Mazda continues to lead in innovations....

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: gofast182

However, the Accord is already faster to 70mph and anything above. Also the 1/4 mile trap speed shows that the Accord has more power. The 45-65mph time is also a good indication of power as launching is taken out of the equation.


To take issue with your claim here, 45-65 mph times are more often a function of where the transmission puts the engine in its power band (and how much shifting the transmission is allowed to do) and frequently have very little to do with engine power.

Some vehicles are absolute dogs when going from certain speeds because they're way out of their power band.

You make a decent point but I have trouble accepting your premise in this case. Automakers, especially one as astute as Mazda, have the transmission and engine tuned to work very well together. If you were to tell me this when we're comparing a Chevy to X then I'd buy it. There's just no way to get around those numbers when the K24W with a CVT eventually starts to pull away and the K24W with a manual smokes it from the start.

 

[jigen]

Time will tell with the paint on new Mazdas but so far my 6 has impressed me with durability. I had a bad door scrape by some ding dong, and someone else left a shopping cart in the parking lot where the wind took it and it barreled down the side of my car. Nothing went through the clear coat, it all buffed out. I feel like it's holding up better than previous car's paint.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: gofast182

You make a decent point but I have trouble accepting your premise in this case. Automakers, especially one as astute as Mazda, have the transmission and engine tuned to work very well together. If you were to tell me this when we're comparing a Chevy to X then I'd buy it. There's just no way to get around those numbers when the K24W with a CVT eventually starts to pull away and the K24W with a manual smokes it from the start.


At least it sounds like you have abandoned your baseless MPG and power claims.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: gofast182


The auto skyactiv is only quicker over the 0-30 interval because the mazda allows brake torquing and wheelspin for an optimal launch. After that, the Accord's power/weight ratio kills it over every other interval. Kudos to Mazda for allowing a good launch, but the Accord engine is clearly much stronger.

In Motor Trend, you can easily see the advantage the 6 got from its launch in the 0-30mph result - 2.5 seconds. The Accord is quite a bit behind at 2.9 seconds.

However, the Accord is already faster to 70mph and anything above. Also the 1/4 mile trap speed shows that the Accord has more power. The 45-65mph time is also a good indication of power as launching is taken out of the equation.

In C/D, the difference between the two cars from 0-30mph is even bigger, 2.5 seconds vs 3.1 seconds. However, the Accord gets to 100mph faster, despite falling behind hard initially. May be this is easier to see: The 6 takes 17.5 seconds to go from 30mph to 100 mph (20s - 2.5s). The Accord takes 16.2s to ho from 30-100mph (19.3s - 3.1s). Top gear acceleration comparison is irrelevant since the CVT's artificial 7th gear is set at 37.1mph/1000rpm, while the 6's 6th speed gear ratio is at 33.7mph/100rpm.

Now, if one takes the auto transmission out of the equation (since they're different types) and goes for a comparison of manuals the 6 takes 7.9s to go from 0-60, 20s to go from 0-100, and 16.1s to cover the quarter mile. The Accord takes 6.6s to go from 0-60, 17.9s to go from 0-100, and 15.3s to cover the quarter mile.

It's plain to see that the K24W is a more robust engine especially when the transmission variable is factored out of the equation. Then if you couple that with the fuel economy numbers folks are reporting (real-world) they're really close to the 6. I really don't mean this to be a [censored] contest because I happen to like the new 6 but there are certain facts out there which indicate the SkyActiv engine, while quite good, isn't a clear leader.


He's pulling all of this garbage, verbatim, off of "the temple of vtec (LOL amirite?) vtec.net. There's these hilarious threads where a bunch of old-school 90's Honda riceboys all talk junk about anything that's better than their beloved Honda engines. "Stuck in an earth dream" WAKE UP!

I'll get into it point by point if I have to, but already have decades experience dealing with children of the Honda extremist faith, thus my reluctance to engage, if you will.

Look how ANGRY they are that skyactiv won awards. They're all trying to rationlize how the awards are now suddenly meaningless. Just read this nonsense !

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: gofast182

You make a decent point but I have trouble accepting your premise in this case. Automakers, especially one as astute as Mazda, have the transmission and engine tuned to work very well together. If you were to tell me this when we're comparing a Chevy to X then I'd buy it. There's just no way to get around those numbers when the K24W with a CVT eventually starts to pull away and the K24W with a manual smokes it from the start.


Honestly, it has nothing to do with being astute powertrain engineers or not. If the Mazda happens to be between gears at 45 mph, it will be slow from 45-65 mph, even if it could blitz the Honda from 50-70 or from 40-60.

I know you're in defense mode here, but I'm taking issue only with your comment about the 45-65 times and explaining to you why something like that is not representative overall. 1/4 mile times I can get behind more than most other metrics like 0-60 (which is a test that differing shift points, redlines, and traction off the line can impact more than simply power).

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
They're all trying to rationlize how the awards are now suddenly meaningless.


Fans of a certain brand will naturally look at anything in the light that makes "their" brand look best. You've witnessed it on BITOG over the last few months. Everytime the new 6 would win a comparison, it's because it's clearly the best driver's car out there. Everytime the new 6 would not win a comparison, it's because Mazdas aren't meant for everybody.

This is a function of human nature.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: gofast182


The auto skyactiv is only quicker over the 0-30 interval because the mazda allows brake torquing and wheelspin for an optimal launch. After that, the Accord's power/weight ratio kills it over every other interval. Kudos to Mazda for allowing a good launch, but the Accord engine is clearly much stronger.

In Motor Trend, you can easily see the advantage the 6 got from its launch in the 0-30mph result - 2.5 seconds. The Accord is quite a bit behind at 2.9 seconds.

However, the Accord is already faster to 70mph and anything above. Also the 1/4 mile trap speed shows that the Accord has more power. The 45-65mph time is also a good indication of power as launching is taken out of the equation.

In C/D, the difference between the two cars from 0-30mph is even bigger, 2.5 seconds vs 3.1 seconds. However, the Accord gets to 100mph faster, despite falling behind hard initially. May be this is easier to see: The 6 takes 17.5 seconds to go from 30mph to 100 mph (20s - 2.5s). The Accord takes 16.2s to ho from 30-100mph (19.3s - 3.1s). Top gear acceleration comparison is irrelevant since the CVT's artificial 7th gear is set at 37.1mph/1000rpm, while the 6's 6th speed gear ratio is at 33.7mph/100rpm.

Now, if one takes the auto transmission out of the equation (since they're different types) and goes for a comparison of manuals the 6 takes 7.9s to go from 0-60, 20s to go from 0-100, and 16.1s to cover the quarter mile. The Accord takes 6.6s to go from 0-60, 17.9s to go from 0-100, and 15.3s to cover the quarter mile.

It's plain to see that the K24W is a more robust engine especially when the transmission variable is factored out of the equation. Then if you couple that with the fuel economy numbers folks are reporting (real-world) they're really close to the 6. I really don't mean this to be a [censored] contest because I happen to like the new 6 but there are certain facts out there which indicate the SkyActiv engine, while quite good, isn't a clear leader.


He's pulling all of this garbage, verbatim, off of "the temple of vtec (LOL amirite?) vtec.net. There's these hilarious threads where a bunch of old-school 90's Honda riceboys all talk junk about anything that's better than their beloved Honda engines. "Stuck in an earth dream" WAKE UP!

I'll get into it point by point if I have to, but already have decades experience dealing with children of the Honda extremist faith, thus my reluctance to engage, if you will.

Look how ANGRY they are that skyactiv won awards. They're all trying to rationlize how the awards are now suddenly meaningless. Just read this nonsense !



Thanks for posting. What a joke. I laughed so hard I almost peed. Fanboys crying.

 

[gofast182]

First, it's not a joke, those are stats. that can't be argued with. And no I don't begrudge the 6 any comparison tests it wins. It's an excellent car that deserves praise. My critique is strictly of the SkyActiv engine itself, not the car as a whole. It's still a very good engine but to call it a leader is not cut and dry.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
First, it's not a joke, those are stats. that can't be argued with. And no I don't begrudge the 6 any comparison tests it wins. It's an excellent car that deserves praise. My critique is strictly of the SkyActiv engine itself, not the car as a whole. It's still a very good engine but to call it a leader is not cut and dry.


Do you have any original thoughts or are all your "points" stolen from different forums

 

[SteveSRT8]

As posted, the facts are true. The Mazda with 6 speed slushbox vs. the Honda with CVT are only one mph apart in trap speed though, which is a very accurate measure of real world horsepressure.

Odds are they make very similar power.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
As posted, the facts are true. The Mazda with 6 speed slushbox vs. the Honda with CVT are only one mph apart in trap speed though, which is a very accurate measure of real world horsepressure.

Odds are they make very similar power.


What's the weight difference between the two cars Steve? We both know that'll impact trap speed.

 

[SteveSRT8]

3373 Honda vs. 3294 Mazda

 

[gofast182]

Clevy, most of my thoughts are original. Yes I took a block of text from TOV (where I'm also a member) to capture those AT numbers and then I added the MT numbers myself. It was easier than retyping it all even though it would've said the same thing either way because the numbers are factual. If you have an engine that can overcome an inferior (CVT) transmission to post some better acceleration numbers in a heavier car, it's more healthy on the power front and the MT numbers are a better illustration of it.
In one sense I'll apologize to the participants of this thread as I didn't intend my posts to be a bashing of the 6, as I've stated it's a great car and has earned it's share of awards. The point simply was that the SkyActiv engine itself can't clearly be called the leader (again not to say it's not a very good engine).

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
As posted, the facts are true. The Mazda with 6 speed slushbox vs. the Honda with CVT are only one mph apart in trap speed though, which is a very accurate measure of real world horsepressure.

Odds are they make very similar power.


Putting a CVT vs a stepped gearbox for full-throttle acceleration is hardly comprehensive. While the differences we're talking about here in general are insignificant, once rolling the Accord CVT has the luxury of keeping it's RPM at it's peak HP, where the Skyactiv relies on the broad torque- yet still the difference is negligible at best.


Originally Posted By: gofast182
First, it's not a joke, those are stats. that can't be argued with. And no I don't begrudge the 6 any comparison tests it wins. It's an excellent car that deserves praise. My critique is strictly of the SkyActiv engine itself, not the car as a whole. It's still a very good engine but to call it a leader is not cut and dry.

Please don't be offended byt the following statement, gofast, but
what if I told you that the K24W - Earth Dreams is simply an inferior engine, no matter how you put it. Let's see in two years if they've resolved the valvetrain NVH or piston rocking issues. I cant imagine HP DI injectors helping much on that front either.

Okay, cheap jibes aside, lets resort to facts:

Yes, the Accord Sport "ED" does make more peak HP, 5-6more to be exact, thanks to ~500rpm longer RPM band. You won't miss that horsepower at all other times below 6500 (major loss lol), but you might miss the torque

Onto some specifications:
The K24W engine, Honda's very first GDI

(so cute), originally makes 185hp/181tq@3900, in it's native form. SA makes 184/185tq@3250, in it's detuned form. FTR SA 2.5 produces 192hp in the JDM- and it's a new engine architecture and these are their original, unrevised tunes. But this was never about which engine is tuned higher, more than it is about "every other consideration of engineering an automobile". If you can understand nothing but Honda, then consider this example- there is a reason why the K20Z3 2.0L making a whopping 155hp even exists, and why not every K20 is a A2/Z4, and likewise for the K24. Does that make sense?

So about those 5 extra horses? What are those Honda Engineers up to?
Quote:
"The 2013 Honda Accord Sport gets 190hp/185lb-ft thanks to a slight ECU tune and larger exhaust piping and higher flow Cat. "

The Accord sport's "ED"engine (K24W3) is already on it's third and fourth revision. Honda seems to have wanted to edge Skyactiv on the brochure figures for the Accord sport via bolt on mods and ECU tune. Again, that's cute, but thank goodness the Japan Society of Automotive Engineers doesn't hand out awards for doing bolt-on mods and last-ditch DI adaptations to 10+yr old engine architectures, but instead for achievements in BSFC, thermal efficiency, frictional losses and real-world execution.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Trap speed across a quarter mile has been proven to be a reliable and accurate measure of horsepower independent of gearing, driver, track conditions, etc.

That's not an opinion, it's the truth. And the numbers I quoted were equalized to sea level for a quality comparison.

 

[surfstar]

Well, as lame as 'skyactiv' sounds, its better than 'earth dreams'

which has been shortened to ED (hmm, where have I heard that term before?)

 

[gofast182]

jrustles:

There are two versions of the K24W, the W2 (LX, EX) and W3 (Sport). That's how they debuted they haven't been changed since then.

Despite the attempt to make it seem that way, you haven't uncovered any scandalous information that Honda hasn't published itself when accounting for the extra power in the Accord Sport.

Yes this is Honda's first production DI automobile engine. They actually had a run at developing this technology in the early 1990's but let it go after they discovered the deposit issues.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Well, as lame as 'skyactiv' sounds, its better than 'earth dreams'

which has been shortened to ED (hmm, where have I heard that term before?)

SkyActiv certainly sounds much better; they'd have been hard pressed to find a dumber name than Earth Dreams. And not for nothing, as I alluded to on the first page, I admire the way Mazda embraced this as a complete philosophy, the fruits of this are evident with the CX-5 (now that they put the 2.5 in it), the 6 as an all-around good car, and probably the 3 which looks like it might punch above its weight.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Trap speed across a quarter mile has been proven to be a reliable and accurate measure of horsepower independent of gearing, driver, track conditions, etc.

That's not an opinion, it's the truth. And the numbers I quoted were equalized to sea level for a quality comparison.



Ya bro, I know how traps work and I didn't fail to mention that the accord sport is up 5hp corresponding to the results. But, CVT is a different ballgame. Firstly, trap speeds only really matter during the last half of the track-, right where a CVT is stuck at it's peak HP output (and where most HiPo cars finally hook up). And so, it is right that traps are a good indicator of horsepower- horsepower delivered to the wheels!! CVT on any engine will deliver more HP to the wheels vs the same engine on a ratio transmission. So what? Racers are going to clammer to CVTs now? We're all gonna drive our CVT passenger cars screaming at the HP peak just to reap an advantage?

 

[jigen]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
As posted, the facts are true. The Mazda with 6 speed slushbox vs. the Honda with CVT are only one mph apart in trap speed though, which is a very accurate measure of real world horsepressure.

Odds are they make very similar power.


What's the weight difference between the two cars Steve? We both know that'll impact trap speed.


And with the manual trans the Accord does the 1/4 in 15.3 seconds where I think the Mazda is somewhere around 15.7. Seems like the results vary a bit though.

Mazda6 with the MT's curb weight: 3107lbs
Accord with the MT's curb weight: 3272 lbs