probowler Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I understand that but three years until the new product cycle is a long time without refresh.... So a refresh every ~1.5 years? Is that pretty much standard in the industry right now? Seems a little high IMO, but it may just be my general dislike of change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 So a refresh every ~1.5 years? Is that pretty much standard in the industry right now? Seems a little high IMO, but it may just be my general dislike of change I know it's had a major refresh 12 months ago, I'm talking about a minor one like engines and trim sometime next year to keep it fresh in the eyes of buyers through to 2018 when the new model arrives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I guess if they build their own transmission, they want to show it off because they're proud of their engineers. Yeah, I get that. It's interesting to compare Mazda 3 to Focus because we have similar 2.0 DI engines with the major difference being the transmissions, DCT versus the SkyActive auto trans - both achieving very similar results.. and the real surprise is Mazda's 2.5 I-4 achieving EPA 39 mpg, very impressive indeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 True story: Right this moment, I am sitting in the lounge of our local Ford dealer getting the Escape's steering column replaced (2nd repair needed for the same recall), and I bump into a girl I went to high school with. She brought her '13 Focus hatch in for transmission work... time #3 since she bought it. 1st time was for a pronounced hesitation and shudder. They reflashed the software that time. Time #2 was for intermittent shuddering. They found it to be operating normally. Today, it came in because yesterday ahe tried to back out of her driveway and the car made an awful grinding noise and reverse wouldn't engage. Her brother came over last night, disconnected the battery, reset everything and it popped right into gear. Again, they found it to be within normal operation and sent her on her way. These transmissions, even when performing as intended, are creating issues. I wish they'd ditch them sooner rather than later. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 That would be the TCM - Transmission Control Module. Also covered to 100K miles. Already had to replace that one on my daughter's 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Yeah, I get that. It's interesting to compare Mazda 3 to Focus because we have similar 2.0 DI engines with the major difference being the transmissions, DCT versus the SkyActive auto trans - both achieving very similar results.. and the real surprise is Mazda's 2.5 I-4 achieving EPA 39 mpg, very impressive indeed... The mazda engine is more efficient than the Ford engine. higher CR, different bore and Stroke. plus lighter weight and lower Cd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) The mazda engine is more efficient than the Ford engine. higher CR, different bore and Stroke. plus lighter weight and lower Cd. You're really splitting hairs there and yes there is a slight cumulative advantage to Mazda but not by any major degree, the Mazda SkyActiv 2.0 DI is a small incremental increase over the Ford 2.0 DI engine which is originally a Mazda design. Focus Vs Mazda 3 weights are generally within 150 lbs of each other, the Cd doesn't play a major part because the speed on tests is not constantly at higher speeds where that slight difference in drag would affect fuel economy by any major degree. Surprisingly, Cruze is similar weight to Focus yet 1.4 Ecotec gets similar fuel economy (38-39 mpg) with auto and 42 mpg with manual. I'm not convinced that GM's engine tech in either 1.8 NA or 1.4 Turbo is anywhere as sophisticated as that of Ford or Mazda yet that 39-40 mpg fuel economy seems to be there or abouts.. Edited October 16, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) You're really splitting hairs there and yes there is a slight cumulative advantage to Mazda but not by any major degree, the Mazda SkyActiv 2.0 DI is a small incremental increase over the Ford 2.0 DI engine which is originally a Mazda design. Focus Vs Mazda 3 weights are generally within 150 lbs of each other, the Cd doesn't play a major part because the speed on tests is not constantly at higher speeds where that slight difference in drag would affect fuel economy by any major degree. Surprisingly, Cruze is similar weight to Focus yet 1.4 Ecotec gets similar fuel economy (38-39 mpg) with auto and 42 mpg with manual. I'm not convinced that GM's engine tech in either 1.8 NA or 1.4 Turbo is anywhere as sophisticated as that of Ford or Mazda yet that 39-40 mpg fuel economy seems to be there or abouts.. hmm. Mazda's 2.0 uses a more Efficient Long stroke design 83.5 x 91.2 that is mroe like a small bore 2.3 than the original 87.3x 83.1 bore stroke Design.ford still uses. Why does this matter? Because longer stroke does more work per revolution, and for high CR engines like these, the reduced piston area and higher cylinder area better cools the combustion chamber, and reduces the hot spots that cause detonation. in the end the engines really aren't that alike. Edited October 16, 2015 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) hmm. Mazda's 2.0 uses a more Efficient Long stroke design 83.5 x 91.2 that is mroe like a small bore 2.3 than the original 87.3x 83.1 bore stroke Design.ford still uses. Why does this matter? Because longer stroke does more work per revolution, and for high CR engines like these, the reduced piston area and higher cylinder area better cools the combustion chamber, and reduces the hot spots that cause detonation. in the end the engines really aren't that alike. It's not about that so much. We're not talking an extreme change in bore and stroke here so the difference between the two designs is not going to be that large especially when Mazda cannot make full use of the desired higher compression. I suspect that is at bottom of this change, higher compression with a bigger bore would have required compromises to the combustion chamber or a lumpier piston that may have impaired flame front characteristics..Adding stroke to a reduced bore (combustion chamber) makes sense if you're looking to seriously up compression ratio. Mazda could not get Nox under control for EPA conditions without dropping compression. Edited October 16, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 It's not about that so much. We're not talking an extreme change in bore and stroke here so the difference between the two designs is not going to be that large especially when Mazda cannot make full use of the desired higher compression. I suspect that is at bottom of this change, higher compression with a bigger bore would have required compromises to the combustion chamber or a lumpier piston that may have impaired flame front characteristics..Adding stroke to a reduced bore (combustion chamber) makes sense if you're looking to seriously up compression ratio. Mazda could not get Nox under control for EPA conditions without dropping compression. the mazda has 13:1 CR while the focus has a 12:1 CR i'd also question the ability of the Ford to fully use it's CR on US gas, which causes it to consume more fuel and use more EGR. either way, I own a Focus 2.0 and it's is very sensitive to how you drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 the mazda has 13:1 CR while the focus has a 12:1 CR i'd also question the ability of the Ford to fully use it's CR on US gas, which causes it to consume more fuel and use more EGR. either way, I own a Focus 2.0 and it's is very sensitive to how you drive. The increased CR is to assist dynamic CR when the engine's VCT delays exhaust valve closing, it enables variable engine capacity to greater effect.more than just maximizing peak HP & torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The increased CR is to assist dynamic CR when the engine's VCT delays exhaust valve closing, it enables variable engine capacity to greater effect.more than just maximizing peak HP & torque. OK 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.