-150 disagrees.
http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/ford/f-150/2011/fd/2011_ford_f-150_actf34_fd_923102_717.jpg

Listen I know low end tq matters, but it isn't the only thing that matters. I drive a SkyActiv, I know how its drive-ability is, I have yet to have an issue around town or on the highway. I am not going to beat my buddies GTI R, but i have no issues anywhere (putting along in 6th at 60, Getting up to 120 in any gear, passing from 100-130 in 6th).

You cannot replace low end tq (unless you have an SC), but you sure can replace that displacement for nearly every application. Not every car needs 300 ft.lbs of tq at 1,400 rpm.

[Aitch]

Anyone have an engine dyno/torque curve for the old 2.0L MZR engine? This is the only one I've been able to find of the Skyactiv, which shows the torque at 2300RPM has surpassed the peak torque of the MZR engine. It does dip at 2500RPM but again it is still equal to the old MZR's peak (135 ft-lbs).

http://i40.tinypic.com/20z5z6f.jpg

Having said that, my experience is also that the real thrust from the engine comes in the higher rev ranges (agrees with the dyno) and I feel that you need to wring out the engine a bit more than the old 2.0L. This feeling is also due to a) the auto-trans being a bit mushier than I was used to with my standard before, and b) even though the torque at lower RPMs is similar to the old engine, now that there is more at higher RPMs the lower range feels less powerful, respective to the higher RPMs.

[Kessly Snipes]

So in day-to-day driving, shifting below 3000 rpm, the 2.5L is better performance-wise, but mileage is worse... right?

I shift at 3k with no issues. But yes the 2.5 should be a bit peppier, but it isn't a HUGE gap. Just a few HP and TQ

[Kessly Snipes]

WOW, the 4-2-1 header really makes a huge difference at the 2500 prm mark!!

With the 6 speed I have found no issues.

[Kiyomi]

I shift at 3k with no issues. But yes the 2.5 should be a bit peppier, but it isn't a HUGE gap. Just a few HP and TQ

I cant wait till we have meets in the spring time! :D

[Kessly Snipes]

I cant wait till we have meets in the spring time! :D

And see what we all already know, that the 2.5 stock is slightly faster than the 2.0 SkyActiv tock?

[Aitch]

WOW, the 4-2-1 header really makes a huge difference at the 2500 prm mark!!

With the 6 speed I have found no issues.

The article I dug that from indicates its not all from the header, but also the rest of the tuning; just so people don't go crazy over that detail missing from the 3.

[Kiyomi]

And see what we all already know, that the 2.5 stock is slightly faster than the 2.0 SkyActiv tock?

friends dont let friends leave cars stock. haha nooooo. but to see the modding potential of each model ofcourse! and to have a good time :D

[zzz3]

you might be surprised. thats why im curious as well.

well my best pass was 16.8 (lol first time) in 8c~ temps with rx8's which are heavy. i think i could probably do low to mid 16's with lighter rims and better temps.

anyone have the 1/4 time of skyactiv?

[Kessly Snipes]

friends dont let friends leave cars stock. haha nooooo. but to see the modding potential of each model ofcourse! and to have a good time :D

Very good point. I will be staying stock for at least a year, then might do some minor stuff. I am really interested to see how the SkyActiv takes to mods. I am hoping being much higher compression that it does very well, but who knows.

I would also like to see how stock vs stock all the engines do against each other.

[Kessly Snipes]

well my best pass was 16.8 (lol first time) in 8c~ temps with rx8's which are heavy. i think i could probably do low to mid 16's with lighter rims and better temps.

anyone have the 1/4 time of skyactiv?

Are you a 2.0?

I know it will be slower than 16. My mx6 did 15.1 stock (most were in the 15.4 range) and this is much slower.

[Kessly Snipes]

The article I dug that from indicates its not all from the header, but also the rest of the tuning; just so people don't go crazy over that detail missing from the 3.

So that means we can have it re tuned for more power pretty easily? Or do they mean the tune with the other headers (making it 14:1) is what makes the difference?

[Aitch]

So that means we can have it re tuned for more power pretty easily? Or do they mean the tune with the other headers (making it 14:1) is what makes the difference?

I'm positive it is the combination of the two that makes the power. The re-tuning would be easy in the sense that "easy" for our cars usually means "non-existent vendors who can actually perform a tune".

[Kessly Snipes]

I'm positive it is the combination of the two that makes the power. The re-tuning would be easy in the sense that "easy" for our cars usually means "non-existent vendors who can actually perform a tune".

Couldn't a dealership just re-flash with the CX5 tune?

[Kiyomi]

Couldn't a dealership just re-flash with the CX5 tune?

gl finding a tune for the skyactive.

[Booter22]

no you couldnt tune a mazda 3 with a cx5 tune. regrettably it doesnt work like that. not to mention im sure it would throw every other system way out of wack, besides the sky active 3s now are only half of what will be in 2-3 years at most. these cars only recieved the engine and transmission. they dont have the same exhaust header the cx5 does as the vehicle wasnt big enough to fit it. it also does not have all the other components. frame and supports and lighter weight materials used in this car yet. the cx5 is the first to have it all. where as the 3 is pretty much the trans and engine less header in the same body as the 2010 with a facelift.

[redav]

Anyone have an engine dyno/torque curve for the old 2.0L MZR engine? This is the only one I've been able to find of the Skyactiv, which shows the torque at 2300RPM has surpassed the peak torque of the MZR engine. It does dip at 2500RPM but again it is still equal to the old MZR's peak (135 ft-lbs).

http://i40.tinypic.com/20z5z6f.jpg

Having said that, my experience is also that the real thrust from the engine comes in the higher rev ranges (agrees with the dyno) and I feel that you need to wring out the engine a bit more than the old 2.0L. This feeling is also due to a) the auto-trans being a bit mushier than I was used to with my standard before, and b) even though the torque at lower RPMs is similar to the old engine, now that there is more at higher RPMs the lower range feels less powerful, respective to the higher RPMs.

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l634/phytheaux/2012_mazda3.jpg

[Kessly Snipes]

SkyACtiv review on Motoring 2012

Nothing but positive things to say. Giving Mazda ton's of praise for not jumping on the hybrid bandwagon, instead they are happy MAzda is trying to improve the gas engine. Also mentioned how fun it was to drive and the handling is great.

I'll try to find it online.

[Jweekes]

Hey Snipes. They finally uploaded the episode you were talking about.

http://motoringtv.com/episode-8--p149467

[JHX 1138]

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I was doing a lot of research on this subject lately so I thought I'd share.

caranddriver.com has a lot of PDFs which are their "test results" from their road tests. They extensively test performance, even the types of things that matter in the real world, i.e. time to go from 50mph to 70mph (which is basically Overtaking)

Dunno if I'm allowed to post links but here they are:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/11-chevrolet-cruze-and-12-ford-focus-vs-jetta-elantra-and-mazda-3-comparison-test-car-and-driversmall-car-sedan.pdf

From above, the 2011 or 2012 Mazda3 with 2.5L and 5AT does 0-60mph in 7.4s and quarter mile in 16 seconds.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-mazda-3-i-touring-skyactiv-test-review

From above, the 2012 Mz3 SkyActiv 2.0 with 6MT does 0-60 in 7.9s and the 6AT version does 0-60 in 8.3s. Quarter mile for 6MT is 16 seconds, but wasn't tested for 6AT.

[JHX 1138]

Oh, and this PDF has performance info for the 2011/2012 Mz3 with 2.5L and 6MT:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2010-kia-forte-sx-vs-2010-mazda-3-s-sport-2010-volkswagen-golf2010-volkswagen-golf-vs-2010-kia-forte-vs-2010-mazda-3-s-sport-complete-specs-and-performance-data.pdf

Summary: 0-60 in 7.3s, quarter mile in 15.7s

I'd be interested in "overtaking" perf specs for the SkyActiv (50-70 or 30-50) if anyone can find it... this is more to satiate my curiosity, I'm obviously not going to put down a deposit on a car based on statistics :P

[beyond]

In terms of "overtaking", I'm assuming you're referring to city? Or do you mean highway?

In the city, I find that the car doesn't have much low-end torque. If you want to pass someone, I'd usually use 2nd or 3rd gear for the accel. The car comes more "alive" after 3000 rpm I find.

On the highway, I usually need to downshift to 4th or 3rd to get power to pass someone.

Hope it helps. I drive a 6MT btw if that's helpful...

[JHX 1138]

thx for the info, but i was more looking for some "professional" tests similar to what Car & Driver conducted, and published... although based on what you said, maybe the SkyActiv will fare better in 50-70 rather than 30-50...


In terms of "overtaking", I'm assuming you're referring to city? Or do you mean highway?

In the city, I find that the car doesn't have much low-end torque. If you want to pass someone, I'd usually use 2nd or 3rd gear for the accel. The car comes more "alive" after 3000 rpm I find.

On the highway, I usually need to downshift to 4th or 3rd to get power to pass someone.

Hope it helps. I drive a 6MT btw if that's helpful...

[z00min]

Just a question, but who actually "drives around" at 3000+ ?

[greyseason]

Just a question, but who actually "drives around" at 3000+ ?

The only time I'm at 3000 is if I'm going faster than 120kph on the highway, or if I wanna hear the engine around town. I'm in a sky sedan 6M

[proDJtege]

Found this thread while searching about the idea of swapping a new skyactive into an old model mazda3.

I know anything is possible, but how difficult could one expect it to be to swap a new SKyactive engine into, say maybe, a 2008 Mazda3 GT hatch or sedan?

(All resource/cost/feasibility concerns aside)

I know next to nothing about engine swaps, but initially I imagine the ECU would need to be re-worked with the instruments? and there must be enough room in most of the models to accommodate the engine, right?

[greyseason]

Have you read the thread a bout the speed3 sedan swap? He listed almost everything he needed to swap it in. Id imagine almost the same things would be needed for a sky-gen1 swap, but all the motot mounts may be different \(the sky TMM, and possibly gen2 is)