2021 Mazda3 Fastback Selection e-SKYACTIV X 2.0 M Hybrid (186 PS) TEST DRIVE 

It has a compressor though

@@or2kr it s very low pressure

@@or2kr but not for performance.

No, 186hp the new!

Is it just me or the gears appear a bit longer now??

How do you compare "the feeling of 180 hp"? As far as physics work, you only feel the force pushing you into the seat, which is a function of power at the wheel and vehicle speed. Meaning the "feeling of 180 hp" strongly depends on the speed you are driving when using the power.

@@fwebe2871 correct. But also the gear ratios

@ That is, what the power at the wheels and the vehicle speed is all about.

Problem with this car is not the engine but very long gear ratios

@ The problem is mostly the people driving the car. A lot of them tend to shift way too early, which lowers you overall acceleration.

the engine is very elastic and you can have both - sixth gear at 60kph just rolling with the traffic flow, no problem. it will even accelerate without any problems at very low revs without any lag or unwillingness. but it wont do it quick that way. it needs some revs and becomes alive above 4500rpm. so 2 or 3 gears down and use the whole rev range, it will do it in a very linear free revving way that most turbos cant. just some numbers from an ADAC test: Golf 7 1.5 TSI acceleration 60-100kph 4/5/6gear: 7,2/9,1/11,3 s | Mazda 3 186 acceleration 60-100kph 4/5/6gear: 8,5/12,2/20,6 s in fact the mazda cant even match the 1.0 TSI 110hp in this in-gear accelerations. however, if you use the whole rev range it will do 60-100kph in second gear in 4,5seconds vs. 5,2s for the Golf 1.5 TSI. the 186hpare there, but they are above 5000rpm. it is not a punchy engine and most people today will miss that turbo-punch. but it is a wonderful naturally aspirated engine with totally linear response. it will roll along happilly at 1000rpm as well as rev its guts out at 7000rpm. you just have to drive it accordingly.

up to 160 the best fuel consumption ever.

@@tmilt4375 except that american Jetta with 1,4tsi 147hp

yes, you can see its limited when looking on the consumption meter. it drops from 20l+/100km to 15l/100km once reaching 220kph, which means the engine is not using full power anymore.

The x engine is the first mass produced petrol engine to utilise compression ignition, which is part of the whole diesel concept. It allows to use a quality control with your air-fuel mixture instead of relying on a quantity control which otto engines usually utilise. Therefore it gets higher efficiency when on lower loads, which is mostly the benefit of diesel engines, especially when it comes to NEDC or WLTP. Usually you can't ignite gas mixtures reliably per compression and if so it is only stable at a small part of the rpm band. A diesel engine only compresses air and adds the fuel right before combustion, which then just burns from the pressure in the hot air, but isn't anywhere as clean in combustion as a compressed mixture, as it only burns from the outside to the inside of the injected fuelparticles. Diesel fuel also won't vaporise at temperature and pressure levels used. So usually you can and have to run higher effective compression ratios in a diesel engine, to even get the fuel to ignite and still don't get instant and complete combustion. It furthermore limits your maximal rpm, as the fuel needs some time to ignite. You do get more air to change the heat of combustion into work in a diesel engine, which is part of the reason of it's higher efficiency. The X engine uses a lean mixture, which is just lean enough, to not be ignited by the compression and raises the pressure with an additional fuel pocket, which is ignited per spark plug (thus SPCCI). At this point the combination of pressure from compression and heat from the small combustion is high enough to ignite the whole mixture at once, making the lean compression ignition timeable and thus controllable. In contrast to a diesel engine the vaporised fuel is mixed with the air and nearly ignites all at once and really fast, netting you more heat at the beginning of your work cycle, while still having a lot of air to transfer the heat into work at the crank. The vaporised fuel burns much cleaner (much less particles left over) and the near instant and complete ignition avoids heat spikes, which mostly are the reason for increased NOx-emissions, which usually form at flame fronts, such as the flame at the injected fuel in a diesel engine or the flame wandering from a spark plug throughout the cylinder in an otto engine. In contrast to an otto engine you can always work with the throttle wide open, therefor avoiding pumping losses at the intake, while getting more air to burn your fuel completely and avoiding said heat spikes. You get slightly higher peak efficiency but the really important part is the higher efficiency at lower loads, which is something, only diesel engines could do in the past, as the peak efficiency isn't that much of a difference between an otto and a diesel engine. The X engine combines the best parts of both worlds, the big rpm band, better air fuel mixture, better emissions and better power delivery of a otto engine with the compression ignition, low load efficiency and higher peak efficiency of a diesel engine. In my opinion the best part about the X engine is, that it is in this class of engines one of a few, which are capable of making over 130 kW from 240 Nm. Most engines, especially turbo charged ones, don't make use of the whole rpm band and thus lose potential power, making mostly about just 100 kW to 110 kW. It is one of really few engines, which reaches >80% of peak torque in a band of >4000 rpm (from below 2000 rpm up to over 6000 rpm). The only turbocharged ones in the same price and vehicle class (as far as i know) are the Ford 1.5 EcoBoost with 132 kW from 240 Nm and the Honda 1.5 Turbo with 132 kW from 240 Nm, but they don't reach the same consumption figures. Furthermore the engine is paired with a mild hybrid system, which supports at lower rpm (starting from a stop) and can be seen as a better performing start-stop-system.

That's the name for the sedan at least in germany.

That could be a Skoda Octavia Combi

Skoda Enyaq 🙂

@@inotoni6148 almost haha

@@Catchingcars Thanks. I doubted a little because the lights are a little different, but I didn't want to start an internet search

Yes 100% flat road

@@TESTDRIVEFREAK Ist es ein guter Motor mit Leistung und Verbrauch, weil ich ernsthaft überlege, ihn zu kaufen?

@@furkansantimci9240 ich frage den fahrer der das auto 2 wochen lang getestet hat, ich selber bin nur 20 km gefahren, allgemein ist mazda sehr gute und zuverlässige autos, viele sind zufrieden. Ansonsten hast du verbrauchstest fast am ende der video gesehen?

@@TESTDRIVEFREAK ja sehr gutes Ergebnis, wenn es sich um einen echten Verbrauchswert handelt Haben Sie Informationen über den Kraftstoffverbrauch in der Stadt?

@@furkansantimci9240 Naja, der Stadtverbrauch hängt halt von deiner Stadt und deinem Fahrstil ab. Wenn du da im 6. Gang durchrollen kannst kommt natürlich was anderes bei raus, als wenn du immer im 1. Gang von einer roten Ampel zur nächsten preschst (für 50 km/h reicht der 1. Gang ja aus) und erst kurz vor Ende wieder alles wegbremst. Da kann zwischen 3l/ 100 km und 15l/ 100 km alles bei rauskommen.

I would like to know this as well. Have you got an answer elsewhere?

They're about same. I would even say the 3 is a little bit quieter

merican?

we test the fuel consumption on plain flat autobahn near Mannheim Germany towards to Frankfurt, there is no uphill or downhill. average consumption with city is always higher. this test is only cruising on flat highway fuel consumption. maybe you live in area where lots hills/mountains? or do your Mazda 3 has AWD system?

@@TESTDRIVEFREAK no bro. I have the same FWD version aut. but in 6th gear and in highway this does not matter. 6.2 at 120km/h and 7.4 at 140 km/h

Ok tell me where do you drive (city, country) , i will check on google earth of your area sea level altitude etc, if your road has sometimes maybe light uphill and downhill. Thats can make quick plus 1 or 2 liter more if road are just 5% uphill, that you dont feel like driving uphill. We test over 300 cars with fuel consumption and lots people confirm it that our fuel consumption are almost 100% right. It can depend on tires, or weather like many winds, fuel octane type etc.

Or how much km do you have? If brand new under 2000 km then of course it consume almost 2 liter more

Ah you got automatic, thats why bit higher

The, are not useless,mazda diesel consume less but goes faster despite of less hp and its something cheaper too!! even mazda 6 with 150hp diesel are cheaper then this

@@Mr11ESSE111 I don't know where you are finding Mazda 6 diesels cheaper than Mazda 3 Skyactiv-X, and the 150hp diesel Mazda 6 is absolutely not faster than this 184hp Mazda 3. Every market I've looked at that offers both seems to have the Mazda 3 about 15% cheaper. That being said, Mazda has massively improved their Skyactiv-X engine now they've added the mild hybrid technology, and it borderline rivals diesels for fuel consumption (not quite, but very close), which is an extremely impressive achievement. Before this update they were a bit... meh.

@@CheesemanGT it is cheaper , around 3000-4000euro!! this is petrol with 186hp but max speed are around same and torque are much better of diesel

diesel has more torque and consumes still less than hybrid. i will prefer it till i have no other choice.

The funny thing about the x engine is, that it gets better overall efficiency than the 85 kW diesel engine, which was offered for the mazda 3 as well and it already reaches nearly the same consumption, which means it got a reasonable higher efficiency then the 85 kW diesel engine. Top speed is of no concern and torque is nothing worth comparing, as those don't matter in real world conditions.

SHUT UP!!!!!

Toyota is freaking boring like, but better than most Nissan's.