Skyactiv-- how do you like it?

Honestly guys, I'm disappointed in you. Two pages and no one has discussed the true significance of SkyActiv.

Mazda made a corporate decision at the highest level to not follow the crowd. You know, the crowd, the one you all complain about, the crowd that is going to hybrid cars and electric cars and saying those cars are the only way forward.

Instead, Mazda decided that there is room for improving the platform we already have and we GRM already love: the internal combustion engine. Why chase range in an electric car when the battery technology isn't there? Why lug around heavy batteries in your hybrid when the hybrid technology does NOTHING for highway mileage? Why run the risk of your $5,000 battery pack underperforming in a New York winter, or failing early in the Phoenix heat? And why spend millions developing that hybrid technology when it's primary application is to the United States regulatory regime, which might change at any time? [Europe gets diesel cars and the United States does not because we clamped down much more on particulate emissions.] Mazda instead is focusing on making the cars lighter, more efficient, with better combustion. This promotes better emissions and better mileage but also a better driving experience. Lighter is better, remember? And we GRM folk are focused on the driving experience. Mazda is the company that is engineering cars for people like us. They are pursuing an engineering focus that suits the needs of us enthusiasts.

SkyActiv is unique because other automakers are chasing unproven technology. Nissan has bet the company on electric cars. Toyota bet on hybrids. If you remember, lots of other manufacturers jumped into the hybrid parade but have since faded. Gas prices are high again but where's the hybrid hype? Hybrid sales in California tanked when they stopped giving them carpool lane privileges. SkyActiv avoids the weight, complexity, repairs and engineering costs of hybrids and batteries and avoids the whole range issue of electrics.

I think the GRM community should be giving Mazda a standing ovation for pursuing a focused engineering approach rather than the political hot topic of the day, and for designing cars that still focus on a good driving experience, and at a modest price point.

This topic is bigger than you realize.

David

Don't lump us all together, I was saying the same thing, but in not such an eloquent way. I applaud the engineering that made this engine happen,and it can only get better. But then again I am a Wankel lover, so I must not be so smart.

I applaud the technology. I lol at the marketing.

I see a cool idea in the high tech bits of the engine, and the high CR. I'm not shocked by Mazda "not following the pack' or whatever. That was what they did with the rotories, this isnt quite the same. That said, for a while I thought they were going the way of Subaru, And this is proof they arent quite going beige on us.

I also would not be a 'first adopter' of an engine with all these doohickeys AND a high CR. It may be painful.

I got a feeling this is going to be the next Wankel situation- an awesome motor, if you are ok with dealing some things that some people arent ok with.

I think in the end the things Ford is doing with the eco boost will pan out better. Asking more of an engine via turbo has always been more reliable/less fussy (once sorted, ofcourse) then a high pressure ratio car.

Mazdax605 wrote: I don't get where people are saying it isn't anything fancy. Where else do you see a production engine running 13:1 compression on 87 octane weasel piss fuel?

I think GM was doing that 10 years ago.

Zomby woof wrote:

Mazdax605 wrote: I don't get where people are saying it isn't anything fancy. Where else do you see a production engine running 13:1 compression on 87 octane weasel piss fuel?

I think GM was doing that 10 years ago.

In what? I have never heard of it before. Enlighten me, please.

Chevy Celta 1.0 L 3 cylinder.

DWNSHFT wrote: Honestly guys, I'm disappointed in you. Two pages and no one has discussed the true significance of SkyActiv. Mazda made a corporate decision at the highest level to not follow the crowd. You know, the crowd, the one you all complain about, the crowd that is going to hybrid cars and electric cars and saying those cars are the only way forward. Instead, Mazda decided that there is room for improving the platform we already have and we GRM already love: the internal combustion engine. Why chase range in an electric car when the battery technology isn't there? Why lug around heavy batteries in your hybrid when the hybrid technology does NOTHING for highway mileage? Why run the risk of your $5,000 battery pack underperforming in a New York winter, or failing early in the Phoenix heat? And why spend millions developing that hybrid technology when it's primary application is to the United States regulatory regime, which might change at any time? [Europe gets diesel cars and the United States does not because we clamped down much more on particulate emissions.] Mazda instead is focusing on making the cars lighter, more efficient, with better combustion. This promotes better emissions and better mileage but also a better driving experience. Lighter is better, remember? And we GRM folk are focused on the driving experience. Mazda is the company that is engineering cars for people like us. They are pursuing an engineering focus that suits the needs of us enthusiasts. SkyActiv is unique because other automakers are chasing unproven technology. Nissan has bet the company on electric cars. Toyota bet on hybrids. If you remember, lots of other manufacturers jumped into the hybrid parade but have since faded. Gas prices are high again but where's the hybrid hype? Hybrid sales in California tanked when they stopped giving them carpool lane privileges. SkyActiv avoids the weight, complexity, repairs and engineering costs of hybrids and batteries and avoids the whole range issue of electrics. I think the GRM community should be giving Mazda a standing ovation for pursuing a focused engineering approach rather than the political hot topic of the day, and for designing cars that still focus on a good driving experience, and at a modest price point. This topic is bigger than you realize. David

You mean the same path that ford is already taking? Im sure there are more, but with mazda formerly being part of f, its an eaiser match..

Looking at the engine specs, the three and the focus are identical except for bore and stroke- di, dual vct, compression, almost the same power torque f-e, etc. And mazda talked about a 1.6 right, just like the upcoming fusion...

I applaud mazda for doing it, no question. Very cool. But they are not the only ones going down this path.

Would the Hyundai Elantra 40 mpg engine fall into this same class?
How about the 2L turbo engine in the Sonata?

The Chevy 1.4L turbo in the Cruze?

It is cool but I equate the Skyactive to what Apple does. Take something that others are also doing and market the heck out of it.

Zomby woof wrote: Chevy Celta 1.0 L 3 cylinder.

Not in America

Really? Who else has an a light alloy 2l variable valvelift diesel that needs no aftertreatment to run clean enough to pass the new emissions tests and revs to 6 grand and puts out 340 ftlbs? I have a bad feeling they'll only put that jewel of an engine in an suv or something, but there is a mazda6 test mule out there that seems to be impressing the E36M3 outta the reporters. Me I want one in a miata. I like where they're going with this stuff, they know that series hybrids are a crock, and are putting the polish in internal combustion.

Not in America

South America I bet.

Rusted_Busted_Spit wrote: It is cool but I equate the Skyactive to what Apple does. Take something that others are also doing and market the heck out of it.

I'm not an Apple fanboi, but if you think that's all Apple's about, you're coming up short in the knowledge department.

In reply to kreb:

I am not going to get into an argument and I have no ax to grind with Apple but all of the hardware that Apple uses is made buy the same companies that make hardware for everyone else. The software is different but for the most part it is design and marketing and they are very good at that.

As for the knowlage department, I have been in IT for about 15 years.

In reply to DWNSHFT:

Well said sir!

In reply to alfadriver:

Except your company is putting the engines in gigantic fat ass cars with lousy aero. Mazda is actually addressing every part of the car. You guys only did the engines.

Rusted_Busted_Spit wrote: It is cool but I equate the Skyactive to what Apple does. Take something that others are also doing and market the heck out of it.

Not a single other manufacturer is addressing weight, let alone lowered ride heights, improved aero, more efficient drivetrains (not just more gears), etc, etc. Y'all keep focusing on just the engines and it's so much more than that...

Javelin wrote: Not a *single* other manufacturer is addressing weight, let alone lowered ride heights, improved aero, more efficient drivetrains (not just more gears), etc, etc. Y'all keep focusing on just the engines and it's so much more than that...

Wait, what? Component weight reduction is one of the hottest topics for all OEM's at the moment. They just aren't marketing it in the same way Mazda is.

Interestingly, it appears that NA get's 12:1 compression on the gas motor, compared to 14:1 in Europe.

njansenv wrote:

Javelin wrote: Not a *single* other manufacturer is addressing weight, let alone lowered ride heights, improved aero, more efficient drivetrains (not just more gears), etc, etc. Y'all keep focusing on just the engines and it's so much more than that...

Wait, what? Component weight reduction is one of the hottest topics for all OEM's at the moment. They just aren't marketing it in the same way Mazda is.

And name one car that's dropped weight over it's predecessor?

Javelin wrote:

njansenv wrote:

Javelin wrote: Not a *single* other manufacturer is addressing weight, let alone lowered ride heights, improved aero, more efficient drivetrains (not just more gears), etc, etc. Y'all keep focusing on just the engines and it's so much more than that...

Wait, what? Component weight reduction is one of the hottest topics for all OEM's at the moment. They just aren't marketing it in the same way Mazda is.

And name *one* car that's dropped weight over it's predecessor?

I believe the progression from the Mercedes R230 chassis to the R231 represents several hundred pounds of weight loss.

I have no idea what a Mercedes R230 or R231 are. Do you have the actual manufacturer weights and the as measured weights? (I say this because Lamborghini claims the Aventador weighs 3450Lbs but every magazine that has weighed it has gotten over 4000Lbs).

Audi A8 is another, Corvette is another... there are certainly more than you are implying. Automakers are trying REALLY hard to reduce weight, but consumers want the extras. Read a few magazines that are targeted at OEM's (I like Vehicle Dynamics) and you'll see how hot a topic weight reduction is.

My very brief google searching suggests that the current marketed Skyactive 3 is within 50 lbs of it's predecessor.

You have a tendency to take this stuff personally (or at least appear to). Relax.

In reply to Javelin:

Chassis codes for SL-class Mercs. They claim the 2012+ SL500 is ~275lb lighter than it's predecessor. I don't know the weights off hand, but I do know they're transitioning to a mostly aluminum car, so I don't have much trouble believing them.

Next-generation-2013-R231-Mercedes-SL-curb-weight-will-be-300-pounds-lighter-than-the-current-generation