New 3 sales are in the toilet along with the rest of the brand
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/09/the-new-mazda-3-is-tanking-can-more-equipment-and-a-higher-base-price-change-that-in-2020/
They have done a lot right.... more crossovers, up to date tech. There's a long list of shit I'd like to see from them (AWD in the turbo 6 :wub:, bigger or at least portrait oriented screens integrated into the dash, ditch the turbos/diesels for hybrids), but the only two things I think they need to do are bring back the damn CX-7 and make all their vehicles like half a class larger inside. That would have been money much better spent than investing in Skyactiv-D/X which I think we can all agree have been total flops :facepalm:
Ultimately though I just don't know. Who is Mazda for in 2019? The car cognoscenti have a decent pool of used cars to choose from that align better with our wants (and budgets). Poseur class would rather pay $40K for a CLA than $30K for a 3 that's just as good and capable. Where does Mazda go from here????
I was blown away by the Mazda 3 I drove. It's like a much, much nicer, smaller 3-series for cheap. Agree on the half class larger inside. All of their stuff feels really tight inside. It's basically the opposite of Honda which all feels half a class bigger on the inside.
I'm curious why you want a portrait oriented screen? Mazda 3's infotainment is pretty much perfect. Right in the sight line, big, high resolution. I don't think a single car is doing portrait mode Android Auto or CarPlay. All those giant portrait screens (I'm looking at you Subaru Outback/Legacy and Volvo) end up using like 1/3 of the screen for CarPlay.
Great cars, both styling and driving. Americans choose AWD and rugged SUV styling (Subaru) over sport.
I guess I should requalify... portrait screen once AA/AC can use the whole screen in that orientation. I run AA on my phone in portrait mode and it's way better for navigation. I was disappointed when Mazda went even wider with the screen. They would have to lose some of the line of sight stuff but I think that could be mitigated.
And if Mazda wants to compete in the premium space they need premium oomph to go with the premium feel. Some of the lease deals for poseur German offerings are stupid dupid and easily in shooting range of a mid range Mazda 3. I'd lease a stripper A3 FWD over a Mazda 3 just for the thrust alone.
They need to define the brand again. They jumped off the sporty "zoom-zoom" wagon that saved them 20 years ago but haven't really picked a new direction. Cheap luxury? Tech? Blandness?
I think they jumped out of necessity, at least to some degree. I don't want to enumerate the various market conditions that would have prompted the shift because cars are depressing enough in 2019.
But I think with cars being so regulated and commoditized today... if you don't have volume, you damn well better have a safe niche and a clear brand identity that's relevant tot he market. Mazda is in the no-man's land of past and current brands like Saab, Volvo, Acura, Jaguar, Suzuki etc. with no clear play or place in the market.
I read somewhere they are trying to mature and head upmarket. Which means less fun stuff, more responsible stuff?
Hyundai seems to be moving into the market void they left with stuff like the Elantra Sport/GT and Veloster n
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 30, 2019, 09:45:27 AM
I guess I should requalify... portrait screen once AA/AC can use the whole screen in that orientation. I run AA on my phone in portrait mode and it's way better for navigation. I was disappointed when Mazda went even wider with the screen. They would have to lose some of the line of sight stuff but I think that could be mitigated.
And if Mazda wants to compete in the premium space they need premium oomph to go with the premium feel. Some of the lease deals for poseur German offerings are stupid dupid and easily in shooting range of a mid range Mazda 3. I'd lease a stripper A3 FWD over a Mazda 3 just for the thrust alone.
I recommend a 5 minute test drive of the 3 just to see the infotainment. It's cool.
Agreed. That's where I think they're failing too.
Mazda 3 AWD with the 2.5T for $34k? Ooooof. That's hard to compete with. That would smoke the entire poser class for much cheaper.
Put a Mazda badge here and bam, the company is saved. Enthusiasts consumers will flock to them.
(https://s31.wheelsage.org/picture/t/toyota/corolla_hybrid_w_b/toyota_corolla_hybrid_w_b.jpeg)
Quote from: cawimmer430 on September 30, 2019, 11:38:02 AM
Put a Mazda badge here and bam, the company is saved. Enthusiasts consumers will flock to them.
(https://s31.wheelsage.org/picture/t/toyota/corolla_hybrid_w_b/toyota_corolla_hybrid_w_b.jpeg)
Or, put a Toyota badge on any Mazda... unless it's a Yaris.
Quote from: MrH on September 30, 2019, 11:14:00 AM
I recommend a 5 minute test drive of the 3 just to see the infotainment. It's cool.
Agreed. That's where I think they're failing too.
Mazda 3 AWD with the 2.5T for $34k? Ooooof. That's hard to compete with. That would smoke the entire poser class for much cheaper.
Give me a 6 2.5T AWD for $40K. Still smokes the poseur class but has a back seat fit for human adults.
I don't even know if Mazda has any ammo left after Skyactiv-D/X. They are sitting ducks right now. Maybe Toyota is just biding its time.
I agree that the new 3 should have done more to differentiate itself. I didn't look at a 2019 simply because I didn't want to pay 28K for a car that's essentially the 2018 with more sound deadening. Making the 2.5T available would be a good start, even if it's auto only. There are many who buy a GTI for the comfort and power and by pricing it in line with that car, I think that would restore the car's sporty reputation.
Still, I think they're far from in trouble. Worldwide they still sell a million and a half a year and none of the companies you mentioned had a solid car that consistently sold 100K+ a year like Mazda has with the CX-5 and they're slowly updating their lineup. The CX-3 will be replaced by a much more viable CX-30 and I've heard that either the CX-5 will grow or something will slot under the CX-9. They're also set to introduce their first EV soon as well. Ford was selling over 100K Focii per year and still axed them in this market. If you're not Honda or Toyota, compacts are difficult to make money off of in the US.
To sell cars today, you need to have something that is destictive about them... Be it reliability (Toyota), macho man image (Jeep), fuck yea hp (pony/muscle cars), ect. Mazda really has nothing at the moment.
The mainstream vanilla section has become over crowded as practically nobody makes a terrible car anymore, styling is all fairly bland, nothing is fun to drive, and CUVs can be just as bland while a bit more practical. They are all more or less different shades of vanilla and therefore sales/profit are just a race to the bottom.
Bring back the zoom zoom kid.
I think the internet trope of "I'm so much smarter than everyone else because I bought a Mazda" is part of the reason why I've been not posting online about cars so much anymore. Mazda has real issues and there's a reason why they're ignored by most enthusiasts and regular buyers, save for a couple models (Miata)
Part of it is tribalism - Honda guys are only gonna buy Hondas. But some of it is the fact there are numerous parts and upgrades out for basically any Honda motor ever. What Mazda motor have they ever made that was worth a damn? The old 1.8L from the NA and NB? That 2.3L MZR is a dumpy motor, and it's a trope on basically all Mazdaspeed forums that pretty much all of the damn things have spun a bearing or snapped a connecting rod.
It's also annoying that so many people think that "not as good" is equal to "bad". Mazda does make sharp driving, nice looking cars.
But you know what? Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and Kia make cars that are about as good for most people, at a more reasonable price.
Also, although the Mazda 3 starts at around 22k, the vast majority of cars on the lot are much more than that! It's performance numbers are also mediocre, and so is its fuel economy.
FWIW, I can get a brand new Kia Forte manual for just under 14k. (Albeit incentivized) Is it as nice of a car as the Mazda? No. But it's still pretty damn good, has a stellar warranty, and likely will offer more accommodating financing options as well. And unlike the Mazda 3, it has room inside for real sized people.
The 3 is a flop because it's a badly packaged vehicle that's expensive and doesn't leapfrog it's compact car competition like people say it does.
The new 3 kind of reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. Your point about the Forte is spot on. It's not as avant garde or cool as the 3. But it has all the stuff people in this segment want and is actually kind of classy looking in the flesh. I'd wager the upcoming GT will be more fun to drive than any permutation of the 3 too.
They might have really dropped the ball here.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 30, 2019, 01:03:34 PM
Bring back the zoom zoom kid.
I think "dogs like trucks" was better.
The red on their new SUVs is beautiful. :wub:
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 02, 2019, 07:14:15 AM
https://youtu.be/_aYZrvG5BkY
Oh, i thought it was Mæzda. Fuck Nissan to hell and back, then back again
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 02, 2019, 07:17:23 AM
Oh, i thought it was Mæzda. Fuck Nissan to hell and back, then back again
Yeah I had to Google it, I was confused as well.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 01, 2019, 05:30:33 PM
I think the internet trope of "I'm so much smarter than everyone else because I bought a Mazda" is part of the reason why I've been not posting online about cars so much anymore. Mazda has real issues and there's a reason why they're ignored by most enthusiasts and regular buyers, save for a couple models (Miata)
Part of it is tribalism - Honda guys are only gonna buy Hondas. But some of it is the fact there are numerous parts and upgrades out for basically any Honda motor ever. What Mazda motor have they ever made that was worth a damn? The old 1.8L from the NA and NB? That 2.3L MZR is a dumpy motor, and it's a trope on basically all Mazdaspeed forums that pretty much all of the damn things have spun a bearing or snapped a connecting rod.
It's also annoying that so many people think that "not as good" is equal to "bad". Mazda does make sharp driving, nice looking cars.
But you know what? Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and Kia make cars that are about as good for most people, at a more reasonable price.
Also, although the Mazda 3 starts at around 22k, the vast majority of cars on the lot are much more than that! It's performance numbers are also mediocre, and so is its fuel economy.
FWIW, I can get a brand new Kia Forte manual for just under 14k. (Albeit incentivized) Is it as nice of a car as the Mazda? No. But it's still pretty damn good, has a stellar warranty, and likely will offer more accommodating financing options as well. And unlike the Mazda 3, it has room inside for real sized people.
The 3 is a flop because it's a badly packaged vehicle that's expensive and doesn't leapfrog it's compact car competition like people say it does.
It's a $50k interior, a mediocre engine, and too tight inside.
Most people will take a Civic for cheaper, more space, and faster.
You guys are acting like Mazda is going to file for bankruptcy tomorrow. They're fine.
Its like a backwards GM; instead of a shit interior with a very competent chassis, you have mediocre vehicle packaging and mechanicals with a great interior.
They are def doing better globally than in the US so maybe things aren't that bad. But we will see the 2019 numbers
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 02, 2019, 10:56:31 AM
They are def doing better globally than in the US so maybe things aren't that bad. But we will see the 2019 numbers
Uh, are they doing well globally?
Quote from: 2o6 on October 02, 2019, 11:44:15 AM
Uh, are they doing well globally?
As of last year things weren't too bad, but I will need to see how things went in China. They have 4 big markets- here, China, Europe and Japan... I'm pretty sure 3 of those 4 are down this year
I have to ask, what's so mediocre about the 2.5L motor? It has quite a bit more torque than an NA 2.0L. In day to day driving it is just as tractable as the Honda 1.5T and will likely be more reliable in the long run (I'm still not sold on small displacement turbos). They do need to add a turbo for the upper level trims but as a standard engine, do any of its competitors have a non-turbo engine that's better?
Quote from: MrH on October 02, 2019, 07:49:02 AM
It's a $50k interior, a mediocre engine, and too tight inside.
Most people will take a Civic for cheaper, more space, and faster.
You guys are acting like Mazda is going to file for bankruptcy tomorrow. They're fine.
Global sales were 1.6 million in 2018.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 02, 2019, 12:16:24 PM
As of last year things weren't too bad, but I will need to see how things went in China. They have 4 big markets- here, China, Europe and Japan... I'm pretty sure 3 of those 4 are down this year
part of Mazda's woes is that Subaru jumped up in the "little bit different" category. Nothing but upwards sales since 2008 I believe?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 02, 2019, 06:18:43 PM
part of Mazda's woes is that Subaru jumped up in the "little bit different" category. Nothing but upwards sales since 2008 I believe?
CVTs are going to kill Subaru. They need to cut that shit out.
Quote from: HurricaneSteve on October 02, 2019, 02:28:25 PM
I have to ask, what's so mediocre about the 2.5L motor? It has quite a bit more torque than an NA 2.0L. In day to day driving it is just as tractable as the Honda 1.5T and will likely be more reliable in the long run (I'm still not sold on small displacement turbos). They do need to add a turbo for the upper level trims but as a standard engine, do any of its competitors have a non-turbo engine that's better?
They had a 2.5L V6 in 1993 that made more power while being smoother and sounding better. Why have we regressed in 25 years
Quote from: r0tor on October 02, 2019, 07:49:15 PM
They had a 2.5L V6 in 1993 that made more power while being smoother and sounding better. Why have we regressed in 25 years
It didn't make more power (170 vs 189 or whatever the 2.5 4 popper does) and it got damn near half the gas mileage (19 combined vs 29 in the current 6 w/automatics)
There were a lot of other faster or more interesting options for similar money.... Integra GS-R, Maxima, Accord V6 ('98+ auto only), SVT Contour etc.
Quote from: r0tor on October 02, 2019, 07:49:15 PM
They had a 2.5L V6 in 1993 that made more power while being smoother and sounding better. Why have we regressed in 25 years
Last I checked, the mass-marketed version(s) of the KL V6 made 164-174 hp, which is less than the 186 hp made by the SkyActiv2.5. The special, Japan-only KLZE (which was devoid of some emissions equipment required most places outside of Japan, among other differences) did make 200, but that wasn't a mass-market engine. I'm sure Mazda could get 200+hp out of their current 2.5 if they wanted to. They get 180 out of the 2.0L version.
Smoothness and sound is another story. But then again, pretty much everybody has been dumping their 6-cylinder engines in favor of courser and inferior sounding 4-bangers. Porsche (in the Coxster at least), Honda (Accord), Nissan (Altima), Hyundai/Kia dropped their V6 option for their midsizers like a decade ago, etc.
Yep and that six made 25 lbs less torque than the Sky 4. On power curves alone the Sky 2.5 is actually competitive with a BMW 2.5 I-6 from 2000. The other thing I feel people aren't considering is that Mazda is freshly independent so many of their decisions are based on long term sustainability. Nissan sells 3 to 4 times the volume Mazda does yet they're having serious issues with profitability.
Quote from: MX793 on October 02, 2019, 08:34:49 PM
Last I checked, the mass-marketed version(s) of the KL V6 made 164-174 hp, which is less than the 186 hp made by the SkyActiv2.5. The special, Japan-only KLZE (which was devoid of some emissions equipment required most places outside of Japan, among other differences) did make 200, but that wasn't a mass-market engine. I'm sure Mazda could get 200+hp out of their current 2.5 if they wanted to. They get 180 out of the 2.0L version.
Smoothness and sound is another story. But then again, pretty much everybody has been dumping their 6-cylinder engines in favor of courser and inferior sounding 4-bangers. Porsche (in the Coxster at least), Honda (Accord), Nissan (Altima), Hyundai/Kia dropped their V6 option for their midsizers like a decade ago, etc.
Quote from: MX793 on October 02, 2019, 08:34:49 PM
Smoothness and sound is another story. But then again, pretty much everybody has been dumping their 6-cylinder engines in favor of courser and inferior sounding 4-bangers. Porsche (in the Coxster at least), Honda (Accord), Nissan (Altima), Hyundai/Kia dropped their V6 option for their midsizers like a decade ago, etc.
To be fair, NVH has come a super long way in the last ~30 years. A 4 cylinder E Class would have been unthinkable in the US in the 90s, yet now it's basically the standard.
Quote from: MX793 on October 02, 2019, 08:34:49 PM
Last I checked, the mass-marketed version(s) of the KL V6 made 164-174 hp, which is less than the 186 hp made by the SkyActiv2.5. The special, Japan-only KLZE (which was devoid of some emissions equipment required most places outside of Japan, among other differences) did make 200, but that wasn't a mass-market engine. I'm sure Mazda could get 200+hp out of their current 2.5 if they wanted to. They get 180 out of the 2.0L version.
Smoothness and sound is another story. But then again, pretty much everybody has been dumping their 6-cylinder engines in favor of courser and inferior sounding 4-bangers. Porsche (in the Coxster at least), Honda (Accord), Nissan (Altima), Hyundai/Kia dropped their V6 option for their midsizers like a decade ago, etc.
So right, 25 years ago the ZE engine still had more power without direct injection, optimized combustion chambers, and all of the friction reduction in new enginesand fit in a smaller transverse package. Add 25 years of development to the KLZE and it would be far better then anything they currently have.
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 06:43:01 AM
So right, 25 years ago the ZE engine still had more power without direct injection, optimized combustion chambers, and all of the friction reduction in new enginesand fit in a smaller transverse package. Add 25 years of development to the KLZE and it would be far better then anything they currently have.
They should do the same to the R0tory
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 06:43:01 AM
So right, 25 years ago the ZE engine still had more power without direct injection, optimized combustion chambers, and all of the friction reduction in new enginesand fit in a smaller transverse package. Add 25 years of development to the KLZE and it would be far better then anything they currently have.
The ZE also couldn't run on regular unleaded and was designed to more lax emissions regs and less fuel efficient. It was also rated under a different hp rating standard (remember in the early 2000s when most Japanese cars had to reduce their HP ratings because the SAE tightened up the power rating spec?) I'll wager it's not a 200 hp motor if you were to run the test per the latest SAE standard. The current 2.5 isn't in its highest state of tune. It's tuned for mainstreamer duty. The KL turned for mainstreamer duty made 20 fewer horses and torques than the SkyActiv. And was less fuel efficient to boot.
Plenty of US owners dropped in the ZE motor or did conversions. It was a great engine and made real power. The regular KL03 ran on premium as well.
25 years of development has made an inferior 4 cylinder almost as powerful as a small V6. That's not progress. Imagine if they continued with development and had an NA 2.5L V6 making 230-240hp to drop in the Mazda 3. Now that's something that would differentiate them in the market and justify their higher price.
Mazda tried using small displacement V6's in their Eunos/Xedos lineup in the 1990's.
It didn't work.
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 07:33:28 AM
Plenty of US owners dropped in the ZE motor or did conversions. It was a great engine and made real power. The regular KL03 ran on premium as well.
Good for them
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 07:33:28 AM
25 years of development has made an inferior 4 cylinder almost as powerful as a small V6. That's not progress.
:confused:
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 07:33:28 AM
Imagine if they continued with development and had an NA 2.5L V6 making 230-240hp to drop in the Mazda 3. Now that's something that would differentiate them in the market and justify their higher price.
That would go about as well as Skyactiv-X and Skyactiv-D... big engine projects that excited car geeks and went absolutely nowhere. Mazda needs to stop doing its market research on r/internetautoexecs
Mazda needs less engine variations, not more. 2.0, 2.5, 2.5T, 2.5 with Toyota's hybrid system. Way more people want 40MPG crossovers than V6 hatchbacks. It's not 1996
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 07:33:28 AM
Plenty of US owners dropped in the ZE motor or did conversions. It was a great engine and made real power. The regular KL03 ran on premium as well.
25 years of development has made an inferior 4 cylinder almost as powerful as a small V6. That's not progress. Imagine if they continued with development and had an NA 2.5L V6 making 230-240hp to drop in the Mazda 3. Now that's something that would differentiate them in the market and justify their higher price.
You can get away with a lot of things aftermarket that OEMs can't. The ZE didn't meet US emissions regs in 93.
And there's a difference between recommending and requiring premium. My Mustang recommends premium, but will run fine on regular. My motorcycle requires premium or it detonates and self-destruct. The DE did not require premium.
Quote from: HurricaneSteve on October 02, 2019, 02:28:25 PM
I have to ask, what's so mediocre about the 2.5L motor? It has quite a bit more torque than an NA 2.0L. In day to day driving it is just as tractable as the Honda 1.5T and will likely be more reliable in the long run (I'm still not sold on small displacement turbos). They do need to add a turbo for the upper level trims but as a standard engine, do any of its competitors have a non-turbo engine that's better?
Well, I think the issue is you're comparing it to other, naturally aspirated compacts. If Mazda wants to pitch itself as a luxury vehicle for cheap, it needs to compete on that front with the power train too.
That 2.5 liter is a total turd of a motor when you compare it to any of the German or Japanese 2.0 liter turbo engines. The interior totally competes. The power train does not. I thought the move to a torsion arm rear suspension was being overblown by everybody, but then I drove it. I don't think I'm all that sensitive to vehicle dynamics compared to some of the auto mag guys, but wow, I noticed pretty immediately. Mid corner bumps had the thing pretty unsettled. I wasn't a fan.
I would have preferred an independent rear suspension + 2.5T for $35k instead of the current one for $30k.
Quote from: MrH on October 03, 2019, 10:04:07 AM
Well, I think the issue is you're comparing it to other, naturally aspirated compacts. If Mazda wants to pitch itself as a luxury vehicle for cheap, it needs to compete on that front with the power train too.
That 2.5 liter is a total turd of a motor when you compare it to any of the German or Japanese 2.0 liter turbo engines. The interior totally competes. The power train does not. I thought the move to a torsion arm rear suspension was being overblown by everybody, but then I drove it. I don't think I'm all that sensitive to vehicle dynamics compared to some of the auto mag guys, but wow, I noticed pretty immediately. Mid corner bumps had the thing pretty unsettled. I wasn't a fan.
I would have preferred an independent rear suspension + 2.5T for $35k instead of the current one for $30k.
Weird that I haven't read any of the auto mag reviewers complain that the rear suspension feels unsettled. Are you sure that the tire pressures were set correctly? Tires usually get pumped up to like 50 psi when the cars are shipped and dealers don't always remember to set them to the correct level. I remember Rich complaining about ride quality on an ND he test drove and then realized the tires were over inflated. I had an Outback rental this summer that rode like shit. Felt like tires were coming off the ground when I hit frost heaves or sharp bumps. Checked the tire pressures and they were all at like 45 psi. Had a similar issue with a rental Elantra. Even worse in that car because it was lighter and more stiffly sprung to begin with.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 03, 2019, 08:42:26 AM
Good for them
:confused:That would go about as well as Skyactiv-X and Skyactiv-D... big engine projects that excited car geeks and went absolutely nowhere. Mazda needs to stop doing its market research on r/internetautoexecs
Mazda needs less engine variations, not more. 2.0, 2.5, 2.5T, 2.5 with Toyota's hybrid system. Way more people want 40MPG crossovers than V6 hatchbacks. It's not 1996
Didn't you just get done patting yourself on the back for ditching a turbo 4 for a V6?
They are too small of a company to compete in the market trying to mimic what other automakers are doing. They don't have the dealership count or marketing of its rivals. They always survived on differentiating themselves with something different - small V6s, rotaries, Miller cycles, ect. The average buyer would see 6 cylinder vs 4 cylinder as a benefit in an ad and immediately be able to feel and hear the difference on a test drive.
Quote from: MX793 on October 03, 2019, 10:57:34 AM
Weird that I haven't read any of the auto mag reviewers complain that the rear suspension feels unsettled. Are you sure that the tire pressures were set correctly? Tires usually get pumped up to like 50 psi when the cars are shipped and dealers don't always remember to set them to the correct level. I remember Rich complaining about ride quality on an ND he test drove and then realized the tires were over inflated. I had an Outback rental this summer that rode like shit. Felt like tires were coming off the ground when I hit frost heaves or sharp bumps. Checked the tire pressures and they were all at like 45 psi. Had a similar issue with a rental Elantra. Even worse in that car because it was lighter and more stiffly sprung to begin with.
Lol, no, I did not go check the tire pressures on a test drive. Pretty sure they were fine. I know what overfilled tires feel like. The front of the car felt fine, it just didn't feel as composed over bumps when loaded up in the rear compared to what I was expecting. I read and watched some reviews afterwards and heard the same thing.
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 12:44:37 PM
Didn't you just get done patting yourself on the back for ditching a turbo 4 for a V6?
Yes, but look at my automotive trajectory over the last ~5 years. I am not normal. Plus I've never bought a new car, so what I want is irrelevant to companies that survive by selling them.
Quote from: r0tor on October 03, 2019, 12:44:37 PM
They are too small of a company to compete in the market trying to mimic what other automakers are doing. They don't have the dealership count or marketing of its rivals. They always survived on differentiating themselves with something different - small V6s, rotaries, Miller cycles, ect. The average buyer would see 6 cylinder vs 4 cylinder as a benefit in an ad and immediately be able to feel and hear the difference on a test drive.
Mazda's weird engines were more of a threat than a protector of their survival. The bulk of Mazdas sold in the US had run of the mill fuel economy focused 4 poppers like everyone else.
The average buyer gives absolutely no shits about cylinder counts. All the German automakers sell hundreds of thousands of 4 poppers in vehicles costing 2-4x the price of a Mazda 3. A V6 wouldn't do jack shit but waste even more money on yet another stillborn wackadoodle Mazda engine.
The Germans do so dishonestly, by obfuscating the engines' displacement with meaningless numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0obMRztklqU
Quote from: MrH on October 03, 2019, 12:51:41 PM
Lol, no, I did not go check the tire pressures on a test drive. Pretty sure they were fine. I know what overfilled tires feel like. The front of the car felt fine, it just didn't feel as composed over bumps when loaded up in the rear compared to what I was expecting. I read and watched some reviews afterwards and heard the same thing.
I'll have to get out and drive one one of these days. Not sure I'd blame an unsettled rear end on the torsion beam setup. Fundamentally, a torsion beam does not react to mid corner bumps like a live or dead axle will. There is still some independence between the left and right wheels. It's behavior should be more akin to a MacP Strut with sway bar setup (better than the MacP, even). Not as good as a double-wishbone or multi-link in terms of kinematics, but a very different animal from a solid axle.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 03, 2019, 06:22:09 AM
To be fair, NVH has come a super long way in the last ~30 years. A 4 cylinder E Class would have been unthinkable in the US in the 90s, yet now it's basically the standard.
The I4 is no smoother today than it was then, and there have been no incredible advances in vibration isolation or counterbalance shaft design in the past 25 years. They could have built a 4-popper in the 90s that is just as smooth as anything they build today. Merc didn't sell 4-banger E classes in the US in the 90s because Americans wouldn't have bought them then no matter how smooth they were.
Quote from: MX793 on October 03, 2019, 03:32:52 PM
I'll have to get out and drive one one of these days. Not sure I'd blame an unsettled rear end on the torsion beam setup. Fundamentally, a torsion beam does not react to mid corner bumps like a live or dead axle will. There is still some independence between the left and right wheels. It's behavior should be more akin to a MacP Strut with sway bar setup (better than the MacP, even). Not as good as a double-wishbone or multi-link in terms of kinematics, but a very different animal from a solid axle.
Not as much, but some. The difference between multi-link and twist beam is very noticeable in my experience.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 03, 2019, 03:44:48 PM
Not as much, but some. The difference between multi-link and twist beam is very noticeable in my experience.
Multi-link and twist beam, yes. Same as you can tell a difference between multilink and MacP. But typically the whole "unsettled by mid-corner bumps" thing is a solid-axle trait, and a twist beam is not a solid axle. The connection between the left and right wheels is more like having sway bar than a rigid link between the two wheels. Kinematically, it's more akin to a MacP fully-independent with sway bar than a stick axle.
I would recommend test driving it. It was weird enough that mid corner, when I hit a bump, I noticed. It was no S2000, that's for sure.
Quote from: MX793 on October 03, 2019, 04:02:35 PM
Multi-link and twist beam, yes. Same as you can tell a difference between multilink and MacP. But typically the whole "unsettled by mid-corner bumps" thing is a solid-axle trait, and a twist beam is not a solid axle. The connection between the left and right wheels is more like having sway bar than a rigid link between the two wheels. Kinematically, it's more akin to a MacP fully-independent with sway bar than a stick axle.
Haven't seen the torsion beam on a Mazda 3, but most are quite rigid. One would suspect that the camber path/thrust is affected as well.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 03, 2019, 04:27:22 PM
Haven't seen the torsion beam on a Mazda 3, but most are quite rigid. One would suspect that the camber path/thrust is affected as well.
Like a MacP, there are limitations on camber control through the suspension stroke. Although unlike a MacP, the Torsion beam doesn't have unfavorable camber change as the wheel moves up and down. The motion of the wheel is basically the same as on a trailing arm independent suspension.
Any suspension with a sway bar (which is pretty much everything built today) is technically not fully independent. Hitting a bump with one wheel will affect the other.
Quote from: MX793 on October 03, 2019, 04:34:40 PM
Like a MacP, there are limitations on camber control through the suspension stroke. Although unlike a MacP, the Torsion beam doesn't have unfavorable camber change as the wheel moves up and down. The motion of the wheel is basically the same as on a trailing arm independent suspension.
Any suspension with a sway bar (which is pretty much everything built today) is technically not fully independent. Hitting a bump with one wheel will affect the other.
Camber change while cornering, with a multi-link would keep the tire flat to the surface in spite of body roll. Torsion beam, not so much. A sway bar is meant for a different purpose, being attached to the body/frame/platform of the vehicle. It exerts opposing forces when cornering which is different from a torsion beam which floats.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 03, 2019, 05:24:48 PM
Camber change while cornering, with a multi-link would keep the tire flat to the surface in spite of body roll. Torsion beam, not so much. A sway bar is meant for a different purpose, being attached to the body/frame/platform of the vehicle. It exerts opposing forces when cornering which is different from a torsion beam which floats.
Sway bars connect the left and right wheels. If they simply tied a wheel to the chassis, then they would just be wholly redundant to the springs, which also resist body roll in cornering. By linking the left and right wheels with a sway bar, you can increase spring rate in the roll direction while not stiffening the overall ride. A torsion beam suspension is two trailing arms with a cross beam connecting them, placed between the trailing arm pivot and axle line, closer to the trailing arm pivot. Geometrically, this is almost exactly the same as a sway bar and functions in the same manner.
Not all camber change during suspension compression is good. When accelerating, the rear of a car squats down. Any non-zero camber in this scenario reduces contact patch and therefore traction. Same with braking when the nose dives. When a suspension is compressed under cornering load, a geometry that provides more negative camber with compression may be beneficial, but not all geometries do this. Some actually result in camber changing in the positive direction, which is not beneficial. Trailing arm IRS goes positive camber on the outside wheel when the body rolls in a turn.
Torsion beams don't experience camber change during vehicle pitching motions (rear squat under acceleration or nose dive under braking). Depending on how torsionally stiff the trailing arms are or the stiffness of the bushings at the trailing arm pivot, it may experience camber change in the negative direction when one side is compressed (or, worst case, none at all). So as the body rolls to the outside of a turn, the outside tire may tilt into the turn a bit, improving tire contact.
Quote from: MX793 on October 03, 2019, 06:42:05 PM
Sway bars connect the left and right wheels. If they simply tied a wheel to the chassis, then they would just be wholly redundant to the springs, which also resist body roll in cornering. By linking the left and right wheels with a sway bar, you can increase spring rate in the roll direction while not stiffening the overall ride. A torsion beam suspension is two trailing arms with a cross beam connecting them, placed between the trailing arm pivot and axle line, closer to the trailing arm pivot. Geometrically, this is almost exactly the same as a sway bar and functions in the same manner.
Not all camber change during suspension compression is good. When accelerating, the rear of a car squats down. Any non-zero camber in this scenario reduces contact patch and therefore traction. Same with braking when the nose dives. When a suspension is compressed under cornering load, a geometry that provides more negative camber with compression may be beneficial, but not all geometries do this. Some actually result in camber changing in the positive direction, which is not beneficial. Trailing arm IRS goes positive camber on the outside wheel when the body rolls in a turn.
Torsion beams don't experience camber change during vehicle pitching motions (rear squat under acceleration or nose dive under braking). Depending on how torsionally stiff the trailing arms are or the stiffness of the bushings at the trailing arm pivot, it may experience camber change in the negative direction when one side is compressed (or, worst case, none at all). So as the body rolls to the outside of a turn, the outside tire may tilt into the turn a bit, improving tire contact.
All you say is true, but considering the rear suspension to have a twist beam suggests that traction under acceleration would not be a consideration. As well, cornering with the torsion beam floating may have somewhat of a similar affect as a sway bar, but the dynamics are different. Also, there is the consideration of unsprung weight which the beam will be a factor of.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 03, 2019, 06:57:33 PM
All you say is true, but considering the rear suspension to have a twist beam suggests that traction under acceleration would not be a consideration. As well, cornering with the torsion beam floating may have somewhat of a similar affect as a sway bar, but the dynamics are different. Also, there is the consideration of unsprung weight which the beam will be a factor of.
Obviously, torsion beams are on the non-driven wheels, so camber change under squat/dive isn't that big of a deal. Just pointing out scenarios where it's not necessarily good (and why live axles are popular for drag cars, besides general robustness).
As far as torsion beam vs sway bar, the dynamics actually are very much the same.
How a swap bar works: The sway bar is essentially a torsion spring connecting the left and right wheels, shaped generally like a U when viewed from above. The ends of the U are connected to the wheels, and the bottom of the U is held to the body on pivots. When the suspension of both left and right wheels moves up and down at the same time, like on a speed bump, the sway bar just kind of floats on the chassis pivots there and no load or force is passed through it. This is why you can stiffen sway bars without significantly affecting the general ride quality of a vehicle in the same way as installing stiffer springs would. When the suspension of only one wheel is compressed, this puts a moment on the bottom of the "U" fastened at the chassis pivot, which in turn puts an upward force on the opposite wheel. This force is opposed by the spring on the opposite wheel, so you've now connected the left and right springs so that they share load when only one side of the suspension is compressed. How much sharing happens depends on the stiffness of the sway bar. When the car body rolls towards the outside of a corner, the suspension on the outside wheels is compressed. This pushes on the end of the sway bar, imparting a moment through the bar at the chassis pivots, and transferring load to the inside wheel's suspension spring.
A torsion beam suspension has two trailing arms with a beam between them placed near the trailing arm pivot at the chassis. When the suspension on both sides moves up or down simultaneously, as when going over a speed bump, no load is carried by the torsion beam. It just moves up and down with the suspension. When only one side is compressed, the offset between the axle line and the torsion beam results in a moment being created through the torsion beam which attempts to compress the suspension at the other side of the car as that torque through the torsion beam tried to pull the opposite trailing arm upwards. Exact same principle of operation and dynamic as a sway bar. In fact, cars with torsion beam suspensions can get away with either very small sway bars or none at all because the torsion beam pulls double duty as a sway bar and a suspension support member (providing lateral support and location for the trailing arms).
Yes, the torsion beam itself is unsprung weight. So are the various pieces, links, and members of a multi-link or double-wishbone which a torsion beam suspension doesn't have. As to "floating" of the beam, I'm not quite sure what that means. The beam doesn't "float", it's rigidly mounted to the suspension. I think perhaps you should take a look at some diagrams or photos.
I'd recommend reading this article: https://www.autozine.org/technical_school/suspension/tech_suspension1.htm (https://www.autozine.org/technical_school/suspension/tech_suspension1.htm)
It provides a pretty good overview of different common suspension types plus pictures of what they actually look like.
Floating, as not attached to the body/frame/platform. As for unsprung weight, the entire weight of the beam being lifted as opposed to multi-link suspension rods simply being pivoted. As for the dynamics, sway bars are attached to the end point where lift is easier; like lifting a beam on the end rather than in the middle. Not a clear description, but you should understand.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 03, 2019, 08:16:52 PM
Floating, as not attached to the body/frame/platform. As for unsprung weight, the entire weight of the beam being lifted as opposed to multi-link suspension rods simply being pivoted. As for the dynamics, sway bars are attached to the end point where lift is easier; like lifting a beam on the end rather than in the middle. Not a clear description, but you should understand.
I think you are assuming that a torsion beam is like a dead axle, where you have this great mass largely connected by the springs with a few links to keep it pointed in the correct direction. The torsion beam is just behind the trailing arm pivots, which are attached to the chassis. The beam and trailing arms combined sort of make up one big wishbone with a pivot at the chassis and the wheels and shocks and springs attached at the ends. Much like the links in a multi-link, this entire "wishbone" pivots rather than fully floats. If the suspension moves an inch, the torsion beam itself might only move 1/4".
I just think it's crazy and annoying that now people are poo-pooing twist axles when 18 months ago no one knew what they were or cared.
I don't think people "notice" as much as they say they do.
Torsion beams are independent enough.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 03, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
I just think it's crazy and annoying that now people are poo-pooing twist axles when 18 months ago no one knew what they were or cared.
I don't think people "notice" as much as they say they do.
Torsion beams are independent enough.
I think most people hear "beam" and assume it's the same as or very much like a live (or dead for a FWD) rear axle. Which it's not. Just like people hear "leaf spring" in the Corvette and assume it's got the same sort of suspension you'd find under a horse-drawn wagon from the 18th century. Or a pickup truck.
Not sure what is going on here. Yea you can say the twist beam is similar to a sway bar - but an overly stiff sway bar. When you get a really stiff sway bar the motions are not controlled well by the shocks and the suspension skips over rough patches of road during cornering - pretty much as described.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 03, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
I just think it's crazy and annoying that now people are poo-pooing twist axles when 18 months ago no one knew what they were or cared.
I don't think people "notice" as much as they say they do.
Torsion beams are independent enough.
It's just a weird move for a company thats prided itself on being "driver focused" and is making an upmarket push. Do torsion beams work? Of course. Do they work as well as a well designed true IRS? Hell no. Do details like that matter in a car billed as premium? I'd say yes.
Quote from: MX793 on October 03, 2019, 08:30:22 PM
I think you are assuming that a torsion beam is like a dead axle, where you have this great mass largely connected by the springs with a few links to keep it pointed in the correct direction. The torsion beam is just behind the trailing arm pivots, which are attached to the chassis. The beam and trailing arms combined sort of make up one big wishbone with a pivot at the chassis and the wheels and shocks and springs attached at the ends. Much like the links in a multi-link, this entire "wishbone" pivots rather than fully floats. If the suspension moves an inch, the torsion beam itself might only move 1/4".
No, I understand the dynamics of a torsion/twist beam suspension vs. multi-link. There is certainly enough information on the web, as well as graphics to illustrate just about everything. Torsion beam has the advantage of being more economical and it is well understood that most people would never detect a difference in their normal daily driving. For that matter, there is likely very little difference in normal driving.
However, Mazda has always prided itself on it's 'handling' dynamics. When designing the rear suspension for the Gen I Mazda 6 (Atenza), Mazda called on the expertise of a engineer largely responsible for the design of the Mondeo Gen II, which uses a related platform, in order to help design a unique rear suspension for the Mazda 6 (Atenza). Slapping in a twist beam on the new Mazda 3 seems like a indication that Mazda has given up on their Zoom Zoom handling dynamics that Mazda prided itself on.
Quote from: r0tor on October 04, 2019, 04:00:07 AM
Not sure what is going on here. Yea you can say the twist beam is similar to a sway bar - but an overly stiff sway bar. When you get a really stiff sway bar the motions are not controlled well by the shocks and the suspension skips over rough patches of road during cornering - pretty much as described.
Many cars with torsion beams have a (small) sway bar in addition, meaning that the torsion beam alone does not necessarily provide the same level of roll stiffness as the sway bar alone provides in many cars with other suspension configurations.
Quote from: MX793 on October 04, 2019, 07:48:29 AM
Many cars with torsion beams have a (small) sway bar in addition, meaning that the torsion beam alone does not necessarily provide the same level of roll stiffness as the sway bar alone provides in many cars with other suspension configurations.
This one does not
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 04, 2019, 07:35:55 AM
No, I understand the dynamics of a torsion/twist beam suspension vs. multi-link. There is certainly enough information on the web, as well as graphics to illustrate just about everything. Torsion beam has the advantage of being more economical and it is well understood that most people would never detect a difference in their normal daily driving. For that matter, there is likely very little difference in normal driving.
However, Mazda has always prided itself on it's 'handling' dynamics. When designing the rear suspension for the Gen I Mazda 6 (Atenza), Mazda called on the expertise of a engineer largely responsible for the design of the Mondeo Gen II, which uses a related platform, in order to help design a unique rear suspension for the Mazda 6 (Atenza). Slapping in a twist beam on the new Mazda 3 seems like a indication that Mazda has given up on their Zoom Zoom handling dynamics that Mazda prided itself on.
Certainly a cost cutting measure, and disappointing in that regard. But I'd point out that the much-acclaimed, previous generation Civic Type R (2015-2018), the one everyone in America longed for, had a torsion beam rear suspension (previous generations had a "proper" IRS). So did (does?) the Renaultsport Megane, regarded as one of if not the best handling car in the hot hatch segment. So the torsion beam is cheaper and less sophisticated, but is certainly still very capable of delivering zoom-zoom performance. If Mazda had abandoned zoom-zoom in the name of saving costs, they would have fitted a MacP strut arrangement. Or a dead axle.
Quote from: r0tor on October 04, 2019, 07:52:56 AM
This one does not
Ok. That still doesn't mean that the torsion bar design is inherently over-stiff in roll.
Quote from: MX793 on October 04, 2019, 07:48:29 AM
Many cars with torsion beams have a (small) sway bar in addition, meaning that the torsion beam alone does not necessarily provide the same level of roll stiffness as the sway bar alone provides in many cars with other suspension configurations.
Torsion beams, as the name might imply, are specifically designed to deflect torsionally, but remain rigid in every other direction. They are semi-independent, but basically equivalent to an independent suspension with a sway bar. The unsprung weight is probably the largest drawback of the torsion beam.
Also, the sky is blue. :evildude:
Torsion beams are also very compact.
The problem I have with Mazda is they migrated towards a more basic setup, but somehow the car got even smaller inside!
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 04, 2019, 05:06:31 AM
It's just a weird move for a company thats prided itself on being "driver focused" and is making an upmarket push. Do torsion beams work? Of course. Do they work as well as a well designed true IRS? Hell no. Do details like that matter in a car billed as premium? I'd say yes.
Define "not as well" though. If it drives, handles, and rides good - who cares?
Suspension types have their advantages and disadvantages, and I think shitting on a torsion beam is dumb. I mean, cut out the "torsion" part of the torsion beam and you have a basic trailing arm setup which is "IRS". And no one shits on trailing arms like they do torsion beams.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 04, 2019, 11:29:05 AM
Torsion beams are also very compact.
The problem I have with Mazda is they migrated towards a more basic setup, but somehow the car got even smaller inside!
+1 yep. That's the real problem.
Yes, the interior space downgrade is bizarre. One of the nice aspects of my dad's 2018 3 is the huge amount of rear legroom (relative to the car size). Why'd they give it up? It's crazy!
Quote from: Laconian on October 04, 2019, 11:41:44 AM
Yes, the interior space downgrade is bizarre. One of the nice aspects of my dad's 2018 3 is the huge amount of rear legroom (relative to the car size). Why'd they give it up? It's crazy!
Huge? Uh....
Quote from: 2o6 on October 04, 2019, 11:29:05 AM
Torsion beams are also very compact.
The problem I have with Mazda is they migrated towards a more basic setup, but somehow the car got even smaller inside!
Is that due to the overall shrinkage of the car, or something else?
Quote from: Laconian on October 04, 2019, 11:41:44 AM
Yes, the interior space downgrade is bizarre. One of the nice aspects of my dad's 2018 3 is the huge amount of rear legroom (relative to the car size). Why'd they give it up? It's crazy!
Pre-2019 rear legroom: 35.8"
2019 rear legroom: 35.1"
Less than 3/4" of change, butttttt okay. :lol:
Though "hip room" is down 3" between the two, among other changes.
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 04, 2019, 12:27:55 PM
Pre-2019 rear legroom: 35.8"
2019 rear legroom: 35.1"
Less than 3/4" of change, butttttt okay. :lol:
Though "hip room" is down 3" between the two, among other changes.
In person, it's worse.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 04, 2019, 11:47:58 AM
Is that due to the overall shrinkage of the car, or something else?
Nope, Mazda is just not good at packaging.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 04, 2019, 12:32:02 PM
In person, it's worse.
I don't doubt it. I've never put too much stock in numbers like that. Lots of variability. Like where the driver/passenger has their seat positioned, for instance.
When it comes to leg room, always look at the front and rear total.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 04, 2019, 12:54:00 PM
When it comes to leg room, always look at the front and rear total.
+1
I must admit, I've never been in a position to bother looking at such numbers to begin with, so I know little about them or their true value. I've only "shopped" for cars twice in my life, and both times I clearly didn't think about rear passengers, especially with the Taco. In fact, the near-uselessness of rear-seat occupancy was a plus for me when I bought Taco..."ope, guess we gotta take somebody else's vehicle because rear seat of access cab Taco is not somewhere you wanna be for more than a short jaunt around town." :lol:
With rear facing child seats and a 5' 10" wife, it's life and death for me. Don't know if we're having a second one but I'm looking forward to the day I don't have to think about this shit.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 04, 2019, 12:32:02 PM
In person, it's worse.
Nope, Mazda is just not good at packaging.
Could it be that the trailing arms and the beam flapping around underneath may have needed a smidgen more room at the back than the multi-link setup?
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 05, 2019, 06:58:58 AM
Could it be that the trailing arms and the beam flapping around underneath may have needed a smidgen more room at the back than the multi-link setup?
Torsion beam is way more compact than any multilink. Many multi-links, including the previous iterations of Mazda3, also have trailing arms.
This is the multi-link out of a 2nd generation (which, IIRC, is essentially the same as 1st and 3rd generations)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--nhGkXnlo--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18rixiyaie4gujpg.jpg)
^^^Note the trailing arms
This is the torsion beam out of the gen 4.
(https://amd.c.yimg.jp/im_sigggT4_E4fnppPXPUSX8v6Y0Q---x900-y483-q90-exp3h-pril/amd/20190630-10424053-carview-000-1-view.jpg)
The beam is set very close to the trailing arm pivot, so it wouldn't move much with suspension movement and would require very little sway space. You wouldn't need to raise the floor like you would in, say, a live/dead axle (live axle Mustangs and a pretty prominent hump in the floorpan for axle clearance). The trailing arms themselves are also quite a bit shorter than on the multi-link.
That torsion beam setup seems quite compact. My concern was that having the beam set far forward of the wheels may require the platform to be adjusted to make room underneath thus impacting the position of the rear seat. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but the angle of the image does make it difficult to seen the actual length of the trailing arms.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 05, 2019, 06:46:44 AM
With rear facing child seats and a 5' 10" wife, it's life and death for me. Don't know if we're having a second one but I'm looking forward to the day I don't have to think about this shit.
...then why are you thinking of moving from an Edge to an Escape. :confused:
Get a Tahoe and call it a day.
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 05, 2019, 10:40:42 AM
...then why are you thinking of moving from an Edge to an Escape. :confused:
Get a Tahoe and call it a day.
The new Escape is roomier for passengers than our MKX and the current Edge I think, and has new tech, much better gas mileage etc.