Are Mazda Millenias any good? Also, Oddballs
- Thread starter GearheadTool
- Start date
- Status
But why even have mechanical valve followers that will eventually need checked and adjusted on this engine, or timing belts for that matter? I'll never understand why they did/do that and not only got away with it but got called "reliable" when timing chains and hydraulic tappets/followers have been proven reliable for many decades previously.
It's not that unusual.
Why did Ford/Yamaha use a bucket under shim valve adjustment and timing belt in the Taurus SHO?
Why do you have to take virtually the entire top of the engine off to change plugs on the Nissan VG30DETT? (and it has a timing belt)
Just a guess, but I would say that Mazda was trying to do the next big thing. Nobody else seemed to be able to build a Wankel Rotary. I read somewhere that Mercedes Benz built 10 and just quit. GM couldn't make a rotary that they felt was reliable and this was during the time that they were selling the linerless Vega engine. How bad was their rotary? Mazda built it in the '60s and it ran until 2012 with a brief hiatus during the '90s....when the KJ-ZEM Miller cycle appeared
Again just a guess but it would seem that they were looking for a high power compact engine that got good fuel economy. Overall it was a failure. No argument there. But nobody else tries this stuff and it arguably did open the door for everybody's Atkinson Cycle hybrid engines.
Why did Ford/Yamaha use a bucket under shim valve adjustment and timing belt in the Taurus SHO?
Why do you have to take virtually the entire top of the engine off to change plugs on the Nissan VG30DETT? (and it has a timing belt)
Just a guess, but I would say that Mazda was trying to do the next big thing. Nobody else seemed to be able to build a Wankel Rotary. I read somewhere that Mercedes Benz built 10 and just quit. GM couldn't make a rotary that they felt was reliable and this was during the time that they were selling the linerless Vega engine. How bad was their rotary? Mazda built it in the '60s and it ran until 2012 with a brief hiatus during the '90s....when the KJ-ZEM Miller cycle appeared
Again just a guess but it would seem that they were looking for a high power compact engine that got good fuel economy. Overall it was a failure. No argument there. But nobody else tries this stuff and it arguably did open the door for everybody's Atkinson Cycle hybrid engines.
Well like you said the Taurus SHO was a Yamaha design so Japanese and very common for them to use belts and mechanical cam followers. GM and other automakers abandon the rotary because it was fuel hog/emissions problem and probably lacking in low speed torque. They had no intention of building a light sports car around a small 2-rotor rotary so it was useless to try to perfect it.
I don't have a problem or criticism with what Mazda did with the rotary or the Atkins cycle engine in the Millenia per se. My criticism is at just about all the Japanese makes and their love affair with timing belts and valve adjustments. Mazda parts price can be high on some of these lower volume models. I remember them being high on the Rx7 and the 2nd generation wasn't all that low volume. I guess in Japan you only keep a car a few years and throw it away, so I guess it doesn't matter if the car falls apart at 10 years and has to be taken apart to fix and parts cost are high.
I don't have a problem or criticism with what Mazda did with the rotary or the Atkins cycle engine in the Millenia per se. My criticism is at just about all the Japanese makes and their love affair with timing belts and valve adjustments. Mazda parts price can be high on some of these lower volume models. I remember them being high on the Rx7 and the 2nd generation wasn't all that low volume. I guess in Japan you only keep a car a few years and throw it away, so I guess it doesn't matter if the car falls apart at 10 years and has to be taken apart to fix and parts cost are high.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Yeah, but it's still the easiest mass-produced Miller-Cycle V6 automotive engine to adjust the valves on.
That engine/vehicle was spec'ed out for a "luxury" brand that Mazda abandoned. They were creating Mazda version of Lexus and Acura at that time. They bailed out and badged it a Mazda. Not sure if that car was any better than similiar Acura(doubt it) or Lexus at that time.
However repair costs/complexity are not the foremost thought in luxury brands. Although I must say Acura is not terrible even modern as they are really just upscale Honda's.
Yeah, but it's still the easiest mass-produced Miller-Cycle V6 automotive engine to adjust the valves on.
That engine/vehicle was spec'ed out for a "luxury" brand that Mazda abandoned. They were creating Mazda version of Lexus and Acura at that time. They bailed out and badged it a Mazda. Not sure if that car was any better than similiar Acura(doubt it) or Lexus at that time.
However repair costs/complexity are not the foremost thought in luxury brands. Although I must say Acura is not terrible even modern as they are really just upscale Honda's.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
. They had no intention of building a light sports car around a small 2-rotor rotary so it was useless to try to perfect it.
GM had planned on making their rotary the powerplant for the Corvette and selling it to AMC who intended to power their new Pacer with it.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
...
I don't have a problem or criticism with what Mazda did with the rotary or the Atkins cycle engine in the Millenia per se. My criticism is at just about all the Japanese makes and their love affair with timing belts and valve adjustments. Mazda parts price can be high on some of these lower volume models. I remember them being high on the Rx7 and the 2nd generation wasn't all that low volume. I guess in Japan you only keep a car a few years and throw it away, so I guess it doesn't matter if the car falls apart at 10 years and has to be taken apart to fix and parts cost are high.
To be fair, the Ford Lima OHC has a belt, GM DOHC 3.4 has a chain and a belt, all variants of the Neon engine are belt....seems like they were the de-rigueur timing drive of that era.
I've never registered a car in Japan, but it is my understanding that you must overhaul the engine every 100,000km whether it needs it or not.
I may have misunderstood that.
But it would explain why they export so many engines with a little over 50,000 miles on them.
I really feel the same way about German cars. I installed on a Porsche Panamera the other day and as typical there were panels with two different fastener sizes, blind fasteners and tons of fragile Polyethylene Terephthalate plastic that seemed to be installed with the intention of never being removed to service ever again. Every time I removed another cover or panel I wondered to myself, "Why did they do this that way? This was really dumb and wasteful." But I guess PET is lightweight and inaccessible underdash wiring is....well, that will never make sense to me but for some designer in Stuttgart it does.
. They had no intention of building a light sports car around a small 2-rotor rotary so it was useless to try to perfect it.
GM had planned on making their rotary the powerplant for the Corvette and selling it to AMC who intended to power their new Pacer with it.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
...
I don't have a problem or criticism with what Mazda did with the rotary or the Atkins cycle engine in the Millenia per se. My criticism is at just about all the Japanese makes and their love affair with timing belts and valve adjustments. Mazda parts price can be high on some of these lower volume models. I remember them being high on the Rx7 and the 2nd generation wasn't all that low volume. I guess in Japan you only keep a car a few years and throw it away, so I guess it doesn't matter if the car falls apart at 10 years and has to be taken apart to fix and parts cost are high.
To be fair, the Ford Lima OHC has a belt, GM DOHC 3.4 has a chain and a belt, all variants of the Neon engine are belt....seems like they were the de-rigueur timing drive of that era.
I've never registered a car in Japan, but it is my understanding that you must overhaul the engine every 100,000km whether it needs it or not.
I may have misunderstood that.
I really feel the same way about German cars. I installed on a Porsche Panamera the other day and as typical there were panels with two different fastener sizes, blind fasteners and tons of fragile Polyethylene Terephthalate plastic that seemed to be installed with the intention of never being removed to service ever again. Every time I removed another cover or panel I wondered to myself, "Why did they do this that way? This was really dumb and wasteful." But I guess PET is lightweight and inaccessible underdash wiring is....well, that will never make sense to me but for some designer in Stuttgart it does.
Yeah, I'm just saying that GM had the ability improve the rotary but just chose not too. I think Mazda put all that effort into the rotary with plans to use it widespread. And I think history proved that the rotary was of limited use.
I think with domestics, usually only a few of the cheapest economy engines were timing belt, or limited production like the GM DOHC 3.4, or engines that were a foreign design. They didn't stick timing belts and mechanical cams on just about every engine, often with no regard to interference like Japanese tended to do.
Also I called the Mazda engine an Atkinson, but being supercharged it was a Miller cycle named after an American engineer who came up with it. Just like the rotary was invented by a European. Seems like a trend of most of the ideas were not invented in Japan.
I agree that European cars sometimes have weird designs. For all the talking about German engineering and Germans are the best engineers, you have to wonder what definition of good engineering is being used.
I think with domestics, usually only a few of the cheapest economy engines were timing belt, or limited production like the GM DOHC 3.4, or engines that were a foreign design. They didn't stick timing belts and mechanical cams on just about every engine, often with no regard to interference like Japanese tended to do.
Also I called the Mazda engine an Atkinson, but being supercharged it was a Miller cycle named after an American engineer who came up with it. Just like the rotary was invented by a European. Seems like a trend of most of the ideas were not invented in Japan.
I agree that European cars sometimes have weird designs. For all the talking about German engineering and Germans are the best engineers, you have to wonder what definition of good engineering is being used.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Yeah, I'm just saying that GM had the ability improve the rotary but just chose not too. I think Mazda put all that effort into the rotary with plans to use it widespread. And I think history proved that the rotary was of limited use.
I don't know if GM could or couldn't. GM at the time had a definite smugness about them that would not allow them to accept anyone else's technology. They absolutely could have easily reverse engineered a Mazda and maybe even made a few improvements but I do not think their corporate ego would let them.
NSU couldn't make it at all reliable and their rotaries actually made it to production. Suzuki actually copied and corrected the NSU design.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I think with domestics, usually only a few of the cheapest economy engines were timing belt, or limited production like the GM DOHC 3.4, or engines that were a foreign design. They didn't stick timing belts and mechanical cams on just about every engine, often with no regard to interference like Japanese tended to do.
The bulk of them were also OHV designs. Chevrolet 2200, Pontiac 151, Ford HSC, AMC 150... You can use a timing belt on an OHV engine but almost no engine maker does. The Quad4 is the first domestic (D)OHC 4cyl I can think of with a timing chain. Ford CVH, Chevette, Vega, and Chrysler K engines were belt driven.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Also I called the Mazda engine an Atkinson, but being supercharged it was a Miller cycle named after an American engineer who came up with it. Just like the rotary was invented by a European. Seems like a trend of most of the ideas were not invented in Japan.
Yep.
I can't think of anything technological that the Japanese originated. They take existing ideas and make them more efficient, work better, work better in conjunction with other ideas, smaller, etc....
Like the A6M Zero. There was no pioneering technology in this aircraft. You see design influences from Vought and Pratt and Whitney throughout. But it was put together in such a way that at the onset of the war it was the best carrier based fighter plane in the world.
Yeah, I'm just saying that GM had the ability improve the rotary but just chose not too. I think Mazda put all that effort into the rotary with plans to use it widespread. And I think history proved that the rotary was of limited use.
I don't know if GM could or couldn't. GM at the time had a definite smugness about them that would not allow them to accept anyone else's technology. They absolutely could have easily reverse engineered a Mazda and maybe even made a few improvements but I do not think their corporate ego would let them.
NSU couldn't make it at all reliable and their rotaries actually made it to production. Suzuki actually copied and corrected the NSU design.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I think with domestics, usually only a few of the cheapest economy engines were timing belt, or limited production like the GM DOHC 3.4, or engines that were a foreign design. They didn't stick timing belts and mechanical cams on just about every engine, often with no regard to interference like Japanese tended to do.
The bulk of them were also OHV designs. Chevrolet 2200, Pontiac 151, Ford HSC, AMC 150... You can use a timing belt on an OHV engine but almost no engine maker does. The Quad4 is the first domestic (D)OHC 4cyl I can think of with a timing chain. Ford CVH, Chevette, Vega, and Chrysler K engines were belt driven.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Also I called the Mazda engine an Atkinson, but being supercharged it was a Miller cycle named after an American engineer who came up with it. Just like the rotary was invented by a European. Seems like a trend of most of the ideas were not invented in Japan.
Yep.
I can't think of anything technological that the Japanese originated. They take existing ideas and make them more efficient, work better, work better in conjunction with other ideas, smaller, etc....
Like the A6M Zero. There was no pioneering technology in this aircraft. You see design influences from Vought and Pratt and Whitney throughout. But it was put together in such a way that at the onset of the war it was the best carrier based fighter plane in the world.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
. They had no intention of building a light sports car around a small 2-rotor rotary so it was useless to try to perfect it.
GM had planned on making their rotary the powerplant for the Corvette and selling it to AMC who intended to power their new Pacer with it.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
...
I don't have a problem or criticism with what Mazda did with the rotary or the Atkins cycle engine in the Millenia per se. My criticism is at just about all the Japanese makes and their love affair with timing belts and valve adjustments. Mazda parts price can be high on some of these lower volume models. I remember them being high on the Rx7 and the 2nd generation wasn't all that low volume. I guess in Japan you only keep a car a few years and throw it away, so I guess it doesn't matter if the car falls apart at 10 years and has to be taken apart to fix and parts cost are high.
To be fair, the Ford Lima OHC has a belt, GM DOHC 3.4 has a chain and a belt, all variants of the Neon engine are belt....seems like they were the de-rigueur timing drive of that era.
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
. They had no intention of building a light sports car around a small 2-rotor rotary so it was useless to try to perfect it.
GM had planned on making their rotary the powerplant for the Corvette and selling it to AMC who intended to power their new Pacer with it.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
...
I don't have a problem or criticism with what Mazda did with the rotary or the Atkins cycle engine in the Millenia per se. My criticism is at just about all the Japanese makes and their love affair with timing belts and valve adjustments. Mazda parts price can be high on some of these lower volume models. I remember them being high on the Rx7 and the 2nd generation wasn't all that low volume. I guess in Japan you only keep a car a few years and throw it away, so I guess it doesn't matter if the car falls apart at 10 years and has to be taken apart to fix and parts cost are high.
To be fair, the Ford Lima OHC has a belt, GM DOHC 3.4 has a chain and a belt, all variants of the Neon engine are belt....seems like they were the de-rigueur timing drive of that era.
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
To be fair, the Ford Lima OHC has a belt, GM DOHC 3.4 has a chain and a belt, all variants of the Neon engine are belt....seems like they were the de-rigueur timing drive of that era.
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
That's what's funny about the Ford CVH. It was preceeded by the Lima. How many years was it until they made it a non-interference engine? I know the 1.9s were but I think most of the 1.6es were interference engines. It was quite a problem with the first years of the Escort.
Or the Neon. They knew how to make a SOHC non interference engine but apparently forgot! Forgot how to seal an aluminum head on a cast iron block too.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
To be fair, the Ford Lima OHC has a belt, GM DOHC 3.4 has a chain and a belt, all variants of the Neon engine are belt....seems like they were the de-rigueur timing drive of that era.
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
That's what's funny about the Ford CVH. It was preceeded by the Lima. How many years was it until they made it a non-interference engine? I know the 1.9s were but I think most of the 1.6es were interference engines. It was quite a problem with the first years of the Escort.
Or the Neon. They knew how to make a SOHC non interference engine but apparently forgot! Forgot how to seal an aluminum head on a cast iron block too.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
Yep, I remember when the t-belt broke in my parents' '86 Ranger. It was back on the road later that afternoon.
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
Yep, I remember when the t-belt broke in my parents' '86 Ranger. It was back on the road later that afternoon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_B-Series#Rotary_Pickup
Yeah, a rotary engined pickup? I want a 16 MPG mini truck to do what a F100 can't.
Neon engine has something the 2.2 doesn't, a compression ratio and good power/weight/economy.
Yeah, a rotary engined pickup? I want a 16 MPG mini truck to do what a F100 can't.
Neon engine has something the 2.2 doesn't, a compression ratio and good power/weight/economy.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
Yep, I remember when the t-belt broke in my parents' '86 Ranger. It was back on the road later that afternoon.
Sounds like it was a non-interference engine.
I once had it go on a Ford Escort. You turn the key and all you hear is a high-pitcher "Whirrrrrrrr"... Thankfully, that car was disposable and the radiator had just been run dry by a road reflector, kicked up by a semi and sent through the grill like a heavy bullet.. took out the radiator, I pulled over and looked, said "whew!" as that could have been bad for me if higher.. Thanks, Interstate 71 headed to Sunbury from Columbus in Ohio. Anyways, the "Whirrr," the mechanic told me the engine seized up and the belt broke, of course the radiator cracked along the side where the hose attached, that car was all done (engine-wise._ Glad it was only an escort. Not a bad car, either. Just cheap, and readily replaceable.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
The Lima won't self-destruct if the belt breaks! Ditto for the Mopar 2.2/2.5. That is the big factor.
Yep, I remember when the t-belt broke in my parents' '86 Ranger. It was back on the road later that afternoon.
Sounds like it was a non-interference engine.
I once had it go on a Ford Escort. You turn the key and all you hear is a high-pitcher "Whirrrrrrrr"... Thankfully, that car was disposable and the radiator had just been run dry by a road reflector, kicked up by a semi and sent through the grill like a heavy bullet.. took out the radiator, I pulled over and looked, said "whew!" as that could have been bad for me if higher.. Thanks, Interstate 71 headed to Sunbury from Columbus in Ohio. Anyways, the "Whirrr," the mechanic told me the engine seized up and the belt broke, of course the radiator cracked along the side where the hose attached, that car was all done (engine-wise._ Glad it was only an escort. Not a bad car, either. Just cheap, and readily replaceable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
