oh, edyvw. You have so much to learn. I like Mazda for a few reasons, one of which is that they're eternally underrated and the weenies are always so wrong about them.
I will say you're right about Mazda learning from early adopters. That's how a company should work, by being early adopters and learning from themselves, right?.
Before we get into the matter, I have a question for you . Do you think it's all a chance that Mazda isn't screwing up DI and engine building as badly as some of the others? How can they do it? With huge R&D budgets from beefy revenues and accelerated development times? Just think about it.
Mazda has been R&D'ing GDI since the mid-90s. The 2006 2.3 DISI engine is indeed TGDI (DISI= Direct Injection Spark Ignition). It is
the engine that made LSPI a known thing. Notably more power dense than the 2007 N54 with an even more notable torque curve and objectively more reliable than the 2007 VW TSI, 2.3L DISI did all that on "API Resource Conserving" oil standards and 87AKI (despite 91AKI min. rec.) fuel without sludging up, wiping cams, burning oil, stripping headbolts, or popping headgaskets.
Even cthe years-later Ford Eoboost clone fell short because of Ford's cheap metallurgy and cost-cutting design changes (like switching to open deck block of the NA 2.3). The Mazda 2.3 DISI never suffered such issues. Never a class action lawsuit on their TGDI engine either, something VW can't say. edyvw, have some respect.
High-output TGDI world-engine: the first, but not perfect - 2.3L DISI had it's weaknesses, none unique however with issues still being suffered by other OEMs with TGDI to this day: soot-worn timing chain, possibility for LSPI and labyrinth oil seals on the Borg Warner K04 turbo that did not play nice with Resource Conserving oils breaking down in the bearing section of a hot turbo (an issue not even seen without API RC oils) That's about it. I'd say that record is beyond reproach.
edyvw, as for a few of your other arguments, The BMW B-engine is objectively not 'better' than the Skyactiv engines. You're invited to spell it all out for us, being a generation newer notwithstanding. (just having VVL =/= better btw) The latest BMW engine still uses slow, hydraulic VVT actuators because it's cam phasing strategy is less sophistocated than the Skyactiv's, which demands low latency on the intake, thus their use of a more expensive electronic cam actuator.
Elecromagnetic AWD clutch IS superior to hydraulic actuation, always. So far as basic transverse, FWD-based AWD systems go, the iActiv AWD is as well implemented as it gets.
*FWIW the next gen 6, CX-5 and bigger models will have longitudinal inline 6 engines (Sky-X and a diesel) with a full, proper AWD system including transfer case and an 8 speed Skyactiv drive transmission.
That is one thing that appealed to me about skyactiv. The R&D behind it is phenomenal, and you dont see teething issues with it
You're right on with this. One of the most impressive things about the Mazda company is that despite the tiny resources and revenues and extended product development times, relative to literally any other company, they have brilliant, dedicated in-house engineers that don't arrogantly screw up in boneheaded ways like some of the biggest names in the industry do.
They don't have that "oh they're a small dumb company and they did it, well it must be that easy" mentality (see: Honda 1.5T) and they're always ahead of the curve in application, despite the adject financial limitations. An ethic I respect and appreciate.
