Mazda skyactiv cartoon

[Darkfrosty7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJQQq1XP7D0&feature=feedu

timeline didn't have the rx7 fd... just skipped from 89 to 2003 lol

[Hoodzy]

Does anyone know the tech specs ie hp, fuel mileage of those engines yet?? I recall not being overly impressed.

[The Wolf]

2.0L - 155hp, 148 tq, 27 MPG city / 39 MPG hwy

[Hoodzy]

Well that gets them into competing with Honda Civics fuel mileage.. Still we all know our Mazda 3's don't get what Mazda says they should get.

[Jeff-TheBiz]

Well that gets them into competing with Honda Civics fuel mileage.. Still we all know our Mazda 3's don't get what Mazda says they should get.

I can assure you that Hondas don't get what Honda says they should get either..

All of those numbers are produced in a very controlled setting

[The Wolf]

Yeah, they basically run the car on a treadmill and analyze the exhaust fumes.

Don't know why they don't just run the car at 60km/h on a flat track for 100km :S

[Hoodzy]

Well lets compare the NEW skyactiv engine to the Honda engine.. I am assuming that the engine they have in the 2010 Honda are much older no??
I'm just really disappointed that they make it out to some leap and bounds when they are just finally catching up to an engine that's what 3-5 years old??

[Jeff-TheBiz]

I would have assumed we would have all been in electric hover crafts with auto pilot by now as well..

Probably not in my lifetime

[thanu31]

Well lets compare the NEW skyactiv engine to the Honda engine.. I am assuming that the engine they have in the 2010 Honda are much older no??
I'm just really disappointed that they make it out to some leap and bounds when they are just finally catching up to an engine that's what 3-5 years old??

thats how i feel too, i know the rsx, has a 2.0 producing 160hp, and its VERY fuel efficient... catching up indeed

only good part is no lack of torque like the hondas

[Hoodzy]

Yah crap.. Acura RSX engine was introduced in 2002!!!
160hp and 140 tq... that engine is over 9 years old!
I believe they average around 32mpg

[zzz3]

b series was making that kind of power 15 years ago? do i win?

power and fuel economy is something else. the civic that gets 40mpg doesnt even have the same kind of (usable) power.

[Hoodzy]

What do you mean something else? Also what do you mean same kind of (usable) power??
There yah go.. Mazda has finally caught up to 15 year old engine with the amazing new sky technology.

[Fuman]

14:1 compression ratio on regular gas?
One hell of a feat by the Mazda Engineers.

[zzz3]

What do you mean something else? Also what do you mean same kind of (usable) power??
There yah go.. Mazda has finally caught up to 15 year old engine with the amazing new sky technology.

there are lots of low displacement engines making big power. i mentioned the b16 to show that low displacement engines making big power have been around for a while, but not many that make power and fuel economy. especially nowadays where weight is significantly higher due to growing footprint of the average compact car as well as the inclusion of newer safety equipment (had to mention the last sentence in case someone is tempted pull crx card).

40mpg variants: HF vs. Skyactiv
1.8 civic makes 140hp @ 6500rpm / 128tq @ 4300rpm and 29city/41hwy/33combined; 2.0 makes 155hp @6000rpm / 148tq@ 4100rpm and 28city/40hwy/?combined

the last gen civic wasnt making 40 mpg (including other compact car models), so mazda definitely hasnt "caught up" because there is nothing to catch up to being that 40mpg is new territory.


14:1 compression ratio on regular gas?
One hell of a feat by the Mazda Engineers.

12:1 for us (n. america) i think.

[Hoodzy]

Lets compare the Acura RSX engine.. that is now 9 years old.
RSX 160 140 32mpg/average
Sky Activ 155 148 35mpg/average

That being said it's obviously just not the engine. But everything else as well. Transmission, aerodynamics, weight .. obviously as you have mentioned newer vehicles are heavier as they are safer. But as far as numbers produced strictly in the area of hp and tq.. That's a 5hp loss and 8 tq gain over the RSX engine.. So in 9 years that's all Mazda can do.. :(
I'm sure if we did some more searching we could find another engine very comparable that's just as old??

[zzz3]

Lets compare the Acura RSX engine.. that is now 9 years old.
RSX 160 140 32mpg/average
Sky Activ 155 148 35mpg/average

That being said it's obviously just not the engine. But everything else as well. Transmission, aerodynamics, weight .. obviously as you have mentioned newer vehicles are heavier as they are safer. But as far as numbers produced strictly in the area of hp and tq.. That's a 5hp loss and 8 tq gain over the RSX engine.. So in 9 years that's all Mazda can do.. :(
I'm sure if we did some more searching we could find another engine very comparable that's just as old??

i quoted epa numbers (under the 2008 revised testing cycle). if you look at the 2006 rsx, its 24/31 or 26 combined. i am not sure were you get 32 or 35 (skyactiv) for that matter.

i think you should ask honda why we dont have electric hover crafts with auto pilot by now (as jeff mentioned). b/k series has been capable of 200hp for over a decade, whats the hold up? i want to have 200hp and 40mpg.

maybe i should get a cbr1000.
/sarcasm

[boyracer]

:pop

[Hoodzy]

I got the numbers from the RSX forums and just averaged the sky active numbers you gave me.. but we can't really debate over the small number differences between the mpg until skyactive is actually released.
I'm not saying in 10 years we should be in hovercrafts.. the point I am trying to make is when you compare the new sky active numbers to an old honda engine.. the numbers are ever so small. If the engine was a solid 20hp/10tq over that engine and actually gets 41mpg then I will be impressed (somewhat) :P

[canada man]

i would consider myself an expert on the rsx because i am an owner of a racecar rsx. i would say that the kseries engines that are out now and even when they were first released on the rsx were ahead of their time. they pushed out alot of power while having relatively good fuel consumption... too be honest i think that the kseries are the best engines in the world because you can easily tune them and there are several high performance parts that will allow you to get the most out of it...i am definitely disappointed that mazda has been lacking in the game..the rsx is an awesome car and i will never get rid of it cause i have made it super fast now just by adding an intake...the only problem with the rsx is that the brakes go out pretty fast because when vtak kicks in, you're going hella fast and eventually the brakes take a really good beating... ive just installed brembo like brakes on my ride and cant wait to take it out for a rip!

[zzz3]

the praise for the skyactiv is that it also manages to be efficient. there is more to an engine than power figures (that's whats impressive to me, and hopefully others as well). looking at one aspect and turning a blind eye to the rest is ignorant to say the least (i.e. emission control system to meet more stringent regulations; incorporating di, vvt to meet rising cafe standards etc).


I got the numbers from the RSX forums and just averaged the sky active numbers you gave me.. but we can't really debate over the small number differences between the mpg until skyactive is actually released.
I'm not saying in 10 years we should be in hovercrafts.. the point I am trying to make is when you compare the new sky active numbers to an old honda engine.. the numbers are ever so small. If the engine was a solid 20hp/10tq over that engine and actually gets 41mpg then I will be impressed (somewhat) :P

[Hoodzy]

I wasn't aware of the 'rest' feel free to inform me of the stringent regulations. What di is. What vvt cafe standards are? etc?