Mazda 3 i-ACTIV AWD diagonal test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hydraulics take a lot longer to actuate and are a lot less efficient than electromagnetic. The mazda system allows for better/quicker response.


The ea888, american version (not dual injector setup), requires walnut blasting. I've seen recommendations from 40 to 80k miles, depending on conditions. Point is...its an issue that doesnt plague SkyActiv engines.

GM and BMW n54 also have similar issues as the VAG engines.

Mazda took great pains to run the intake valves HOT, as well as an excellent PCV system, so that their DI only engines don't have this issue.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Ws6
Hydraulics take a lot longer to actuate and are a lot less efficient than electromagnetic. The mazda system allows for better/quicker response.


The ea888, american version (not dual injector setup), requires walnut blasting. I've seen recommendations from 40 to 80k miles, depending on conditions. Point is...its an issue that doesnt plague SkyActiv engines.

GM and BMW n54 also have similar issues as the VAG engines.

Mazda took great pains to run the intake valves HOT, as well as an excellent PCV system, so that their DI only engines don't have this issue.

Like I said, you are shooting in empty. No, EA888 does not have recommendation, and you are talking 1st gen. EA888, which was available in 2009. Youa re talking about engine that is two generation older than Mazda 2.5T. I have that EA888 engine, 1st generation.
N54 engine was introduced in 2007, and yes, it does require walnut blasting every 40k.
There are two possibilities here:
1. Mazda decided to take a look shortcomings of early adopters of DI technology.
2. You think Mazda should be compared to engines two generations before current one.
The world does not work that way. Comparable Mazda engine to those is 2.3 turbo, and that engine is definiately not an example of reliability.
As video indicates, there are no any shortcomings in using hydraulics compared to electromagnetic. Take into consideration, that VW is not an exemplary performer in that video, but that Subaru and especially BMW are in completely different category.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Hydraulics take a lot longer to actuate and are a lot less efficient than electromagnetic. The mazda system allows for better/quicker response.


The ea888, american version (not dual injector setup), requires walnut blasting. I've seen recommendations from 40 to 80k miles, depending on conditions. Point is...its an issue that doesnt plague SkyActiv engines.

GM and BMW n54 also have similar issues as the VAG engines.

Mazda took great pains to run the intake valves HOT, as well as an excellent PCV system, so that their DI only engines don't have this issue.

Like I said, you are shooting in empty. No, EA888 does not have recommendation, and you are talking 1st gen. EA888, which was available in 2009. Youa re talking about engine that is two generation older than Mazda 2.5T. I have that EA888 engine, 1st generation.
N54 engine was introduced in 2007, and yes, it does require walnut blasting every 40k.
There are two possibilities here:
1. Mazda decided to take a look shortcomings of early adopters of DI technology.
2. You think Mazda should be compared to engines two generations before current one.
The world does not work that way. Comparable Mazda engine to those is 2.3 turbo, and that engine is definiately not an example of reliability.
As video indicates, there are no any shortcomings in using hydraulics compared to electromagnetic. Take into consideration, that VW is not an exemplary performer in that video, but that Subaru and especially BMW are in completely different category.

I used those examples because you said "it took mazda 15 years to catch up." Now you're saying that they are right with everyone else, and acknowledging that they didn't do the half-baked DI thing, but jumped right in with a comprehensively well designed engine. I wouldnt call that catching up. I'd call it introducing a mature product without using your customers as beta testers for a product that's pushed out on the market without due testing, simply for the sake of "being one of the first ".

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. A major part of its appeal to me. Their transmission is another shining example of a product done right, the first time, and standing the test of time.

The MS3s engine wasnt DI. It did make Wards top 10 3 years running, though...Ford STILL uses the L engine as a basis for their Duratec world engine. I mean..that's darn impressive!

No, I wont argue that it was super reliable, but credit where it's due. (Also note I didnt buy one...)
 
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
This is how that works in reality:


Mazda driver was very timid, as the video states. You're also not going to get an honest comparison with so many "run to run" factors that change. That's like you finding that one video of me in my LS1 car giving a mustang GT the hit and taking FOREVER to pass it and then saying "See, the mustang GT is almost as fast..." when the very next run was a clean hit, and I left it by busses.


Not to mention they all had different tires... I don't think I'd expect a winter tire, like what they had on the Mazda, to be good in mud, studded or not. A fair comparison would have the same tires on all the vehicles.
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
This is how that works in reality:


Mazda driver was very timid, as the video states. You're also not going to get an honest comparison with so many "run to run" factors that change. That's like you finding that one video of me in my LS1 car giving a mustang GT the hit and taking FOREVER to pass it and then saying "See, the mustang GT is almost as fast..." when the very next run was a clean hit, and I left it by busses.


Not to mention they all had different tires... I don't think I'd expect a winter tire, like what they had on the Mazda, to be good in mud, studded or not. A fair comparison would have the same tires on all the vehicles.

When put on the same tires, the Mazda performs similar to the Subaru. I havent seen a head to head with the MB or BMW yet.
 
"Not to mention they all had different tires... I don't think I'd expect a winter tire, like what they had on the Mazda, to be good in mud, studded or not. A fair comparison would have the same tires on all the vehicles."




Agree. Tests like this have some value but are not completely fair across the board. Another factor is when the previous car runs the course and chews up the mud spinning their tires. Then the following cars have to go through that changed condition that previous vehicles didn't.
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
This is how that works in reality:


Mazda driver was very timid, as the video states. You're also not going to get an honest comparison with so many "run to run" factors that change. That's like you finding that one video of me in my LS1 car giving a mustang GT the hit and taking FOREVER to pass it and then saying "See, the mustang GT is almost as fast..." when the very next run was a clean hit, and I left it by busses.


Not to mention they all had different tires... I don't think I'd expect a winter tire, like what they had on the Mazda, to be good in mud, studded or not. A fair comparison would have the same tires on all the vehicles.

BMW was on summer performance tires. Winter tires are all rated Mud+Snow. Actually, Mazda having winter tires would give advantage comapred to other vehicles.
 
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Hydraulics take a lot longer to actuate and are a lot less efficient than electromagnetic. The mazda system allows for better/quicker response.


The ea888, american version (not dual injector setup), requires walnut blasting. I've seen recommendations from 40 to 80k miles, depending on conditions. Point is...its an issue that doesnt plague SkyActiv engines.

GM and BMW n54 also have similar issues as the VAG engines.

Mazda took great pains to run the intake valves HOT, as well as an excellent PCV system, so that their DI only engines don't have this issue.

Like I said, you are shooting in empty. No, EA888 does not have recommendation, and you are talking 1st gen. EA888, which was available in 2009. Youa re talking about engine that is two generation older than Mazda 2.5T. I have that EA888 engine, 1st generation.
N54 engine was introduced in 2007, and yes, it does require walnut blasting every 40k.
There are two possibilities here:
1. Mazda decided to take a look shortcomings of early adopters of DI technology.
2. You think Mazda should be compared to engines two generations before current one.
The world does not work that way. Comparable Mazda engine to those is 2.3 turbo, and that engine is definiately not an example of reliability.
As video indicates, there are no any shortcomings in using hydraulics compared to electromagnetic. Take into consideration, that VW is not an exemplary performer in that video, but that Subaru and especially BMW are in completely different category.

I used those examples because you said "it took mazda 15 years to catch up." Now you're saying that they are right with everyone else, and acknowledging that they didn't do the half-baked DI thing, but jumped right in with a comprehensively well designed engine. I wouldnt call that catching up. I'd call it introducing a mature product without using your customers as beta testers for a product that's pushed out on the market without due testing, simply for the sake of "being one of the first ".

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. A major part of its appeal to me. Their transmission is another shining example of a product done right, the first time, and standing the test of time.

The MS3s engine wasnt DI. It did make Wards top 10 3 years running, though...Ford STILL uses the L engine as a basis for their Duratec world engine. I mean..that's darn impressive!

No, I wont argue that it was super reliable, but credit where it's due. (Also note I didnt buy one...)

That is what I said, 15 yers of development and Mazda has something that is not Ford. So for purposes of comparison, it is EA888 third generation in VW, and BMW B48 engines (well, that is actually not comparison).
If you think that Mazda engine is in any way comparable to BMW B48, than you have serious issue of wishful thinking. I am not saying Mazda 2.5 is not good engine, though, but it is far from BMW, and still needs to catch up with VW. That is what 15 years of DI experiment gives you. Mazda had 15 years of other doing R&D for them. Honda for example did not take a look at problems other had (dilution in 1.5t) Mazda did. However, talking how others are using customers as testers? Yeah, that 2.3t in Mazda was really mature product.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw

BMW was on summer performance tires. Winter tires are all rated Mud+Snow. Actually, Mazda having winter tires would give advantage comapred to other vehicles.


The M+S marking doesn't really mean anything beyond the treads are self cleaning, there is a certain amount of void area, and certain groove positioning, very lax. The 3 peak mountain snowflake is an actual test against ASTM E1136-14 and is much tougher. https://blog.tirerack.com/blog/bens-blog/what-is-a-mud-and-snow-tire

According to Bridgestone, all the Turanza's are all season tires. They also have M+S on their tires.
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by edyvw

BMW was on summer performance tires. Winter tires are all rated Mud+Snow. Actually, Mazda having winter tires would give advantage comapred to other vehicles.


The M+S marking doesn't really mean anything beyond the treads are self cleaning, there is a certain amount of void area, and certain groove positioning, very lax. The 3 peak mountain snowflake is an actual test against ASTM E1136-14 and is much tougher. https://blog.tirerack.com/blog/bens-blog/what-is-a-mud-and-snow-tire

According to Bridgestone, all the Turanza's are all season tires. They also have M+S on their tires.

Yes, I know that very well. Void area is 25%. Winter compound and flexibility will give car more advantage in lower temperatures (which was the case there) while siping which all winter tires+ that void will help in mud.
Either way, it is clear advantage in those conditions over anything performance or all season (highly doubt any car was equipped with all season tires as they are not popular in Europe). New cars come with summer or winter tires.
However, let's say hypothetically some cars had all season tires, manufacturers do not design M+S tires with only void area in mind without also making compound more appropriate for colder weather in order to improve traction in slick and other conditions, at least to certain point.
The fact that that BMW had performance tires, is telling. That is transverse mounted engine so I am not sure how xDrive works in those. In one I had, X5, it was really good getting out of deep snow when I stuck it purposely. It did not need too much time to figure out which wheel has most traction and transfer torque there. Tiguan on other hand was better than BMW going through regular snow on the road due to skinny tires and heavy front. However, when I stuck it like BMW, it had hard time figuring out how to get out.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Hydraulics take a lot longer to actuate and are a lot less efficient than electromagnetic. The mazda system allows for better/quicker response.


The ea888, american version (not dual injector setup), requires walnut blasting. I've seen recommendations from 40 to 80k miles, depending on conditions. Point is...its an issue that doesnt plague SkyActiv engines.

GM and BMW n54 also have similar issues as the VAG engines.

Mazda took great pains to run the intake valves HOT, as well as an excellent PCV system, so that their DI only engines don't have this issue.

Like I said, you are shooting in empty. No, EA888 does not have recommendation, and you are talking 1st gen. EA888, which was available in 2009. Youa re talking about engine that is two generation older than Mazda 2.5T. I have that EA888 engine, 1st generation.
N54 engine was introduced in 2007, and yes, it does require walnut blasting every 40k.
There are two possibilities here:
1. Mazda decided to take a look shortcomings of early adopters of DI technology.
2. You think Mazda should be compared to engines two generations before current one.
The world does not work that way. Comparable Mazda engine to those is 2.3 turbo, and that engine is definiately not an example of reliability.
As video indicates, there are no any shortcomings in using hydraulics compared to electromagnetic. Take into consideration, that VW is not an exemplary performer in that video, but that Subaru and especially BMW are in completely different category.

I used those examples because you said "it took mazda 15 years to catch up." Now you're saying that they are right with everyone else, and acknowledging that they didn't do the half-baked DI thing, but jumped right in with a comprehensively well designed engine. I wouldnt call that catching up. I'd call it introducing a mature product without using your customers as beta testers for a product that's pushed out on the market without due testing, simply for the sake of "being one of the first ".

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. A major part of its appeal to me. Their transmission is another shining example of a product done right, the first time, and standing the test of time.

The MS3s engine wasnt DI. It did make Wards top 10 3 years running, though...Ford STILL uses the L engine as a basis for their Duratec world engine. I mean..that's darn impressive!

No, I wont argue that it was super reliable, but credit where it's due. (Also note I didnt buy one...)

That is what I said, 15 yers of development and Mazda has something that is not Ford. So for purposes of comparison, it is EA888 third generation in VW, and BMW B48 engines (well, that is actually not comparison).
If you think that Mazda engine is in any way comparable to BMW B48, than you have serious issue of wishful thinking. I am not saying Mazda 2.5 is not good engine, though, but it is far from BMW, and still needs to catch up with VW. That is what 15 years of DI experiment gives you. Mazda had 15 years of other doing R&D for them. Honda for example did not take a look at problems other had (dilution in 1.5t) Mazda did. However, talking how others are using customers as testers? Yeah, that 2.3t in Mazda was really mature product.



I dunno. The modular construction of the B-series engines has helped BMW a lot, but I still would not own a B48, as BMW still is having quality control issues. I'd much rather hold out for the RAV4 Prime than buy an X3 B48, if you told me I had to have a 300hp CUV with a 4-cylinder.
 
Quote

I dunno. The modular construction of the B-series engines has helped BMW a lot, but I still would not own a B48, as BMW still is having quality control issues. I'd much rather hold out for the RAV4 Prime than buy an X3 B48, if you told me I had to have a 300hp CUV with a 4-cylinder.

That sums it up.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote

I dunno. The modular construction of the B-series engines has helped BMW a lot, but I still would not own a B48, as BMW still is having quality control issues. I'd much rather hold out for the RAV4 Prime than buy an X3 B48, if you told me I had to have a 300hp CUV with a 4-cylinder.

That sums it up.


Sorry, I meant to say "I doubt it." Or "I dont believe so."

No way I'd have a bmw. Period. Full stop. The only engines I have any interest in are GM V8s, or Japanese.
 
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.

Originally Posted by Ws6
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.
 
Originally Posted by buster
^great post. Agree.





Dittos. One thing about Mazda and their SkyActiv initiative is that they went all in and started from scratch on everything. Engine, transmission, AWD system, chassis and body. It is rare to have this happen. They didn't stop there either. CQI has happened all along the way since.

It surely impressed Toyota so much that they bought into Mazda. Their Dynamic Force engines have a lot of SkyActiv dna.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
This is how that works in reality:



This is the most ridiculous "comparison" test I have ever watched with massive disparities in entry speed among all the drivers, not to mention different tires on each vehicle. First test highlights how flawed this comparison is........Subaru and VW enter the obstacle pretty dang hot, Tucson comes to a complete stop ~10-15' before the turn. The Mazda driver was just slow in every test.

I knew about experiment control back in 3rd grade science class. This is like boiling water in a stainless steel pot on high and a regular non-stick teflon pot on medium and calling stainless steel a winner because it boiled faster.
 
Originally Posted by pezzy669
Originally Posted by edyvw
This is how that works in reality:



This is the most ridiculous "comparison" test I have ever watched with massive disparities in entry speed among all the drivers, not to mention different tires on each vehicle. First test highlights how flawed this comparison is........Subaru and VW enter the obstacle pretty dang hot, Tucson comes to a complete stop ~10-15' before the turn. The Mazda driver was just slow in every test.

I knew about experiment control back in 3rd grade science class. This is like boiling water in a stainless steel pot on high and a regular non-stick teflon pot on medium and calling stainless steel a winner because it boiled faster.



Agreed, very poor test. The driver of the Mazda and the Tucson both went slow. The BMW, VW, and Subaru driver hit every obstacle WOT.

Huge disparity in test procedures and driver skill levels.
 
I get that it's not really a valid comparison, but driving the '18 F150 4x4 with electronic locking differential is considerably more capable in snow than any of the little SUV's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
2018 RAV 4 vs. 2018 CRV
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
BAJA_05
LazyDog
First time for a New/ Newer car list
2
Replies
21
Views
909
GaryMX5
T
In need of a new work vehicle, so many all look the same, give me your horror stories.
Replies
15
Views
1K
addyguy
A
Thoughts on this high mileage 2020 MAZDA CX-9
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
KEVINK0000
Elkins45
2006 Honda CR-V, 4 cyl, AWD?
Replies
3
Views
368
Jango
Back
Top