Mazda Claims 70 mpg For New Engine, No Hybrid Needed 576
thecarchik writes "There's no word on when the new version of the Mazda2 will finally reach the US but when it does we can reveal that it will return a fuel economy of 70 mpg — without the aid of any electric motors. This is because the car will feature Mazda's next-generation of drivetrain, body and chassis technologies, dubbed SKYACTIV. The new Mazda 2 will come powered by a SKYACTIV-G engine, Mazda's next-generation direct injection gasoline mill that achieves significantly improved fuel efficiency thanks to a high compression ratio of 14.0:1 (the world's highest for a production gasoline engine)." I wonder if a real-life-real-drivers 70 mpg car is what will actually arrive, or if such promises will dissolve like Chevy's promises about the Volt did.
Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
Plenty of diesel cars already do 60-70MPG. With the advantage of having no ignition system to go wrong and lots of torque, horse power is a misleading gauge of power, torque is what turns the wheels.
Sure, some people don't like diesels due to the noise they make. They are typically quieter when cruising as the RPM is often about 1000RPM lower than a petrol engine.
So what fuel is needed (Score:4, Informative)
Normally high compression engines require high octane fuel, which costs more to produce. In the past they used to add a lead compound to (cheaply) improve the octane rating. Won't be allowed to do that these days...
It might get more MPG, but if the fuel costs more than teice as much per gallon you aren't going to save $$$
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
WTF is this news?
VW Polo [volkswagen.co.uk]
70 miles per US gallon highway.
60 MPUSG combined.
50 MPUSG City.
Re:So what fuel is needed (Score:5, Informative)
Pre detonation doesn't matter. It's a direct injection engine. Fuel isn't injected until it's wanted, like diesels.
Normal gasoline engines have the air/fuel mixture inserted before the compression stroke.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:1, Informative)
How is a unit of power a misleading gauge of power? Have you considered that power equals torque times angular velocity?
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
I actually RTF(2nd)A, and it says:
"Mazda expects it to come in at 28 mpg city, 35 mpg highway with the five-speed manual, and 1 mpg less on highway mileage with the automatic."
Does not compute.
BMWs already do this (Score:3, Informative)
Called "auto start stop".
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficient_dynamics/phase_2/technologies/auto_start_stop.html [bmw.com]
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
Diesel contains significantly more energy per gallon than gasoline, so "MPG" comparisons to gasoline vehicles are totally useless.
Also, the UK fuel economy ratings are hopelessly optimistic, as are the Japanese tests.
The Third-Generation (ZVW30) Prius gets 59 MPUSG combined according to the UK tests, but 50 MPGUS according to the US tests. Anyone who actually drives their vehicle normally will tell you that the US tests are a lot closer to reality.
Whenever someone announces that a vehicle "beats" the Prius (or other hybrids) in fuel economy without a hybrid system, you have to look for one of several mistakes:
- Are they comparing diesel MPG (or L/100km) to gasoline? You can't do this because diesel contains more energy per unit volume.
- Are they comparing a small vehicle to a much larger hybrid? Yes, you can get good fuel economy in a Smart, but it also doesn't hold 4 people and is considerably less safe if you get in an accident with a larger vehicle.
- Are they comparing fuel economy ratings from different countries? Compared with the new EPA ratings (and reality), most ratings from other countries are hopelessly optimistic.
- Are they using a different sized gallon? The Imperial gallon is larger.
Often this is done implicitly - the poster won't even mention the hybrid in their comparison. That way when you look up (or remember) the fuel economy ratings of the hybrid, you're likely to use US-EPA sources.
Re:Is the ICE always running? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, right. Try starting and stopping the engine at every stop light when it's forty below zero outside
It's a trivial engineering task. Prius, for example, has auxiliary electric heaters, and it maintains the engine temperature (and battery charge) automatically. If it's -40C outside the ICE will run a bit more, and that's all. This shouldn't be of any concern to the driver unless he lives in Alaska; then he'd be getting worse MPG than people in California do.
And on the subject of starting a cold ICE in cold weather. Hybrids start the ICE at higher RPM, and they have 100x power of a standard starter. So if the ICE in a hybrid doesn't start it's because something is broken, not because your battery is frozen solid and the starter barely spins the crankshaft.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
That's for the Mazda2 you can buy right now, not the one coming down the pipeline.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:2, Informative)
They take into account different driving conditions. Diesels are good for hiway cruising, but are terrible in stop-and-go traffic. Hybrids are basically the opposite, and traditional petrol is somewhere in between.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:4, Informative)
That's nonsense.
1. they have caught on very well, thank you very much, everywhere except the US, and that's because the US was slow in adopting the low-sulfur diesel fuel needed by modern diesels.
2. if anything, the diesel will have longer gearing than the petrol version to take advantage of all that torque at low revs. Since turbochargers have become common on diesel engines sometime in the '80s, diesels have had easily enough power to cope with the most demanding driving conditions.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
The reason the UK tests give a higher MPG figure is because a "gallon" is defined differently in the UK..
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon [wikipedia.org]
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like all 6 gas stations here in a town of 4000 people? (Interstate on the edge of town with 4 stations located right next to it (and avoided by most of the town residents because of the traffic), the other two are "in town" and usually a bit cheaper)
And then there's the various rail depots out in the countryside catering to farmers, which consist of a small grain elevator, a few large diesel tanks (mostly diesel labeled "for offroad use only" which isn't taxed as high, but usually one "road-use" tank), and if you're lucky, a loading dock.
The only stinky, noisy, and smoke-spewing diesels I see fall into two categories: a) old & poorly maintained engines, and b) pickups owned by rednecks who think belching black smoke and making noise is "cool".
That's 37mpg based on the US test cycle (Score:3, Informative)
src : http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/mazda-next-generation-mazda-2-will-get-70-m-p-g/ [nytimes.com]
-- cut --
The Mazda release said the car would achieve 70 miles per gallon, but that number was based on the Japanese test cycle, meaning American mileage would be lower. A 15 percent increase from the existing Mazda 2 would result in a combined 37 m.p.g. (For comparison, the Toyota Prius, which gets a combined 50 m.p.g. from the Environmental Protection Agency, achieves 89 m.p.g. in the Japanese test.)
-- cut --
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Chicago is an unusual case, but I don't recall seeing any gas stations where you can't buy diesel.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
Diesel contains significantly more energy per gallon than gasoline, so "MPG" comparisons to gasoline vehicles are totally useless.
I have to disagree. The comparison may be imbalanced in terms of energy / volume, but as a consumer it is very useful because both can be reduced to miles per dollar.
Example:
Absolutes never hold in all situations (Score:3, Informative)
Code fix. If external_temp -20F, don't shutdown. Wow, that was *extremely* difficult.
Which part of 'burning fuel while stopped can never be a good thing' are you having a hard time understanding?
Probably the part where that statement is always true in all situations. Absolutes are rarely correct.
At extremely low temperatures, you need the waste heat from the engine to provide passenger compartment heat for defrosting the windows. If your heater doesn't work correctly around here in the coldest part of winter, it's very possible to have frost form on the inside of the windows as well as the outside.
Battery performance is also lower in extreme cold weather, so you really need the alternator producing power to keep the battery charged. Winter driving here often means your lights are on during the daytime, the heater blower is running at one of the higher speeds and the rear-window is being electrically heated. Without power from the alternator, you wouldn't get very far.
In those cases, turning fuel into electricity is a really good idea.
Because of the short (3 mile) drive to work and back, I had problems the last three winters with the battery not being quite fully charged and I had to put it on charge at home. I'd notice it the next time I'd start the car that the starter would turn the engine a little slower each time. I had the alternator and battery tested and they both were working at their rated capacities (they have some fantastic lead-acid battery analyzers now). This year I changed to an AGM battery that will accept the charge faster (draws more Amperes of current from the alternator), upgraded to a high-output alternator (250A) and changed the wiring between the alternator and battery to heavier gauge wires.
Had the engine shut down at each stop, I'd have either developed hypothermia or just not made it to work.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
(1) Remember that diesel has about 1/3rd more BTUs per gallon than gasoline, so achieving 70mpg is no great feat. VW sold a Lupo that got 88mpg highway, and built a three-person family prototype that had 120 mpg.
(2) 70mpg is a challenge for gasoline, but it can be done. Suzuki and Honda have both made 70mpg engines, using 2 or 3 cylinders. My Insight averages almost 90mpg, even with the battery turned off. (The Insight SULEV has also been rated world's cleanest car by greenercars.org.)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
I saw this yesterday:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/article2494299.ece [nyteknik.se]
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494304.ece/BINARY/original/airmotion700.jpg [nyteknik.se]
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494301.ece/BINARY/w468/airmotion468.jpg [nyteknik.se]
Also this:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/27/indian-air-powered-city-cat-car-prepares-for-production-run/ [engadget.com]
"68MPH and a range of 125 miles"
On pressurized air ..
Lighter is better (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:1, Informative)
Horsepower is actually quite a beneficial measurement. Torque tells you how much power it is producing. Horsepower is Torque*RPM/5252. Thus down the track a Diesel with 800 ft/lbs of torque and 500hp may not beat something with 200 ft/lbs of torque and 600 hp. Assuming all things are equal. This scenario is overly simplistic. Every good mechanical engineer understands its the total power underneath the curve, not just the peak number. Which is why cars with less hp can beat cars with more hp.
Re:1989 CRX-HF (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't the amount of CO2 a direct consequence of the amount of fuel (and the type of fuel) you burn? I doubt a 1980 car would emit more CO2 at 60 MPG than a 2010 car. The other pollutants, you're probably right about that.
green-nonsense (Score:1, Informative)
which is greener..... saving a couple of gallons per mile or having a vehicle with 1/10th the life? Cars used to be an item which people expected to purchase and keep most of their lifetime. 20-30 year life on the vehicle was one of the major factors in the relatively large sticker price. GM, Chevy, Ford and others started churning out cars that died in 5-10 years.....or you could pay half-again the initial price of your vehicle just to get it running for another 3-5 before another large gouge.
When you look at all of the materials, effort, and energy that go into manufacturing a vehicle, the true "green crime" is that they are designed to fail. With today's engineering, there is absolutely NO REASON that you couldn't get a vehicle that'd last 50 years. Take a look at the Toyota Hilux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TGHiluxDestroyed.jpg
But you can't buy those models in the US for the price they can make and sell it to most of the rest of the world. You can't buy a vehicle actually made to last in the US, because the companies know US citizens have been trained to only expect them to last 3-5 years.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:4, Informative)
Those older vehicles were not light. The bodies were made from cold rolled steel, with solid I-beam construction.
That was my first reaction too, but I looked it up. The VW Golf debuted at under 1900 lbs, and stayed under 2200 through the mid 80s. The current Golf weights over 2900 lbs. Older economy cars were definitely lighter than the current ones, which is what he was talking about.
They got similar or better fuel mileage due to the lack of restrictive emission add-ons
I don't buy that. The emissions add-ons were the worst in the 70's right after they were first required, and have gotten better since then. My parents got 50% better gas millage by removing the air-to-exhaust-injection system and catalytic converter on their Jeep J-10 pickup. Loosing the catalytic converter on a current Toyota Tacoma had negligible affect on fuel efficiency.
Furthermore, newer cars aren't "safer". They handle better and are more controllable due to innovations in suspension and steering, and have a safer compartment resulting in better safety, but the vehicles themselves are less likely to survive even a 'mild' fender bender without thousands of dollars in a rebuild.
In other words they are safer in every way, but they sacrifice durability to obtain it.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:5, Informative)
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and 2009 Chevrolet Malibu in 40 mph frontal offset crash test [iihs.org]
Video [youtube.com]
1959 Bel Air after crash [blogcdn.com]
2009 Malibu after same crash [blogcdn.com]
I realize that is a greater difference in years, and safety features, than you were specifically talking about, but the principle still stands.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to be a party pooper, but those numbers all stack up.
A US gallon is 83% of a UK gallon, so the the MPG figures are going to vary.
50 MPG (US) is roughly the same as 59 MPG (UK).
When using US gallons, its hardly surprising that you reach the US figure, rather than the UK figure.
Not everybody does things your way.
Re:Mazda and new engine? How 70's! Everybody sing: (Score:3, Informative)
Only the first-gens really had this problem, and even then it was only particularly bad in the first couple/few years. Second-gen RX-7s and beyond have had very reliable Wankel powertrains (albeit with a need to do a fairly expensive overhaul at around 100k miles to renew the apex seals). Mazda's problems on the later ones had much more to do with electrical and accessories than with the Wankel.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
You just CONFIRMED what he said, not contradicted it. Diesel DOES have more energy per volume - more than 10% more.
I mean... yes, I read the numbers; I did post them after all. Still, it's the higher compression ratio that's the dominant factor, which is what my point had been.
Here, look at the 2010 Volkswagon Jetta. Here are the numbers for more-or-less identical vehicles, one with a diesel engine, one with a gasoline one (and a fairly high-compression one at that):
4 cyl, 2.0 L, Manual 6-spd, Diesel......41 mpg hwy
4 cyl, 2.0 L, Manual 6-spd, Premium.....31 mpg hwy
To drive one mile, it takes the gasoline-engined car 32% more fuel. By comparison, the diesel fuel itself has only 14% more energy per gallon. Energy density of the fuel alone is not sufficient to explain the difference. The difference comes from the efficiency of the engine.
I should note that this is in spite of the fact that the Otto cycle (which approximates gasoline engine operation) is more efficient than the Diesel cycle (which approximates the operation of real diesel engines) at the same compression ratio. Diesels, in practice, simply have compression ratios that are high enough to overwhelm that advantage.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:2, Informative)
In Australia, diesels are good but..
1) There are 'used oil recyclers' and somehow gets blended at gas stations
1.5) The better / more high tech the injectors, the easier they get damaged
2) Diesel injectors are expensive to service/clean - Mechanics cost $110 per hour here
3) If you cop a bad dose of fuel - you pay for it - same for petrol
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:3, Informative)
Are you serious? Have you actually seen an accident before? How about a vehicle made in the 90s or 80s?
Those older vehicles were not light. The bodies were made from cold rolled steel, with solid I-beam construction. They were much, much safer than most modern unibody designs, if only due to mass. They got similar or better fuel mileage due to the lack of restrictive emission add-ons.
Furthermore, newer cars aren't "safer". They handle better and are more controllable due to innovations in suspension and steering, and have a safer compartment resulting in better safety, but the vehicles themselves are less likely to survive even a 'mild' fender bender without thousands of dollars in a rebuild.
Have you actually been in an accident? Those older vehicles (80s and earlier) wouldn't crunch up, while they look better after an accident, the occupants would be worse off. They were quite simply, death traps. Even wearing seatbelts people died in accidents that are highly survivable today. All other things being equal the road death tolls have come down a long way due to car design. So I know what I'd pick over repair ability any day.
Mass? Yeah that helps kill the other people and not you. Then If you hit something hard, or hit something of equal mass you're just as screwed. Modern cars are designed to transfer as little momentum as possible to the occupants through crumple zones, intrusion beams, other crash-deforming structures. Older cars were simply did not have any of this you'd be killed by colliding with the inside of a car.
Newer cars ARE safer, there's plenty of hard facts and living people to attest to that. Newer drivers are the problem. Higher attainable speeds and making use of them really un does advances in safety.
I've yet to see a modern passenger vehicle in a collision that didn't total the modern vehicle. A friend's 91 suburban was hit by a modern Honda Odyssey (late model): the Honda hit his rear passenger side quarter section. After replacing two sheered bolts and redoing the rear body panel, his Suburban was as good as new.
Not really the best example? How about comparing two vehicles of equivalent mass? You're forgetting how cheap it is to replace the whole Honda :)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Its one of their famous farming subsidies which keep farmers happy.
No, road diesel isn't taxed at a lower rate. You can get red diesel which has identical properties but has a red dye added (looks like snakebite and blackcurrant, hence the name "Diesel" for that drink) but which is taxed at a lower rate. You can't use red diesel in road vehicles.
Re:Small cheap compressed-air cars from India (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, if your compressed-air car is running low and you're desperate, almost any US gas station that does car repairs has a compressed-air pump and you might be able to pay them for some air. There are also pumps for inflating tires, but those are usually reduced pressure so they don't explode your tires.
I rate it as somewhere between highly unlikely and fucking impossible that the local gas station will have more than about 150 psi on tap, and that's only for those which do repairs, the typical tire fill being maybe 100 psi tops as some heavier light trucks will use up to 80 or so PSI (only about a max of 65 PSI for me, and I have what may be the heaviest light pickup truck ever made... hmm no, the four door version is probably heavier, I have a super cab.) The MDI air car technology runs on over 3,000 PSI. You're not refilling your air car from shop air.