Biker16 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 http://www.motortrend.com/news/turbo-tech-2016-mazda-cx-9-taking-closer-look/ Much of the magic in the 2016 Mazda CX-9’s 2.5-liter turbo-four engine happens in the exhaust manifold. Its first trick is to plumb two paths into the turbo, a big one with a flow-control shutoff valve, and a smaller one. Mazda tech guru and former Sport Compact Car colleague Dave Coleman explains that at low engine speeds the valve shuts so that the smaller amount of exhaust gets forced through the little opening and onto the turbine a whole lot faster. He likens it to holding your thumb over the garden hose to spin that paint roller you’re cleaning way faster than the open hose would.Coleman describes the engine’s next trick with another paint metaphor. You know how compressed air is used to suck paint out of a reservoir when airbrushing that rainbow and unicorn onto your custom van? That same trick leverages the initial burst of high-velocity flow exiting a cylinder whose exhaust valve has just opened, to help suck the residual exhaust out of an adjacent intake runner serving the cylinder that fired immediately before it. It’s called the “ejector effect,” and a unique, ultra-short Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 I know I'm not an automotive engineer, but I would think this would also cause the exhaust to become restricted or somewhat pressured to cause carbon deposits to build up in the engine a lot sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share Posted May 25, 2016 I know I'm not an automotive engineer, but I would think this would also cause the exhaust to become restricted or somewhat pressured to cause carbon deposits to build up in the engine a lot sooner. Carbon build is more of an issue for the intake not the Exhaust. the exhaust heat usually burns through the Carbon build up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 (edited) A lot of ho ha over a Ute that sells in rather modest volumes.. Edited May 26, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 26, 2016 Author Share Posted May 26, 2016 A lot of ho ha over a Ute that sells in rather modest volumes.. What I appreciate is that Mazda takes to time to make smart changes to their engines, to make them better. which is why Mazda 3's 2.0 GDI outperforms the Focus 2.0 GDi even though they have the same basic origins. Mazda took the time to shrink the bore of the 2.0 to allow for a cooler running engine with increased Compression ratio, and less use of fuel to control combustion temps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Clearly, none of that technical advantage is lifting Mazda's sales to any great degree... There's a difference in having superiorfuel economy for CAFE and appealing to customers, in other parts of the world, Ford has now moved on from 2.0 GDI where mazda still clings to 2.0 and 2.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Don't get me wrong, I like Mazda and own one but I just don't see this tech leap making a huge splash with the market in general, only to a few who see merit in a 2.3 Turbo that is more efficient (diesel like) than the 2.3 Ecoboost.... Perhaps this is the alternative for a market where the SkyActive diesel was going to struggle. If so, this is a great redirect of technology that may in fact find its mark in other global markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) Clearly, none of that technical advantage is lifting Mazda's sales to any great degree... There's a difference in having superiorfuel economy for CAFE and appealing to customers, in other parts of the world, Ford has now moved on from 2.0 GDI where mazda still clings to 2.0 and 2.5 Is it OK to admire a company's good work, without all the negative noise? Mazda's CX5 AWD with it's 2.5 is more efficient than the Escape AWD with it's expensive GTDI technology. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35993&id=37363 Edited May 30, 2016 by Biker16 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Is it OK to admire a company's good work, without all the negative noise? Mazda's CX5 AWD with it's 2.5 is more efficient than the Escape AWD with it's expensive GTDI technology. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35993&id=37363 +1 Gasoline-powered Mazdas with SKYACTIV technology consistently outperform 'Ecoboosted' Fords in the same segment. Compare: Mazda 3 2.0L vs. Ford Focus 1.0T Mazda 6 2.5L vs. Ford Fusion 1.5T Mazda CX-5 2.5L vs. Ford Escape 1.5T or 1.6T Mazda CX-9 2.5T vs. Ford Explorer 2.3T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Is it OK to admire a company's good work, without all the negative noise? Mazda's CX5 AWD with it's 2.5 is more efficient than the Escape AWD with it's expensive GTDI technology. And there we have your negative noise making an assumption based on your own cost projections. the anti-Ecoboost theorists who think that Ford is spending, wasting, losing a bomb on GDIT Thrre is a different balance of performance / fuel economy between Ecoboost and Skyactiv , nothing more, nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share Posted June 2, 2016 And there we have your negative noise making an assumption based on your own cost projections. the anti-Ecoboost theorists who think that Ford is spending, wasting, losing a bomb on GDIT Thrre is a different balance of performance / fuel economy between Ecoboost and Skyactiv , nothing more, nothing less. Ecoboost is great, the first gen engines were not properly optimized, and burned alot of fuel, the 2nd gen is better, but the real problem with its performance is that they are having to move around really heavy cars and trucks, no amount of trickery can fully overcome the laws of physics. Ford IMO is going after economy piecemeal and they have consistently been unable to reduce weight, without going to expensive aluminum bodies. I hope they can resolve this problem for their next gen platforms. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) Ecoboost is great, the first gen engines were not properly optimized, and burned alot of fuel, the 2nd gen is better, but the real problem with its performance is that they are having to move around really heavy cars and trucks, no amount of trickery can fully overcome the laws of physics. Ford IMO is going after economy piecemeal and they have consistently been unable to reduce weight, without going to expensive aluminum bodies. I hope they can resolve this problem for their next gen platforms. What you say is true to na degree but how expensive is aluminum versus not being able to deliver trucks that are cash cows provided that Ford can build as many as customers want? Ford is squeezing every last frop of blood out ot evolved C1, EUCD / CD4 and D3, it's almost criminal to think the "lifeboat" plan is actually helping boost income so magnificently.....the accountants are winning over engineering creativity. Mazda with a clean set of heels is being admired by Toyota engineering who seem almost besotted by those "Skyactiv"advances.... Not hard to imagine that in an alternate reality, those Skyactiv strategies could well have been shared with Ford.and Twin-Force reserved for more premium trim levels... Edited June 3, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Ecoboost is great, the first gen engines were not properly optimized, and burned alot of fuel, the 2nd gen is better, but the real problem with its performance is that they are having to move around really heavy cars and trucks, no amount of trickery can fully overcome the laws of physics. Ford IMO is going after economy piecemeal and they have consistently been unable to reduce weight, without going to expensive aluminum bodies. I hope they can resolve this problem for their next gen platforms. +1 This piecemeal approach is the opposite of Mazda's holistic SKYACTIV approach encompassing powertrain, body, and chassis. It's quite clear which approach is more effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) Any word on when second generation CX-9 will be available at U.S. dealerships? One of my family members has this vehicle at the top of his list for new vehicle shopping. Edited June 3, 2016 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 It's quite clear which approach is more effective. In which terms? ROI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 +1 This piecemeal approach is the opposite of Mazda's holistic SKYACTIV approach encompassing powertrain, body, and chassis. It's quite clear which approach is more effective. That's a lot easier when you only have a few models and drive trains to engineer. And it's certainly not helping sales or market share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 That's a lot easier when you only have a few models and drive trains to engineer. And it's certainly not helping sales or market share. Mazda introduced SKYACTIV technology to the U.S. market in 2012, and the company's sales in this market have grown every year since. Last year's U.S. sales volume of approximately 306,000 was the highest Mazda achieved in 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Mazda introduced SKYACTIV technology to the U.S. market in 2012, and the company's sales in this market have grown every year since. Last year's U.S. sales volume of approximately 306,000 was the highest Mazda achieved in 20 years. But have they actually gained market share? If so then I withdraw my comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 3, 2016 Author Share Posted June 3, 2016 But have they actually gained market share? If so then I withdraw my comment. ROI? market share?, Sales?, profit? margin? All are metrics, that Can be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 3, 2016 Author Share Posted June 3, 2016 That's a lot easier when you only have a few models and drive trains to engineer. And it's certainly not helping sales or market share. I wonder if Ford is still paying Mazda a Licensing fee for using I-4 engines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) I wonder if Ford is still paying Mazda a Licensing fee for using I-4 engines? Did it ever occur to you that Ford paid Mazda to develop those engines as well as starting development on Skyactive... The reason Ford sold Mazda was that it couldn't afford to keep spending money on Mazda and itself. The good part is that Mazda's operating income % has gone from crap in 2009 to 2012 to 6.8% today but prior to sale it was 4.2% to 4.7% under Ford. Link to mazda financial records for past 11 years... Edited June 3, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 I wonder if Ford is still paying Mazda a Licensing fee for using I-4 engines? If they were developed together it wouldn't be necessary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 ROI? market share?, Sales?, profit? margin? All are metrics, that Can be used. The assertion was that Mazda benefitted from sky active by increasing sales year over year. However, if market share did not increase then the increase was simply due to more people buying cars therefore you can't really make a case that it was due to sky active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Does Ford still own a small % of Mazda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Does Ford still own a small % of Mazda? Sell off completed last September just as mazda forecasted another record profit for this financial year 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.