Mazda: Turbocharged petrol engines under consideration

Article
Gallery

By Jez Spinks | November 30th, 2011

Mazda says turbocharging could be a part of its future engine strategy but will first target optimum fuel efficiency with normal aspiration.

The Japanese car maker is in the process of rolling out its new suite of efficiency-focus technologies it has dubbed ‘SkyActiv’, starting partially with the Mazda3 SP20 that went on sale in Australia recently and going deeper with the new CX-5 compact SUV in 2012.

The engines confirmed so far under the banner include only a diesel engine with turbocharging – a 2.2-litre ‘Sky-D’ engine that will feature in vehicles such as the CX-5 and next-generation Mazda6 medium car previewed by the Takeri concept at this week’s 2011 Tokyo motor show.

Three petrol engines comprise a 1.3-litre unit that has debuted in Japan in the Mazda2, the 2.0-litre in the Mazda3 SP20, with a 1.5-litre version also available.

Mazda’s senior managing executive officer for research and development, Hirotaki Kanazawa, says the company hasn’t rule out turbocharging for those or other future petrol SkyActiv engines.

“We haven’t decided we’re not going to do turbocharging,” says Kanazawa-san. “But first of all we want to achieve combustion efficiency with natural aspiration.

“There is a trend in Europe for downsizing [engines] but we think there is an appropriate size for an engine to achieve maximum efficiency. So Mazda wants the best cylinder [count] for I.C.E [internal combustion engine.

“Of course based on them [SkyActiv] petrol engines we woud add turbocharging to add power.

“A turbocharger is really for performance and power,” he adds.

Kanazawa confirmed that the next-generation Mazda6, the company’s rival for the likes of the Subaru Liberty and Toyota Camry, would feature all the new efficiency technologies that have debuted on the Takeri concept.

This includes Mazda’s new i-Eloop regenerative braking system, which the company claims is an industry first.

The system, which uses capacitors rather than batteries to capture energy lost during braking, will reduce fuel consumption by about 10 per cent in all types of driving not just stop-start traffic, Kanazawa-san says.

Mazda has already introduced an engine stop-start system called iStop.

Mazda will also follow part-time partner Ford by making the new Mazda6 in one body style only rather than two as with the current model, which is also sold in a wider body in the United States.

The next Mazda6 will also grow in size – to “provide more comfort for rear-seat passengers” the company says, though dimensions will not be quite as large as the Takeri concept car that previews it.

123321

Mazda is not new to turbocharging. They have done it in the 1980′s with the Mazda323 and then the RX7 TurboII. Alot of Japanese car companies dropped turbochargers since because of reliability.

http://Skat ScottyC

They have turbo charged cars now…MPS and CX7

IFItAintARotorItAintAMotor

Combine the two Mazda stories this morning! Sub 1000kg MX-5 with a 1.3L turbo 4cyl. Keep the spec simple for a base $31,990 model. Winner!

123321

Sub 1000kg is all good and fast. But dangerous. In a prank you need some weight on your side to reduce the sudden deacceleration G force.

IFItAintARotorItAintAMotor

What? No, that’s what crumple zones are for. To absorb the energy of the impact. That is what saves you from the sudden deceleration.

123321

Another newbie. Let’s put you in a 5-star or 10-star 900kg buzz box with 1001 air bags and 1001 crumble zones and bean bags all over. While I ride in a 1-star Kenworth truck coz it has no crumble zones. And let’s have a head one buang. LOLX.

It’s all relative. As long as more people buy 1000kg cars, I feel safe in my 1900kg car. So please give me more negative votes and go buy 1000kg cars, I know it’s my gain

G

Your problem is you equate weight with rigidity. Mazda is focusing on improving manufacturing processes and material to reduce weight and increase efficiency RELATIVE to the original car. Switching out steel for aluminium or carbon fibre for instance will reduce the weight considerably without compromising strength. Comparing a car and truck is just moronic. I could use a different analogy and say that at 100km/h around a bend, the truck is more likely to rollover/jackknife and thus the car is safer.
IFItAintARotorItAintAMotor

Really? Newbie? Basic high school physics tells me I’m right.

Weird example. Back in grade 10, my physics class did an egg drop experiment. We had to build something so that we could put an egg in it so when dropped off a second story balcony, the egg won’t break. Someone built this cube frame out of steel and suspended the egg in the middle, because the frame was rigid and didn’t give at all, the part that was suspending the egg stretched and it hit the concrete. I had forgotten my construction (I had a terrible memory for that back then) so during lunch I got a plastic bag and filled it with dried up leaves, put the egg on the top off all the leaves and dropped that. The eggs acted as a cushion for the sudden deceleration and my egg survived.

It’s science!
HP

That’s one crash scenario, here’s another for you:

You lose control and crash into a solid stationary object, let’s say a large tree. The tree won’t move when you hit it so going by basic physics (F=ma) the car with the higher mass (m) will hit the tree with more force.

Also larger crumple zones extend the deceleration and lower the intensity (causing ‘a’ to drop) hence reducing the force even more.

Flabby Chap

From what I have read, many of the people here do not understand car safety. Most of the accidents are car-to-car accidents and not into 1,000,000 million kg blocks of concrete.

When a 1000kg car runs head on into a 2000kg car, the 2000kg car experiences half the deacceleration G-force as the 1000kg. Cut 123321 some slacks. You guys are lucky that he even bothered to lecture you on the physics of car accidents.

G

Well 123321 kind of picked a fight. A 1000kg banzai car will probably handle well enough to avoid the accident in that case.

G

We all seem to miss the point that we only need a 2000kg “for safety” because every other moron out there has some 2000kg 4WD/SUV. If everyone drove lightweight efficient cars none of this would be an issue.
Flabby Chap

From what I gathered, the n00bs will buy a 5-star 1000kg car thinking it’s the safest car in the world.

OK I support the environment now and I urge everyone to buy light weight and environmentally friendly cars. To convince the mass, I now say light weight 5-star cars are safer than 2500kg SUVs as the SUVs are prone to roll over and you will be more likely to get killed in an SUV due to tyre blow outs.

Imagine everyone rushes out to get a 2000kg+ SUV that’s not good for the environment. So pls go out and get a 1000kg car.

Technofreak

The 6 needs the turbo for sure. Its the worst drive out of all the range due to being too heavy for such a small engine. Lacks the zoom of other models.

Billy Bucket

Worst Drive? You obviously enjoy intercourse with men. The 6 has consistently been rated the best steer in its class by the motoring press. Go back to your Sonata, loser

camaro

hi Billey ur comment is so rite but accidentally my fone went funny. in stead of thump up it thumped u down for 32times.
Technofreak

Good one Billy you bucket head.

Ezzagun

Totally agree, when it came time to buy a mid-sizer almost 2 years ago I’d read all about how good the 6 was to drive and was looking forward to test driving it.

Suffice to say that after the test drive I agree the 6 steered and rode pretty well as I’d read but my God that engine is underpowered, damn right it’s not suited to that size car. Far too lethargic and unresponsive, you have to really give it some revs to get going and that completely screws your fuel consumption.

The 6 is ideal for folks who just like to commute and get from A to B but anyone with an interest in driving should look elsewhere until Mazda gives the 6 some actual Zoom Zoom under the bonnet.

http://Skat ScottyC

Absolutely agree. I owned a 6 and loved the way it drove but was always wishing for more power, hence the reason I didn’t buy the current model when I dold it. It needs at least another 20kw

Rick

I agree the Mazda 6 MPS we had was a great car ,great to drive and just enough power to keep you happy

m2m

The 2.5L engine in the 6 is fantastic, it’s the transmission that is the problem. Looking forward to the next generation with 2.2 sky-D engine. I’m
putting my bet that it’s a class leader for style, engine and HOPEFULLY improved ride.
Mr Gaspo

Yikes… One body style for Mazda 6! It looks like the 6 will be sedan only. Mazda, you have just lost me, I want a hatch or a wagon…. And no I won’t buy one of your SUVs in lieiu of a 6 Hatch or Wagon. Mazda finally fix their drive trains and then go and spoil things with a single body style!
Tom

I miss the RWD Turbo days of japan,

more of it please

123321

Everybody misses but. But most of the Japanese car companies dropped it for a reason. Reliability. The Japanese have “been there done that”.

camaro

A pushed small engine would consume more fuel than a appropriate size engine that suits to size of car.

Ezzagun

For interests sake… me and my mate who owns a 2008 Mazda 6 went for a 350km drive recently (btw I have a 2.0L Skoda Octavia RS wagon)… I must admit there were a few sections of ‘spirited’ driving involving fair old use of the right foot… anyway we both reset our trip computers at the start of the journey out of interests sake, so we could compare the consumption of a normally-aspirated 2.5 with my turbo-charged 2.0.

Result? According to the respective trip computers mine used exactly 7.0 L/100kms and the 6 used 8.9 L/100kms

Safe to say I’m a convert to smaller capacity engines using forced induction, you get the fuel economy benefits in every day driving but still have the performance there when you want it.

Falcodore

There will be a wagon, other websites have quoted Mazda reps to that effect.
PeterG

I remember when the Japanese were slow to adopt fuel injection like turbo charging because of reliability.
Slow learners?
But once they get it means cheap for everyone.