Jump to content

Turbo Tech of the 2016 Mazda CX-9: Taking A Closer Look


Biker16

Recommended Posts

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Biker16
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...