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.
Re:Is the ICE always running? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that Diesel has done this for a while. But, while you cite no ignition system to go wrong, I cite cheap maintenance costs (oil change on a diesel is much more expensive, and a recurring cost), and I live in Canada and can't be bothered to worry about installing a block heater for those few days where my petrol engine sounds painful when started, but my diesel friends can't start. Low end torque is owned by diesel, but it's ALWAYS at the cost of incomplete combustion. Not even the latest and greatest modern diesels will accelerate off the line without a plume of black come out the tailpipe... which leads to further maintenance costs down the line.
Diesel has it's place, some people love it, some people hate it. But what I found great is that not only is it quite possible based on my own experience to get a non-direct fuel injected petrol car up to 50MPG, it looks like this mazda 2 and its new tech can reach 60+ MPG. The stupid hybrids out there with their insanely expensive markups, and huge toxic batteries can't acheive 50MPG in the real world. I can't speak for the Mazda 2, but with my 5 year old 3 I can get 50MPG in the real world. It's nice to see a company focus on actually improving fuel economy instead of this hybrid hack job.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is about the same as a '95 Protege. The question is, "why couldn't they improve the mileage in the course of a decade when gas prices were rising fast"?
Re:My car gets 1000 MPG (Score:1, Interesting)
"I'd rather take the risk of being killed by someone else than the risk of killing someone else. Moreover, I have serious misgivings regarding the morality of the contrary position."
As noble as that sentiment is, you should probably make it clear to the other passengers riding in your car that you'd rather kill them than the rest of the folks in all the other cars on the road. And you might want to have that conversation before you drive them anywhere. They might decide to take the bus.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ..
The thing to keep in mind, is you still need a form of energy to compress the air. Usually we're talking electricity. Granted, this tech + a huge power plant is probably still more efficient and green.
IMHO though, the real ticket would be if they combined this with a solar-powered compressor that could run while the car was sitting out in the parking lot for 8 hours, and in the driveway for another 3 or 4 (plug-in ability is for a back up). For the daily commute and around-town trips for the average person, I bet this would be plenty usable.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
The Honda, on the other hand, looked like a box of legos had exploded all the way back to the middle passenger seats. It was a complete write-off, though I suppose you may have been able to salvage the rear gate and the seats. (The children in the back had to crawl out the rear gate, because the side doors would not open due to the frame twisting from the impact).
Meanwhile, a full-size 80s conversion van with an inline diesel is going to:
* get over 20mpg, possibly 30mpg is you turbocharge it
I've also been in, or seen several other accidents. My dad had someone rear-end his '78 Oldsmobile Delta 88 a number of years ago: his bumper got bent in. The newer half-ton pickup was totaled.
I had someone crash into my van a couple of months ago in a parking lot - while I was parked and standing outside the vehicle. They hit my front bumper as they pulled into the spot across from me, probably no faster than 10-15mph (but not paying attention). How you can miss such a large vehicle is beside me, but whatever. Their late-model Civic was totaled.
Their hood crinkled like a tin can, their bumper was ripped to the ground, and the cap was torn off their radiator/their radiator was damaged/etc., and there was fluid everywhere. Thank God there were witnesses, because I doubt the cop would've believed what had happened on my account alone. My van had no damage other than some of the paint from their car scraping off onto mine (yay, chrome).
Doesn't sound amazingly impressive (Score:3, Interesting)
70mpg sounds good. But is it a huge leap forward? I have a 4-year-old Toyota Corolla Verso 2.2-litre turbo diesel and I get 66mpg cruising.
Re:My car gets 1000 MPG (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd rather take the risk of being killed by someone else than the risk of killing someone else. Moreover, I have serious misgivings regarding the morality of the contrary position.
Wait... so not only would you rather be dead than have been indirectly responsible for someone else's death, but you think that anyone who doesn't have that attitude is immoral? You have some very skewed views towards self-preservation.
Re:1989 CRX-HF (Score:3, Interesting)
***Crash head-on with another vehicle in a 1989 Honda CRX and you are DEAD.***
No, I'm 98% sure that the CRX was unibody construction with crumple zones just like modern cars. Not as safe probably although it actually did pretty well in NHTSA safety testing. Cars have improved some. But not as much as you seem to think.
***but you are putting out hundreds of times more CO2 and other pollutants for every litre you burn than modern cars.***
I doubt it. CO2 in particular should be almost directly proportional to Miles per Gallon. The CRX almost certainly emitted less than your modern car, not more. Other pollutants, probably a bit worse than today's cars. Modern cars have some improvements like On Board Vapor Recovery, but the CRX would surely have had the biggies -- PCV, catalytic converter, EGR.
See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X [wikipedia.org]
Mazda and new engine? How 70's! Everybody sing: (Score:1, Interesting)
"Piston engine goes: boink-didda boink-didda boink-didda boink-, but a Mazda goes Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!"
Didn't the introduction of the Wankel engine in production cars almost put Mazda out of business back then because they were so unreliable? My school-freind's mother had a Mazda with a Wankel engine and it was forever in the shop for repairs, iirc.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, fast cars are fun. I've owned my share, and they have their place. There's no replacement for displacement, as they say.
But it's like volume: if the only thing that makes your music listenable is to turn it up louder, you're probably listening to bad music. If the only thing that makes your car enjoyable is adding horsepower, you're probably driving a crap car.
Re:My car gets 1000 MPG (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the first, foremost and primary reason my first motor vehicle was a motorcycle rather than a car -- I honestly was scared that I'd kill someone else -- and one among the many reasons I do most of my commuting by bicycle today. I'm happy to be judged by my actions rather than my words.
(Funny about "collectivist"; when I was younger, I considered elevating the well-being of others above myself part of being a good Christian, and modern western Christians certainly don't tend to consider themselves friends of political "collectivists").
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
0-60 times really have nothing to do with the situation you describe. Diesels tend not to be so hot on them, because before the turbo spins up they can be sluggish. Try looking at the 30-70 in-gear time, which more closely replicates pulling into fast-moving traffic, and you'll find that they perform very nicely.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
The spread on the gasoline powered GTI is greater than the spread on the diesel GTD. The very opposite of what you think the case is.
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-gti-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption [volkswagen.co.uk]
To look at those figures in another way, for urban driving the Diesel engine is getting 45% more mpg than the gasoline engine. For highway, diesel is getting only 28% more mpg.
Contrary to what you imagine, diesel gives it's greatest benefit for city driving.