Featured Mazda on meeting emissions

I agree. But - he could have a point with not totally closing the door. Fuel economy and emissions have both improved dramatically in the last 10 years. Figures for Mazda 3 2.0l Auto here are:
2004 212 CO2 (8.9 l/100km;
2010 193 CO2 (8.2 l/100km);
2014 (current) 136 CO2 (5.8 l/100km).

That's not much of an improvement 2004 -> 2010, but quite substantial to 2017. They started well behind a 2004 PRIUS - it'll be interesting to see whether their compression ignition Mazda 3 in 2 years is as big an improvement as they predict.

Mazda have their i-Eloop brake regeneration - which is only a small fraction of what a PRIUS and other Hybrids regenerate - but I'd be surprised if they're not working on increasing the capacity. I understand it uses capacitors rather than a battery, and only helps with ancillaries rather than a traction motor - so far. With TOYOTA buying more of MAZDA last week, maybe there could be more plans?

I suppose time will tell.

 

sour grapes. if he got what he wanted, then he'd be pushing for lower standards when they couldn't meet them.
if you can't build a hybrid or electric car, your engineers should be fired. if you don't want to... ahh, there's the rub.

 

Davis also ignores the fact that the federal government had additional goals with the federal incentives for plug ins.

 

Actually ... mazda should be easily beating the 40% peak engine efficiency with its release in 2019 of a spark controlled compression ignition gasoline engine. Only question is how reliable and expensive will it be. Nissan and GM have been working hard on this technology also. Mazda appears to have tamed the beast, at least in preproduction form, by using using lots of sensors and fast microprocessors to control supercharging, valve timing, and amount of cooled egr. skyactiv-x is the name. When in HCCI mode, NOx should be lower than conventional engines before the cat. Peak compression when including the supercharging is 18:1. My guess from what I read is HCCI will be low load, either lean or with lots of cooled exhaust gas, and lots of efficiency because of the 18:1 guesstimated compression and no flame front. Replace the super charger with a turbo (maybe a hybrid electrical super/turbo instead of the mechanical supercharger mazda looks like its using) and you could get thermal efficiencies over 50% in a 180 hp - 2L engine at low loads. For startup the speculation is valve timing (hot exhaust gasses kept in the cyclinder) and spark ignition to quickly and efficiently get the engine up to temperature. For heavier loads or high rpm it appears that the engine will run the miller cycle with late intake valve closing and use less exhaust gas, and stoich or slightly rich mixtures. My guess some of the sensor and processing advances are what finally will let this technology work in cars at a large variance of altitude and outside temperature.

I doubt dave thinks this, but mazda is behind, and have partnered with toyota on electrification which is also behind. If you don't have a drill, you may argue that you don't need one. Still I find this mazda dishonesty not too bad, they are not like some other, ahem, car companies, that actively lobby and press release against electrification.

Hell you design a mazda 6 or cx-5 with such a 2L skyactiv-x and 10 kwh of batteries and you probably get decent electrical range and one of the highest mpg vehicles in its class on the highway. I think that is probably not until at least 2022 though.

 

i would want a 10/150 warranty on that engine, until it's proven itself.

 

I do agree that the government should incentivize the goal, not the specific drivetrain.
However, I would also like to see the government stop incentivizing the century old oil drilling technologies

 

Besides being the ultimate flex fuel...he misses the point that "just relocating emissions" by itself can be a good thing. Has he not seen the major smog problems in many cities around the world? And even if a car's emissions can be made very low, at some cost, isn't it going to be cheaper and better when being done on a large scale at a power plant, rather than hauling around the equipment to do this?
(Of course the counter argument is that a big battery is just this)

Mike

 

he's not missing the point, he's intentionally spreading fun. mazda can't compete, and they're worried.
these are the words of a man who's ship is sinking, and he's searching for a lifeboat.

 

He would do better if he actually was looking for a lifeboat.
Seems to me he is spending his time and efforts in punching holes in other people's lifeboats

 

fun as in, "ZOOM ZOOM ZOOOM" ? ... or as in fud ...... this has been a gramar nazi presentation

 

yeah, i know. and of course, no edit button.

 

2017 Mazda CX-5 Gets Four Stars in Crash Tests | News | Cars.com

Maybe if Mazda can get more of their vehicles up to 5-star crash ratings, they can start doing a better job on their emissions standards

.

 

i loved my miata, but can you say 'boutique' car maker? or as some anti ev-ites would say, _______ cars.

 

In the 1970's there was a wait list for the Mazda RX7 with its wankel rotary ICE. Powerful - fun, & easy on the eyes but very dirty & unreliable. Still - everybody wanted a ride. Hmm - suddenly I'm remembering an old girlfriend.

.

 

I recall losing money on Toyo Kogyo stock. During the Wankel craze.

 

Yes to break 50% it would need a turbocharger and intercooler, and the first skyactiv-x will have mechanical superchargers, so it can not extract extra power from the exhaust stream. A twin charger (super/turbo) or an electrical turbo charger could easily break the barrier in HCCI mode. That would add to cost though, and we don't know how much the additional sensors, supercharger, intercooler, strength to withstand the 18:1 compression and expansion, and processing power add to the standard skyactiv gasoline engines of today.

Mazda has stated that their prototype is 20%-30% more efficient than their current gasoline engine which is already very efficient.
Compare Side-by-Side



Let's say it replaces the 2L in the mazda 3 and is 20% more efficient (25% on city cycle, 15% on hwy cycle that uses more high load in the test) we get a car that will be 35 mpg city/ 43 mpg hwy and probably bests a toyota hsd that has the same cdA and rolling resistance with a cruise control on long highway trips. That is much more than 40% peak efficiency, but worse than a hsd on epa tests. Add it to an hsd which mazda appears to be licensing from toyota, and you get a even better result.

Again, I'm looking foward to seeing how well this engine does, and if in a phev with electrical turbo charging, if it can get steller long trip mpg, to go with the all electric short trip and city trips.

 

I don't remember a wankel craze, I may be too young. I remember the cars. The key with a wankel is low weight and volume to power. A liquid cooled, normally aspirated or lightly blown, 4 stroke is bigger and heavier for the same power, but has always been more efficient. IIRC a similarly powered wankel is less expensive to build as well.

Today with modern safety requirements, cars are heavy, and saving weight with a wankel at the expensive of efficiency is not a good tradeoff in a car. This new mazda engine is hyper efficient, but more expensive, and I'm guessing heavier, than a similar 4 cylinder engine. I also given the ballance of the company, would not consider mazda a great investment.

 

It's long odds, but a Wankel might be a good choice as a range extender on a plug in, because of the smaller size and lower weight. Efficiency will be comparatively poor, but when 90% or more of the annual miles are grid powered, it could be an acceptable trade off.