What were they thinking?

[IndyIan]

My Dad only put 87 octane into his premium recommended 1994 Mazda 626 and it only went 300k miles that way... I'd think that another 20 years of engine management development would help protect a motor from damaging itself and let it run adequately for normal driving that uses maybe 1/3 of its maximum hp?
Sure, if you are going to tow a heavy load, or spend all your time going over passes in the rockies, running the recommended gas is a good idea, but for just regular driving, regular should be fine.

 

[Merkava_4]

I would never buy a vehicle with cylinder deactivation. Unnecessary complexity.

 

[bbhero]

Again, .... That person I ran into with a BRAND new car.. Running terrible. Why??
Some cars can drop down and be fine. That's not a surprise. But other cars.. Doesn't pan out quite so well.

 

[OneEyeJack]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I would never buy a vehicle with cylinder deactivation. Unnecessary complexity.


+++1

I feel the same about lots of other gadgets that one finds on modern engines. I'm willing to take a couple of miles per gallon hit for simple and cheaper to maintain.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
Again, .... That person I ran into with a BRAND new car.. Running terrible. Why??
Some cars can drop down and be fine. That's not a surprise. But other cars.. Doesn't pan out quite so well.


Running 87 octane in my Magnum (89 recommended, 87 "acceptable", 91+ explicitly NOT recommended) made little difference. None whatsoever in the winter, and about a 1-1.5MPG hit in the summer. (I ran 89 in warm weather.)

 

[ron17571]

I still wonder why there is no diesel option for almost all vehicles sold here.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Originally Posted By: shDK
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: shDK
Perhaps the engine was not only developed for the US market. The need for higher octane petrol might not be a problem on markets with already higher octane basic petrol.


What markets would those be? There are different octane measuring methodologies used between countries so you can't just go by the advertised number on the pump.


I am not saying that i know for sure that is the reason. But as far as i remember, US 87 regular equals Ron 91, and US 91 equals Ron 94. We start at Ron 92 and most cars for the last 10 years require RON95. My car a renault recommends Ron 98. So i use 99.

I know that if you take mazda sky active engines. The ones sold at the US market has a lower compression rate. Then the ones sold on the European markets. The reason should be differences in petrol.


North American pump octane ratings are derived from a formula consisting of:
(Research Octane Rating + Motor Octane Rating) / 2

European pump labels indicate Research Octane Rating only.

The two are not equivalent, but some fuel providers offer enough data to make broad comparison. Shell used in the following:

US/Canada RON + MON/2 = 87
Pump Label is referred to as Road Octane Rating, so some confuse Road Octane Rating with Research Octane Rating and conclude European fuel is "higher octane" than North American fuel.

Unleaded 87 has a Research Octane Rating of 91 and a Motor Octane Rating of 83; in Germany the Pump Label says 91 Octane
Unleaded 89 has a Research Octane Rating of 95 and a Motor Octane Rating of 85; in Germany the Pump Label says 95 Octane
Unleaded premium 93 ihas a Research Octane Rating of 98 and a Motor Octane Rating of 88; in Germany the Pump Label says 98 Octane

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Mazda does not use the same engines in Japan, Europe and North America but are rolling out SkyActive variants over time.

For example, the 3rd Generation Mazda3 has two engine options (2.0L and 2.5L) in North America while in Europe there are three including a 1.5L and two variants of the 2.0L SkyActive motor. Care must be taken to compare like-to-like.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
Mazda does not use the same engines in Japan, Europe and North America but are rolling out SkyActive variants over time.

For example, the 3rd Generation Mazda3 has two engine options (2.0L and 2.5L) in North America while in Europe there are three including a 1.5L and two variants of the 2.0L SkyActive motor. Care must be taken to compare like-to-like.


Mazda2 hatchback, we won't be getting in the USA. The U.S. is regulating the Auto industry to death. Now Ford Rangers and Mazda 2's will/is being sold "outside" the U.S. No wonder China is now the worlds largest auto market!!

 

[Johnny2Bad]

There are many examples where a Diesel motor is offered in Canada but not the US Domestic Market. Mazda will be offering a diesel in Canada soon although might be 2016 MY before it arrives.

Truth is diesel is simply not popular with US consumers while the take-up in Canada has always been relatively high.

Plus when I was driving our 1989 Ford Diesel pickup (Canada Domestic Market) while working for our Minneapolis Office, not only did Ford not offer the option in the US, it was difficult to find fuel and I ended up at the High Pressure hoses at truck stops more often than not.

Every gas station in western Canada offers diesel and has since the early 80's.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
Mazda does not use the same engines in Japan, Europe and North America but are rolling out SkyActive variants over time.

For example, the 3rd Generation Mazda3 has two engine options (2.0L and 2.5L) in North America while in Europe there are three including a 1.5L and two variants of the 2.0L SkyActive motor. Care must be taken to compare like-to-like.


Mazda2 hatchback, we won't be getting in the USA. The U.S. is regulating the Auto industry to death. Now Ford Rangers and Mazda 2's will/is being sold "outside" the U.S. No wonder China is now the worlds largest auto market!!


Hmmm ... They sell the 2015 Mazda2 Hatch here in Canada; strangely if you check out the gallery the photos are marked "US model shown".

 

[Eddie]

It is not a few extra cents per gallon but, closer to 35-40 cents here. That is ~ 17.xx% increase in the cost of operation for the life of the vehicle. I reviwed the RDX on Edmunds.com and the vehicle is said REQUIRE premium. I have dropped the RDX off my list, do to comments about their cylinder deactivation issues (roughness and oil consumption). Acura is just not doing the pre-testing that used to be their normal mode of operation and for that, I am sorry. Ed

 

[OneEyeJack]

Originally Posted By: ron17571
I still wonder why there is no diesel option for almost all vehicles sold here.


The EPA has determined that they don't like diesel for automobiles so you can only have one if you meet certain restrictions they thought up one day while having a conference in Hawaii while spending our tax dollars. They had to think up something to justify those expensive cottages on the beach and those extravagant parties where they discuss what a great scam they are running.

 

[wemay]

Mazda's reason for no 2 in the US (2016 models)

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/25/2016-mazda2-wont-come-to-us-report/

2016 Mazda2 won't come to the US

Hoping to get your hands on the new Mazda2? Don't get your hopes up too high, because the latest word has it that the new hatchback won't be available in the United States. According to the report from Automotive News, Mazda's US office has decided against bringing the new Mazda2 to American showrooms. This despite it being made just south of the border in Salamanca, Mexico.

The reasons are apparently two-fold. For starters, Mazda sales offices around the world have been clamoring for larger allotments of the new 2, and the company can only supply so many. "We could have had it, but we would have had a number that didn't make much sense with 600 dealers and with the marketing it takes to launch a new car," Robert Davis, Mazda's senior VP of US sales operations, told AN. For another, Mazda is apparently not convinced the new supermini would resonate with US buyers, who are increasingly migrating towards crossovers. So Mazda is focusing instead on "products that make us and our dealers considerably more profit than a Mazda2 does."

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
It amazes me to a degree how people try to justify running cheaper gas in their cars. If it says "recommended" than I can in reality run regular because it doesn't state "required". If higher octane is recommended it is for a good reason. In reality one could CERTAINLY run 87 in any car period.
My car is specd for premium gas. For a reason. I ran across a lady with a 3.5 brand spanking new Maxima with temporary tags on it. She said the car was running terribly. Why??? Running regular cheap 87 in it. I informed her that her car needed 93. Hopefully by doing this it fixed her problem. If not than her fuel injectors and or spark plugs being replaced would likely be on her dime. Changing her plugs alone north of $500.
Here there is a 50 cents difference between regular and premium. In a 20 gallon tank that's obviously $10 a tank. Let's say one uses 6 tanks a month. For a year that is $720 extra per year for gas. Notable. Yes. But if someone is going to buy a $40,000 vehicle than I would tend to believe an extra $60 a month shouldn't break the bank. If yes than obviously go ahead and purchase another lower cost vehicle that is meant to run on 87 only.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this as well.

The CAFE standards are really not quite has helpful in a number of ways. Good intent DOES not always consider all eventual real world effects.


I have been running 87 in my Lexus & Toyota vehicles that spec 91 for 11 years and approximately 650,000 miles. No issues yet. Fuel system gets a gumout bottle every 20,000 and spark plugs get changed at 120-140,000 miles. No problems.

$60 per month x 2 vehicles = $120/month x 11 years =$15,840

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

It's amusing to see how the automakers are claiming what consumers in the USA want or don't want, yet Mazda did ZERO marketing of the old 2 here, so nobody (except a few enthusiasts) even knew that it existed! The corporate greed
mongers at the automakers claim that Mericans are
"migrating" to crossovers which is true to some degree but that is because the marketing hacks push them nonstop here, and the mark up is almost as outrageous as SUVs and PU trucks. Plus they are stocking tons of these overpriced pigs while very few of the other products.

So, in effect the consumers are being led by the nose by clever marketing and companies, they are not making their own choices.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: GiveMeAVowel
It's amusing to see how the automakers are claiming what consumers in the USA want or don't want, yet Mazda did ZERO marketing of the old 2 here, so nobody (except a few enthusiasts) even knew that it existed! The corporate greed
mongers at the automakers claim that Mericans are
"migrating" to crossovers which is true to some degree but that is because the marketing hacks push them nonstop here, and the mark up is almost as outrageous as SUVs and PU trucks. Plus they are stocking tons of these overpriced pigs while very few of the other products.

So, in effect the consumers are being led by the nose by clever marketing and companies, they are not making their own choices.

This is complete hogwash. Manufacturers are simply providing what consumers want. Why would any company spend millions of dollars on a product that people don't want, and then spend millions of dollars marketing it in the hopes that they buy it? It seems a lot simpler to just sell what they want.

 

[Eddie]

I can afford to buy a $38,000 vehicle with cash because I won't buy vehicles that costs me and extra 17% operating cost if it doesn't provide me any substantial advantage.