Not sure if anyone has posted about it yet. Kind of a mix of a diesel and a gas motor. Interesting
Not sure if anyone has posted about it yet. Kind of a mix of a diesel and a gas motor. Interesting
This is the first I've heard of the per-cylinder pressure monitoring and correction on these engines. That will take a seriously powerful ECU compared to any that have been made before. It'll be the first time in decades that ECU technology will come within sight of the limits of computer technology.
I remember reading a while back that their monitoring is fast enough to utilize the compression ignition when the conditions are appropriate and switch back to spark ignition seamlessly without the driver noticing. The drive tests I've seen of the cars have all been good. It is a major jump for ICE technology, particularly putting it in consumer hands.
I'm really excited about it. What I've read so far is very positive. I'm really interested to see what it drives like (responsiveness, acceleration, etc) and what the real world MPG is like.
What are the advantages of this?
Toyman01 said:What are the advantages of this?
Runs super-lean, improving fuel economy.
Mazda's really pushing the envelope with ICEs, and I love it.
Factory supercharged, mild hybrid, and manual transmissions with better mpg's than they already get? Huzzah Mazda, huzzah! I have a feeling these will be a wee bit harder for the aftermarket to figure out, but man if and when they do it sounds like a fun platform.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
VW has had per cylinder pressure monitoring at least since the common rail TDI, it was available stateside in '09, a year or two before that elsewhere.
Toyman01 said:What are the advantages of this?
Better fuel economy AND lower emissions AND more power...And supposedly all substantially so.
skierd said:Factory supercharged, mild hybrid, and manual transmissions with better mpg's than they already get? Huzzah Mazda, huzzah! I have a feeling these will be a wee bit harder for the aftermarket to figure out, but man if and when they do it sounds like a fun platform.
The aftermarket is already way behind the OEs. I'm looking forward to checking out the X.
And if you thought the Skyactive-X was cool, check out the buzz on Skyactive-3 engines. Things like 56% thermal efficiency and CO2 emissions on par with EVs that are recharged by coal-generated electricity.
In reply to ultraclyde :
Note to self: 2021 is when PHEV vehicles will be both affordable and fun. Hold out until then. It'll probably be a CX-5 though.
ultraclyde said:And if you thought the Skyactive-X was cool, check out the buzz on Skyactive-3 engines. Things like 56% thermal efficiency and CO2 emissions on par with EVs that are recharged by coal-generated electricity.
From the above link:
If Mazda can increase the thermal efficiency of its third-generation Skyactiv engine by about 27 percent, to 56 percent
The term "if" always rubs me the wrong way. When a politician says "If we can reduce homelessness by 27%, it'll be awesome", I know it means nothing because he didn't say whether he would or how he'd do so.
I sincerely hope they can and do, but after hearing such weasel words for so long, we'll just have to wait and see.
In reply to kb58 :
Well, certainly, but in Mazda's defense they were talking the same way about the compression ignition system not long ago, and it's going to market next year.
ultraclyde said:CO2 emissions on par with EVs that are recharged by coal-generated electricity.
That's nothing special by today's standards, a coal-powered EV can easily be dirtier than a modern ICE vehicle. They might actually be saying that to mask some emissions downsides of those huge efficiency increases.
Driven5 said:Toyman01 said:What are the advantages of this?
Better fuel economy AND lower emissions AND more power...And supposedly all substantially so.
On an engine out standpoint, maybe. But few actually know that on an engine out standpoint, diesel engines are considerably cleaner than gasoline engines.
But the chemistry in the exhaust of a gas engine is a whole lot easier to reduce to levels that are almost nothing compared to diesels. And running lean really messes up that chemistry.
Also, this rather complicated motor is in direct competition with Toyota's new, very simple, NA 2.5l motor, which has pretty remarkable efficiency. The only tech the consumer has to really pay for are the DI injectors- and even that is not really tech anymore. To the industry, the Toyota engine is far more important than the Mazda.
alfadriver said:Also, this rather complicated motor is in direct competition with Toyota's new, very simple, NA 2.5l motor, which has pretty remarkable efficiency. The only tech the consumer has to really pay for are the DI injectors- and even that is not really tech anymore. To the industry, the Toyota engine is far more important than the Mazda.
Based on Mazda's statements, it appears that the Skyactiv X could potentially have a 7%-10% greater thermal efficiency than even the vaunted new Dynamic Force engine from Toyota. It's my (admittedly limited) understanding that in the world of engines, such an improvement would generally be considered rather substantial and 'important'...Regardless of 'complexity'.
Is the importance of the Toyota engine within 'the industry' mostly just in the fact that it's an advancement that can be relatively easily and cheaply caught up to utilizing existing technology? Because based on what I've seen in modern cars, complexity in the name of advancement is hardly a genuine concern.
alfadriver said:But the chemistry in the exhaust of a gas engine is a whole lot easier to reduce to levels that are almost nothing compared to diesels. And running lean really messes up that chemistry.
I believe conventional wisdom states that CO2 emissions should go down and NOX emissions should go up with engines like this. Since this engine is part of Mazda's effort to cut CO2 emissions this makes sense. But apparently Mazda further claims that NOX emissions during SPCCI operation to also be low enough to not require a lean-NOX catalyst to meet emissions requirements. I do realize that you probably know infinitely more than me on the subject. But since they're the only ones actually developing such an engine, I'll also still tend to give their direct experience with it the benefit of the doubt...At least until proven otherwise.
Nice. Now do it to the Wankel
Does either the Toyota engine mentioned by alfa or the Mazda engine mentioned in the OP use throttle plates?
Driven5 said:alfadriver said:Also, this rather complicated motor is in direct competition with Toyota's new, very simple, NA 2.5l motor, which has pretty remarkable efficiency. The only tech the consumer has to really pay for are the DI injectors- and even that is not really tech anymore. To the industry, the Toyota engine is far more important than the Mazda.
Based on Mazda's statements, it appears that the Skyactiv X could potentially have a 7%-10% greater thermal efficiency than even the vaunted new Dynamic Force engine from Toyota. It's my (admittedly limited) understanding that in the world of engines, such an improvement would generally be considered rather substantial and 'important'...Regardless of 'complexity'.
Is the importance of the Toyota engine within 'the industry' mostly just in the fact that it's an advancement that can be relatively easily and cheaply caught up to utilizing existing technology? Because based on what I've seen in modern cars, complexity in the name of advancement is hardly a genuine concern.
alfadriver said:But the chemistry in the exhaust of a gas engine is a whole lot easier to reduce to levels that are almost nothing compared to diesels. And running lean really messes up that chemistry.
I believe conventional wisdom states that CO2 emissions should go down and NOX emissions should go up with engines like this. Since this engine is part of Mazda's effort to cut CO2 emissions this makes sense. But apparently Mazda further claims that NOX emissions during SPCCI operation to also be low enough to not require a lean-NOX catalyst to meet emissions requirements. I do realize that you probably know infinitely more than me on the subject. But since they're the only ones actually developing such an engine, I'll also still tend to give their direct experience with it the benefit of the doubt...At least until proven otherwise.
Complexity matters a LOT. Especially when you get to factor in the cost of being more or less hybrid. Every OEM has a number where they will pursue a technology- $x/%CO2. There's no tech that should be done for the sake of doing it. If HCCI is that expensive, diesel become a huge player.
But, yes, the core thing about the Toyota is that it's all about doing good physics instead of putting on tech. Getting that kind of economy for essentially nothing is rather important.
As for the chemistry- it will be interesting to play with an HCCI motor to test the claim that it doesn't need a catalyst. Knowing how exhaust chemistry works, and what levels are needed to be SULEV30 (which it has to be, eventually)- I have big reservations that it will work as advertised. I'd bet there's something in the exhaust to deal with it (and it's not cheap).
pres589 said:Does either the Toyota engine mentioned by alfa or the Mazda engine mentioned in the OP use throttle plates?
Yes, the Toyota has a throttle. It's an incredibly conventional engine. Which is very good for the industry.
So your argument about complexity really boils down to an argument about assumed cost... We won't know for sure until it's released, but Mazda claims that the Skyactiv-X will be cheaper (and lighter) than either a hybrid or diesel would have been, and specifically that it will be closer in cost to the current Skyactiv-G (gasoline) than the Skyactiv-D (diesel).
Driven5 said:Toyman01 said:What are the advantages of this?
Better fuel economy AND lower emissions AND more power...And supposedly all substantially so.
And the theoretical downsides?
Driven5 said:So your argument about complexity really boils down to an argument about assumed cost... We won't know for sure until it's released, but Mazda claims that the Skyactiv-X will be cheaper (and lighter) than either a hybrid or diesel would have been, and specifically that it will be closer in cost to the current Skyactiv-G (gasoline) than the Skyactiv-D (diesel).
Yes, it's all about cost. It will be also be interesting to see a detailed cost break down analysis, especially considering how limited the HCCI can be used. For sure, it will be more expensive than the skyactive G, since it's DI with more stuff.
That's the reason everyone else bailed on the technology.
WildScotsRacingCampbellCougarSeed said:Driven5 said:Toyman01 said:What are the advantages of this?
Better fuel economy AND lower emissions AND more power...And supposedly all substantially so.
And the theoretical downsides?
Well as a race engine in imsa lmp2 it was a complete turd. But so has been the mazda aer engine aswell.
You'll need to log in to post.
