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.
WTF is this news?
VW Polo
70 miles per US gallon highway.
60 MPUSG combined.
50 MPUSG City.
Pre detonation doesn't matter. It's a direct injection engine. Fuel isn't injected until it's wanted, like diesels.
Normal gasoline engines have the air/fuel mixture inserted before the compression stroke.
Burning fuel while stopped can never be a good thing.
Yeah, right. Try starting and stopping the engine at every stop light when it's forty below zero outside... even aside from the lack of heat inside we quite often see cars that have stalled in those temperatures and simply won't start again.
Older cars were so economical because they were so light. Newer cars are far more robust in an accident.
Safety or economy, choose one.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I actually RTF(2nd)A, and it says:
"Mazda expects it to come in at 28 mpg city, 35 mpg highway with the five-speed manual, and 1 mpg less on highway mileage with the automatic."
Does not compute.
I'd rather take the risk of being killed by someone else than the risk of killing someone else. Moreover, I have serious misgivings regarding the morality of the contrary position.
But how often do you do that? If (like me) you only leave town twice a year, it makes more sense to rent on those occasions.
I can produce more torque than a diesel engine with my hands and a long spanner
That's a nonargument.
Torque figures are just as useful as power figures for comparing cars, i.e. not very much. The meaningful items are the torque curve, which tells you how responsive the engine is over its operating range, and the power-to-weight ratio, which tells you what effect the engine will have in terms of accelleration.
That's for the Mazda2 you can buy right now, not the one coming down the pipeline.
Not a typewriter
No, it's because for the last 25 years automakers have catered to people's very marketable desire to go faster over their only recently discovered desire to go "green". Fuel was more expensive in Europe, and money less plentiful in the rest of the world, so they focused more on efficiency. Over here in the states we had plenty of money, and plenty of cheap gas, so we designed our cars for that environment. All engines have gotten more efficient over the years, but where a Euro might use that extra efficiency to save gas, we used it to go faster. What's worse is that American drivers now think that if their basic commuter car can't outrun a sports car from 25 years ago, they're getting cheated somehow.
1984 Porsche 944 - 150hp, 2900lbs
2011 Honda Accord EX - 190hp, 3300lbs
There's zero reason for a commuter car to have a 0-60 time 8 seconds, or a top speed of 120mph+, yet that's become a totally normal performance envelope. You have to push boundaries that would have been muscle car territory not that long ago to officially be considered "sporty".
"Mazda expects it to come in at 28 mpg city, 35 mpg highway with the five-speed manual, and 1 mpg less on highway mileage with the automatic."
Does not compute.
28 + 35 = 63. That's not quite 70, but it's still a pretty respectable number.
Maybe Chicago is an unusual case, but I don't recall seeing any gas stations where you can't buy diesel.
You are welcome on my lawn.
(1) Remember that diesel has about 1/3rd more BTUs per gallon than gasoline, so achieving 70mpg is no great feat. VW sold a Lupo that got 88mpg highway, and built a three-person family prototype that had 120 mpg.
(2) 70mpg is a challenge for gasoline, but it can be done. Suzuki and Honda have both made 70mpg engines, using 2 or 3 cylinders. My Insight averages almost 90mpg, even with the battery turned off. (The Insight SULEV has also been rated world's cleanest car by greenercars.org.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Car-2 costs $5,000 more than Car-1 (Note Golf vs Golf TDI)
You may be saving $.03 per mile, but that's going to take you over 150,000 miles to pay back.
Right, everywhere EXCEPT that one big place where the majority of all cars (and miles driven) are...
And even that's not true... Diesels have caught on in EUROPE. Why? Because...
No, it's because the taxes on fuel in most European countries is greater than the actual cost of fuel, and therefore the fuel with slightly less tax burden turned into the most economical by-far. Nowhere outside of Europe is there such high adoption of diesel cars. It's all because of the taxes.
IMHO, all non-CVT vehicles should die off ASAP. You need much less horsepower when you don't get "stuck" in a high gear while trying to accelerate. Not to mention the much more predictable behavior on slick (rain/snow/ice) roads, and less dangerous behavior in cruise control. CVT is so frickin' overdue, it's hard to believe old automatics are still being made.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
BS. This is always the next argument - "I can't get on the freeway without a billion horsepower!" or "An underpowered car is too unsafe. I once had to outrun an avalanche while driving a carload of orphans down a mountain pass, and my bi-turbo V8 saved our lives!". Speed is not a safety feature, and if slow acceleration was all it took to keep vehicles off the highway, interstate trucking and Greyhound would have collapsed a long time ago. It's not that fast cars aren't fun - they're incredible fun. But we've let ourselves be sold the idea that they're a necessity instead of a luxury, and it's costing us dearly.
The fact that modern vehicles often are in much worst shape after minor accidents is a trade off for the driver in them being in much better shape after major accidents. Many people with new vehicles will have full coverage and would rather their car be totaled in a fender bender than themselves be killed in a major accident.
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and 2009 Chevrolet Malibu in 40 mph frontal offset crash test
Video
1959 Bel Air after crash
2009 Malibu after same crash
I realize that is a greater difference in years, and safety features, than you were specifically talking about, but the principle still stands.
"Indirectly"? There's nothing indirect about a car crash.
As for my views regarding self-preservation, we would live in a far better world if they were shared. Let me make it clear -- I have no problem with killing in legitimate self-defense, or killing in the course of a just war... but choosing a heavier vehicle and increasing risk to the lives of innocent third parties just to decrease risk to yourself leads to a snowball effect where everyone is less safe.
Sorry to be a party pooper, but those numbers all stack up.
A US gallon is 83% of a UK gallon, so the the MPG figures are going to vary.
50 MPG (US) is roughly the same as 59 MPG (UK).
When using US gallons, its hardly surprising that you reach the US figure, rather than the UK figure.
Not everybody does things your way.
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").
You just CONFIRMED what he said, not contradicted it. Diesel DOES have more energy per volume - more than 10% more.
I mean... yes, I read the numbers; I did post them after all. Still, it's the higher compression ratio that's the dominant factor, which is what my point had been.
Here, look at the 2010 Volkswagon Jetta. Here are the numbers for more-or-less identical vehicles, one with a diesel engine, one with a gasoline one (and a fairly high-compression one at that):
4 cyl, 2.0 L, Manual 6-spd, Diesel......41 mpg hwy
4 cyl, 2.0 L, Manual 6-spd, Premium.....31 mpg hwy
To drive one mile, it takes the gasoline-engined car 32% more fuel. By comparison, the diesel fuel itself has only 14% more energy per gallon. Energy density of the fuel alone is not sufficient to explain the difference. The difference comes from the efficiency of the engine.
I should note that this is in spite of the fact that the Otto cycle (which approximates gasoline engine operation) is more efficient than the Diesel cycle (which approximates the operation of real diesel engines) at the same compression ratio. Diesels, in practice, simply have compression ratios that are high enough to overwhelm that advantage.
Its one of their famous farming subsidies which keep farmers happy.
No, road diesel isn't taxed at a lower rate. You can get red diesel which has identical properties but has a red dye added (looks like snakebite and blackcurrant, hence the name "Diesel" for that drink) but which is taxed at a lower rate. You can't use red diesel in road vehicles.