Slashdot Mirror
Mazda Claims 70 mpg For New Engine, No Hybrid Needed
thecarchik writes "There's no word on when the new version of the Mazda2 will finally reach the US but when it does we can reveal that it will return a fuel economy of 70 mpg — without the aid of any electric motors. This is because the car will feature Mazda's next-generation of drivetrain, body and chassis technologies, dubbed SKYACTIV. The new Mazda 2 will come powered by a SKYACTIV-G engine, Mazda's next-generation direct injection gasoline mill that achieves significantly improved fuel efficiency thanks to a high compression ratio of 14.0:1 (the world's highest for a production gasoline engine)." I wonder if a real-life-real-drivers 70 mpg car is what will actually arrive, or if such promises will dissolve like Chevy's promises about the Volt did.
Stopping and starting an engine also wastes energy.
I have a 2005 2.0L Mazda 3. It easily gets 40MPG, and if I pay attention to not mashing the gas pedal randomly while crusing (a big cause of wasted gas since the speed stays more or less the same but the fuel consumption increases), I can easily get 50MPG.
I agree that Diesel has done this for a while. But, while you cite no ignition system to go wrong, I cite cheap maintenance costs (oil change on a diesel is much more expensive, and a recurring cost), and I live in Canada and can't be bothered to worry about installing a block heater for those few days where my petrol engine sounds painful when started, but my diesel friends can't start. Low end torque is owned by diesel, but it's ALWAYS at the cost of incomplete combustion. Not even the latest and greatest modern diesels will accelerate off the line without a plume of black come out the tailpipe... which leads to further maintenance costs down the line.
Diesel has it's place, some people love it, some people hate it. But what I found great is that not only is it quite possible based on my own experience to get a non-direct fuel injected petrol car up to 50MPG, it looks like this mazda 2 and its new tech can reach 60+ MPG. The stupid hybrids out there with their insanely expensive markups, and huge toxic batteries can't acheive 50MPG in the real world. I can't speak for the Mazda 2, but with my 5 year old 3 I can get 50MPG in the real world. It's nice to see a company focus on actually improving fuel economy instead of this hybrid hack job.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Which is about the same as a '95 Protege. The question is, "why couldn't they improve the mileage in the course of a decade when gas prices were rising fast"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I saw this yesterday:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/article2494299.ece
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494304.ece/BINARY/original/airmotion700.jpg
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494301.ece/BINARY/w468/airmotion468.jpg
Also this:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/27/indian-air-powered-city-cat-car-prepares-for-production-run/
"68MPH and a range of 125 miles"
On pressurized air ..
The thing to keep in mind, is you still need a form of energy to compress the air. Usually we're talking electricity. Granted, this tech + a huge power plant is probably still more efficient and green.
IMHO though, the real ticket would be if they combined this with a solar-powered compressor that could run while the car was sitting out in the parking lot for 8 hours, and in the driveway for another 3 or 4 (plug-in ability is for a back up). For the daily commute and around-town trips for the average person, I bet this would be plenty usable.
do() || do_not();
70mpg sounds good. But is it a huge leap forward? I have a 4-year-old Toyota Corolla Verso 2.2-litre turbo diesel and I get 66mpg cruising.
***Crash head-on with another vehicle in a 1989 Honda CRX and you are DEAD.***
No, I'm 98% sure that the CRX was unibody construction with crumple zones just like modern cars. Not as safe probably although it actually did pretty well in NHTSA safety testing. Cars have improved some. But not as much as you seem to think.
***but you are putting out hundreds of times more CO2 and other pollutants for every litre you burn than modern cars.***
I doubt it. CO2 in particular should be almost directly proportional to Miles per Gallon. The CRX almost certainly emitted less than your modern car, not more. Other pollutants, probably a bit worse than today's cars. Modern cars have some improvements like On Board Vapor Recovery, but the CRX would surely have had the biggies -- PCV, catalytic converter, EGR.
See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Sure, fast cars are fun. I've owned my share, and they have their place. There's no replacement for displacement, as they say.
But it's like volume: if the only thing that makes your music listenable is to turn it up louder, you're probably listening to bad music. If the only thing that makes your car enjoyable is adding horsepower, you're probably driving a crap car.
It's the first, foremost and primary reason my first motor vehicle was a motorcycle rather than a car -- I honestly was scared that I'd kill someone else -- and one among the many reasons I do most of my commuting by bicycle today. I'm happy to be judged by my actions rather than my words.
(Funny about "collectivist"; when I was younger, I considered elevating the well-being of others above myself part of being a good Christian, and modern western Christians certainly don't tend to consider themselves friends of political "collectivists").
0-60 times really have nothing to do with the situation you describe. Diesels tend not to be so hot on them, because before the turbo spins up they can be sluggish. Try looking at the 30-70 in-gear time, which more closely replicates pulling into fast-moving traffic, and you'll find that they perform very nicely.
The spread on the gasoline powered GTI is greater than the spread on the diesel GTD. The very opposite of what you think the case is.
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-gti-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption
To look at those figures in another way, for urban driving the Diesel engine is getting 45% more mpg than the gasoline engine. For highway, diesel is getting only 28% more mpg.
Contrary to what you imagine, diesel gives it's greatest benefit for city driving.