Mazda continues to lead in innovations....

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: 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?

I'd be interested to know what the parasitics are on a CVT v. geared unit. IMO the CVT is still an inferior approach, despite the fact that they can hold the RPM in the power band better they're not as robust. A well-developed geared unit with 6+ speeds should do almost as good job of keeping a car in the power, right?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 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


At what MPH though?

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: gofast182

I'd be interested to know what the parasitics are on a CVT v. geared unit. IMO the CVT is still an inferior approach, despite the fact that they can hold the RPM in the power band better they're not as robust. A well-developed geared unit with 6+ speeds should do almost as good job of keeping a car in the power, right?


Yeah, CVT reliability is currently an ongoing persuit, but regarding performance I think Honda has good logic on their CVT. It's certainly reacts quicker than the units of old, but CVT quick, not quick quick. CVT still has the clear advantage of powerband selectivity and efficiency, but also generally lower torque capacities, lifespans, response time and spike tolerances. Improvements are being made, but they're not there yet. CVT belt losses are an interesting topic with a lot of in depth analysis into it.
Check out this interesting and in-depth look at belt CVT losses:
staff.bath.ac.uk/enssa/thesis.pdf

As for planetary autos matching acceleration characteristics of CVT? That's an entirely tunable factor based on engineering decisions, not a scope of capability. Close ratios would have closer advantage as that of CVT, but close ratios also have their disadvantages on both ends- ie too many too close ratio. The latter is the direction some planetary transmission makers are going for, just because they are more like CVTs. They also bring the downsides of CVT to drivability as well IMO, while theoretically eliminating the inherent unreliability of a belt.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
At what MPH though?



Funny you should ask!

 

[jigen]

No one is posting it from what I can find. :-\

 

[jrustles]

I love magazine racing!

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: jigen
No one is posting it from what I can find. :-\

6 is 90mph, A is 93mph.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: gofast182

I'd be interested to know what the parasitics are on a CVT v. geared unit. IMO the CVT is still an inferior approach, despite the fact that they can hold the RPM in the power band better they're not as robust. A well-developed geared unit with 6+ speeds should do almost as good job of keeping a car in the power, right?


Yeah, CVT reliability is currently an ongoing persuit, but regarding performance I think Honda has good logic on their CVT. It's certainly reacts quicker than the units of old, but CVT quick, not quick quick. CVT still has the clear advantage of powerband selectivity and efficiency, but also generally lower torque capacities, lifespans, response time and spike tolerances. Improvements are being made, but they're not there yet. CVT belt losses are an interesting topic with a lot of in depth analysis into it.
Check out this interesting and in-depth look at belt CVT losses:
staff.bath.ac.uk/enssa/thesis.pdf

As for planetary autos matching acceleration characteristics of CVT? That's an entirely tunable factor based on engineering decisions, not a scope of capability. Close ratios would have closer advantage as that of CVT, but close ratios also have their disadvantages on both ends- ie too many too close ratio. The latter is the direction some planetary transmission makers are going for, just because they are more like CVTs. They also bring the downsides of CVT to drivability as well IMO, while theoretically eliminating the inherent unreliability of a belt.

Now that's some interesting stuff!

 

[jrustles]

Here's a comparo of both cars, both with Automatics. It's amazing what a couple of horsepower can do. Pay attn to 160km/h and up

Huge difference

181hp 174hp Earth Dreams


192hp SkyActiv

 

[gofast182]

Those HP numbers don't make sense because they don't match what's available in the US. The top speed difference makes sense because Honda limits the top speed of the Accord while the Mazda is only restricted by drag (the 6 goes 16mph/26kph faster).

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Those HP numbers don't make sense because they don't match what's available in the US. The top speed difference makes sense because Honda limits the top speed of the Accord while the Mazda is only restricted by drag (the 6 goes 16mph/26kph faster).


TBH, I didn't even know there was a 174hp ED engine, I thought the lowest was 181. North American market- is at odds with the rest of the world, though. 190hp K24W is only available here in Accord Sport, whereas the 184hp SA is only available here, 192 everywhere else. Also, speed limiter didn't play a factor in the videos, they are not required in those markets.

 

[Bladecutter]

I bet if Mazda designed the 2.5 engine to rev to the same rpm limit as the Honda Earth Dreams engine, and gave it the same cam profiles as the Honda engine, we would actually have a useful comparison between the two vehicles.

The Honda engine revs higher, and performs better when running in those rpms.
The Mazda motor was designed to run in the midrange where the vast majority of the users actually drive their cars on a daily basis.

The real question you should be asking is why Honda hasn't put their DI engines into all of their products as of yet? Mazda has been phasing out all of their older engine designs, and replacing them with the SkyActiv engines in all their cars.

CX-5 and Mazda 3 both have the new 2.0 DI engine.
CX-5 and Mazda 6 both have the new 2.5 DI engine.
Mazda 3 soon gets that new 2.5 with the new car next month.

Mazda 2 will get new engines in their next refresh the end of next year, along with the Miata. Those two cars should be interesting to see what engines they come with, and what type of power they will have. Will the Miata come with enough power to wipe the track with the Subaru BRZ/Scion FRS? That should be very interesting.

Mazda is giving it all they've got, while Honda continues to be overly conservative.

BC.

 

[Spazdog]

Logically, the Koreans should be interested. Hyundai has built an executive class car (Equus). But they don't seem to have the suspension tuning down.

Imagine if Hyundai Peugeot/Citroën and Mazda teamed up.

Peugeot has the luxury car suspension tuning thing down pat. Don't believe me? Ask any Peugeot owner. When they say, "It rides like a Mercedes..." it's not a compliment. Or maybe they can use the Citroën hydropneumatic suspension.

The smaller cars can benefit from Mazda design. Shift a manual transmission Hyundai. It's not as sloppy and imprecise as they used to be but it's not the "snick/snick" of a Mazda. Again, chassis tuning. Get that Elantra/Forte dialed in.

Then you get Hyundai's resources and global presence. Ships, locomotives, semi-trailers, heavy construction equipment...Hyundai builds all of those. They buy a lot of steel, aluminum, petroleum products. When you buy that much, you buy it at a lower price.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: jigen
No one is posting it from what I can find. :-\

6 is 90mph, A is 93mph.


So in manual trim, the heavier car is going 3Mph faster? If so, that's the one making the most power, regardless of the dyno sheets. I guess this actually supports your argument in this thread then eh? LOL

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: jigen
No one is posting it from what I can find. :-\

6 is 90mph, A is 93mph.


So in manual trim, the heavier car is going 3Mph faster? If so, that's the one making the most power, regardless of the dyno sheets. I guess this actually supports your argument in this thread then eh? LOL

It does. No one contested that. An exhaust system, hi flow cats and an ECU might have that effect.... but I appologize.

The Accord is clearly the better car, with the better engine and transmission. K24W regardless of tune, clearly "spanks" all forms of the SA- like it just destroys it. It's settled now, we had it all wrong. How foolish to think that Honda could be out-done. They under rate their HP compared to Mazda that lies about all of their figures, because they suck and they're desperate. Honda are truly the gods of the auto world, I see that now, I see my mistakes. They're the #1 seller for a reason. We were all fooled by clever marketing. Thanks for helping me see the light.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: jigen
No one is posting it from what I can find. :-\

6 is 90mph, A is 93mph.


So in manual trim, the heavier car is going 3Mph faster? If so, that's the one making the most power, regardless of the dyno sheets. I guess this actually supports your argument in this thread then eh? LOL

It does. No one contested that. An exhaust system, hi flow cats and an ECU might have that effect.... but I appologize.

The Accord is clearly the better car, with the better engine and transmission. K24W regardless of tune, clearly "spanks" all forms of the SA- like it just destroys it. It's settled now, we had it all wrong. How foolish to think that Honda could be out-done. They under rate their HP compared to Mazda that lies about all of their figures, because they suck and they're desperate. Honda are truly the gods of the auto world, I see that now, I see my mistakes. They're the #1 seller for a reason. We were all fooled by clever marketing. Thanks for helping me see the light.


I know you went a bit heavy on the sarcasm here so I apologize in advance, but are you implying that the Accord MT figures are for a car that isn't stock? Because it sure seems that way. I had assumed both examples given were indeed for stock specimens.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

I know you went a bit heavy on the sarcasm here so I apologize in advance, but are you implying that the Accord MT figures are for a car that isn't stock? Because it sure seems that way. I had assumed both examples given were indeed for stock specimens.


No need to apologize, I still don't get the basic point you're trying to make. Please clarify.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

I know you went a bit heavy on the sarcasm here so I apologize in advance, but are you implying that the Accord MT figures are for a car that isn't stock? Because it sure seems that way. I had assumed both examples given were indeed for stock specimens.


No need to apologize, I still don't get the basic point you're trying to make. Please clarify.


Drag racing.

Since forever, one of the best metrics for determining the actual power getting to the ground for a car is its MPH at the end of the 1320. While launch, traction...etc all effect ET, they have very little effect on the trap speed, which will vary with power output. Both Steve and I have touched on this and it is pretty common knowledge for anybody who's ever drag raced anything. You can run a horrific ET, but if you MPH'd well, you know you have other things to change as the car is making the power, but you aren't utilizing it effectively in order to get the best ET.

You can have two cars, one geared tall for top speed, the other geared short and there could be a 50HP difference between them and the short geared car will be faster in the 1320. But it will MPH slower because it makes less power.

This is why a Mustang, with stock 3.08's running low 14's at ~99Mph can run in the mid 13's with a gear swap but its MPH won't be any higher, because it is still making the same amount of power.

The fact that the Accord is trapping 3Mph faster, and is heavier to boot is indicative that it is putting more power to the wheels.

I don't have a dog in this fight, as neither of these marques are in my stable, I'm just saying that the MPH cited here supports the guy's statement.

 

[OVERKILL]

jrustles, just in case you aren't familiar with it, here's the Wallace Racing calculator:

http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php

If for example I plug in the values given by our friend gofast182 we get:

1. Mazda 6 @ 3107lbs and trapping 90Mph: 186.16HP
2. Honda A @ 3272lbs and trapping 93Mph: 216.31HP

That's a pretty significant difference........

TCI also has a similar calculator that gives us slightly different results:

http://www.tciauto.com/tc/racing-calculators/


1. Mazda 6 @ 3107lbs and trapping 90Mph: 176.77HP
2. Honda A @ 3272lbs and trapping 93Mph: 205.41HP

In either case, you can see there's a pretty big discrepancy between Honda's advertised numbers and what the calculator gives us, whilst at least the #'s for the Mazda are in the ballpark.

Now I know you went back and forth a bit with Steve on this earlier in this thread with respect to CVT's, but these are for both cars with a manual, which eliminates that advantage that you appeared to take particular exception to a number of posts back

Which also means that of course your request for me to clarify what the heck I was talking about was a bit of a detour in itself. Since of course you already knew, right?

 

[jrustles]

I appreciate the info, OVERKILL. Unfortunately none of it is new to me. No one contested that the Accord makes 6 more HP than our domestic SA. And it SHOULD being already fitted with exhaust and ECU tune... So.... I'm not sure why this is the main point of contention. What does it mean? Please elaborate. How is that supposed to diminish this thread or Mazda's acheivments? How does it even relate to it? I've covered all the details about both, market differences, tuning, but still the 3mph higher trap in is so important. You got me? like I don't get it.



Or maybe I do.... I appreciate you joining the ranks of those who would love nothing more than to smack my 'arrogant, know it all butt down' (Look dude..... I know what's going on here, neither new or naive to this [censored].....) but at least let it be a worthy cause, because this magazine racing of stock family sedans is throwing me back to my teens.