Can Mazda be saved????

[Eye of the Tiger]

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.

[r0tor]

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

[12,000 RPM]

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.

[MX793]

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.

[HurricaneSteve]

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.

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.

[12,000 RPM]

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.

[r0tor]

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.

[Eye of the Tiger]

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

[MX793]

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.

[r0tor]

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.

[2o6]

Mazda tried using small displacement V6's in their Eunos/Xedos lineup in the 1990's.


It didn't work.

[12,000 RPM]

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

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.

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

[MX793]

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.

[MrH]

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.

[MX793]

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.

[r0tor]

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.

[MrH]

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.

[12,000 RPM]

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.

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.

[Laconian]

The Germans do so dishonestly, by obfuscating the engines' displacement with meaningless numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0obMRztklqU

[MX793]

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.

[MX793]

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.

[FoMoJo]

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.

[MX793]

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.

[MrH]

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.

[FoMoJo]

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.

[MX793]

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.

[FoMoJo]

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. 

[MX793]

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.

[FoMoJo]

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.

[MX793]

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

It provides a pretty good overview of different common suspension types plus pictures of what they actually look like.