Mazda continues to lead in innovations....

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 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.... {edited}


OK, let's back it up a bit. I'm not saying it is important at all

what I AM saying is that the point that buddy made early in this thread:

"I'm referencing a set of dyno plots I've seen, instrumented acceleration tests, and reviews where people cite real-world MPG. Despite the spec. sheet power ratings the K24W comes out more true to that on the dyno, has quicker acceleration,"

Is in fact not out to lunch.

That's ALL I was getting at.

Though I do think it is interesting that the MT figures put the difference between the two at around 30HP, which is a far cry from 6.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: 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.... {edited}


OK, let's back it up a bit. I'm not saying it is important at all

what I AM saying is that the point that buddy made early in this thread:

"I'm referencing a set of dyno plots I've seen, instrumented acceleration tests, and reviews where people cite real-world MPG. Despite the spec. sheet power ratings the K24W comes out more true to that on the dyno, has quicker acceleration,"

Is in fact not out to lunch.

That's ALL I was getting at.

Though I do think it is interesting that the MT figures put the difference between the two at around 30HP, which is a far cry from 6.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


Well thanks for fighting the good fight. Poor accord could have been possibly misrepresented in a Mazda thread. Lordy knows Honda has enough trouble being recognized as it is.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: 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.... {edited}


OK, let's back it up a bit. I'm not saying it is important at all

what I AM saying is that the point that buddy made early in this thread:

"I'm referencing a set of dyno plots I've seen, instrumented acceleration tests, and reviews where people cite real-world MPG. Despite the spec. sheet power ratings the K24W comes out more true to that on the dyno, has quicker acceleration,"

Is in fact not out to lunch.

That's ALL I was getting at.

Though I do think it is interesting that the MT figures put the difference between the two at around 30HP, which is a far cry from 6.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


Well thanks for fighting the good fight. Poor accord could have been possibly misrepresented in a Mazda thread. Lordy knows Honda has enough trouble being recognized as it is.


Well somebody has to right? Looks like we need some Toyota discussion to derail this one further

 

[SteveSRT8]

Details, details. Shame on you, Overkill, for introducing FACTS into the conjecture!

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: 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.

The ED engines were developed with the mid-range in mind, too, as they make notably more torque at a lower RPM than their predecessors. While the two are very close the Mazda has a slight advantage here with SkyActiv.

Honda is putting DI engines in everything. They just developed their technology slower/later than Mazda who started releasing it several years ago. In about 2 years it should be in everything.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Given my choice I would still prefer the Honda as I love the way they set up a car. But you have to credit the Mazda folks for being aggressive and actually caring about the driving experience when so many other imports are just selling toys to play with instead of driving pleasure.

Sure is nice to have growing choices!

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Given my choice I would still prefer the Honda as I love the way they set up a car. But you have to credit the Mazda folks for being aggressive and actually caring about the driving experience when so many other imports are just selling toys to play with instead of driving pleasure.

Sure is nice to have growing choices!

Couldn't agree more. Hopefully those others will pay attention to Mazda's renewed emphasis on these attributes, growing success, and follow suit.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Given my choice I would still prefer the Honda as I love the way they set up a car. But you have to credit the Mazda folks for being aggressive and actually caring about the driving experience when so many other imports are just selling toys to play with instead of driving pleasure.

Sure is nice to have growing choices!

Couldn't agree more. Hopefully those others will pay attention to Mazda's renewed emphasis on these attributes, growing success, and follow suit.


+1 to you and Steve.

I was a real fan of the 2nd and 3rd generation RX7, it was an awesome car

Mazda has put out some really neat products over the years.

 

[SteveSRT8]

It will be nice if consumers notice. The success of Hyundai/Kia shows that features and toys sell cars really well. Inflated horsepower numbers with no performance to back them up, inflated mileage numbers, poor chassis tuning, etc., all get ignored as long as I can bluetooth my Iphone and the thing is CHEAP!

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It will be nice if consumers notice. The success of Hyundai/Kia shows that features and toys sell cars really well. Inflated horsepower numbers with no performance to back them up, inflated mileage numbers, poor chassis tuning, etc., all get ignored as long as I can bluetooth my Iphone and the thing is CHEAP!

Now that's funny, and at the same time there's some truth to it.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It will be nice if consumers notice. The success of Hyundai/Kia shows that features and toys sell cars really well. Inflated horsepower numbers with no performance to back them up, inflated mileage numbers, poor chassis tuning, etc., all get ignored as long as I can bluetooth my Iphone and the thing is CHEAP!

My boss has a Sonata, I remember being impressed by the features for the money it has (like heated rear seats) and then I rode in it...an area near work has two sharp bumps (wouldn't go so far as to call them potholes) and we rode over them in his Sonata and the sound and feeling was 'BOOM, BOOM'. I thought 'wow that's not right' and it bothered me so I went back the next day and rode over them in my TSX and the sound and feeling was a muted 'Thunk, Thunk'. I thought, 'first they have MPG lying scandal and they really did a sh!t job of setting up chassis/suspension, no thank you!'

 

[IndyIan]

I drove my bosses 09 Santa Fe, and it was nice inside but had an unusual amount of noise over sharp cracks as well. It does have some big 18" tires though. It is pretty nice inside and the steering seemed fine for what it is. I guess its 95% of what a Pilot does at the price of a CRV, which will sell to a lot of people.

 

[SteveSRT8]

I drove an Elantra last year and the floorboard literally flexed under my feet! I haven't felt that since like the 50's!!!

Then there's the handling. For some reason the Koreans just can't get it, they have a long way to go.

My neighbor owns a Genesis Type R sedan with 429 advertised horsepower. He was all primed up to show me what it could do to the Chrysler. Well, it was so embarrassing for him he won't even discuss it with me! His car cannot even begin to go, stop, or turn anywhere even close to my 8 year old car. Doesn't even get better mileage.

But it has a few more toys!!!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I drove an Elantra last year and the floorboard literally flexed under my feet! I haven't felt that since like the 50's!!!

Then there's the handling. For some reason the Koreans just can't get it, they have a long way to go.

My neighbor owns a Genesis Type R sedan with 429 advertised horsepower. He was all primed up to show me what it could do to the Chrysler. Well, it was so embarrassing for him he won't even discuss it with me! His car cannot even begin to go, stop, or turn anywhere even close to my 8 year old car. Doesn't even get better mileage.

But it has a few more toys!!!


That's where the MPH we discussed earlier comes in

My old Euro sled, which is 4,026 lbs, traps ~110Mph depending on the car. There's the odd factory freak that had apparently trapped 112. This is @ ~13-flat. Some guys have got them into the 12's. This is of course on tires like the ones you and I are running, as it came from the factory with PS2's.

So how is it that a car that is supposed to have 30 more HP and weighs the same traps 106 and runs mid 13's?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Torque management to crutch the transmission?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Torque management to crutch the transmission?


That should only effect ET though......

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Torque management to crutch the transmission?


That should only effect ET though......

Not with an otherwise identical car that would shift much quicker. ET would probably suffer more than trap speed, sure. But if you have two otherwise identical cars and one takes 0.25 seconds to shift and one takes 1.00 second to shift, though each gear, the slower-shifting one will both take longer and be slower.

I use "shift speed" as an analogy for torque management, but the theory would still be the same. If torque management is significant in the Hyundai, it would make sense that it could trap longer and slower than a similar car...right? Maybe I'm off base here.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Torque management to crutch the transmission?


That should only effect ET though......

Not with an otherwise identical car that would shift much quicker. ET would probably suffer more than trap speed, sure. But if you have two otherwise identical cars and one takes 0.25 seconds to shift and one takes 1.00 second to shift, though each gear, the slower-shifting one will both take longer and be slower.

I use "shift speed" as an analogy for torque management, but the theory would still be the same. If torque management is significant in the Hyundai, it would make sense that it could trap longer and slower than a similar car...right? Maybe I'm off base here.


I think you are off. The reason I say that is that trap is usually dictated by the gear you are crossing the line in. However ET is incredibly affected by how you come out of the hole, the first few shifts, whether you spin or not......etc.

For example, I could obliterate the tires, have a 2 second 6ft time and only hook up once I'm in 3rd gear and may actually trap slightly HIGHER than if I hooked solid out of the hole. My ET would be horrific in comparison but trap would be consistent. This is because I always crossed the line winding it out in 4th gear.

In this case, if we are speaking of torque management, all that is going to affect is launch, and the first couple of shifts, but once it is in a gear it can actually pull for a bit at WOT, the ability to put forth max power in that gear and perhaps a subsequent gear will be what dictates trap. And that directly correlates with how much power the engine is making.

So even if torque management is indeed what is giving this "429HP" car the ET of a 20 year old stock Mustang, the trap speed is still indicative of the power output being optimistic or downright wrong.

And if that's the case, it wouldn't be the first time that happened. I'm sure you may recall the saga of the DOHC N/A Mustang Cobra in the late 90's where Ford advertised 320HP but the engine, as fitted to the car, because of the airbox setup and exhaust, didn't actually make 320HP. Ford issued a recall and fitted the car with updated airboxes and exhaust systems to rectify the problem because enough owners complained and Ford had egg on its face. In the case of the Genesis, I don't see enough owners complaining to have Hyundai do anything about it. This is very different crowd from the guys buying Cobra's.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Torque management to crutch the transmission?


That should only effect ET though......

TM is horrific in my car when stock.

I have a nifty Diablosport canned tune with tweaks that removes most of it.

My drag racing results were unaffected! Despite tire chirping shifts 1-2 and 2-3 I ran the same times and traps. My gut says the ET's were very slightly better, but the time slips stayed so close it ain't funny.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
For example, I could obliterate the tires, have a 2 second 6ft time and only hook up once I'm in 3rd gear and may actually trap slightly HIGHER than if I hooked solid out of the hole. My ET would be horrific in comparison but trap would be consistent. This is because I always crossed the line winding it out in 4th gear.


If you always crossed the line at the same RPM in the same gear, then I agree that MPH would be the same. In fact, it would necessarily be the same.

But if torque management is slowing the shift speed, you burn distance not accelerating, and you may run out of distance before you could get to the top of 4th gear (as an example). Does that make sense? In other words, car A shifts fast and is using 429 hp to accelerate for 1320 feet. Car B shifts slow and uses 429 hp to accelerate for 1200 feet (120 feet are wasted as the car essentially rolls during shifting/TM). Both make the same hp, but car A should be traveling faster at the finish line because it's used more distance to accelerate compared with car B.