The Skyactiv X is finally here. The first commercially available petrol engine which can work a bit like a diesel. How does it drive and how does it perform?
The US is getting it later than Europe because fuel is so cheap compared to everywhere else in the world. It's similar to a lesser extent in Australia, I'm pretty sure we're only getting it late this year.
Few corrections. The skyactiv x engine never turns off the spark plugs at any rpm. Its called spark plug controlled compression ignition for a reason. The way it works is that a very lean air/fuel mixture is compressed, then a tiny amount of rich air/fuel mixture is injected right at the spark plug. Igniting that raises the pressure in the cylinder to make the lean air fuel mixture undergo compression ignition. Also Diesel engines burn cooler not hotter than petrols. Which is what you want since you want the energy pushing down the piston not heating it up.
I'm amazed how Mazda finds another interesting workaround of refusing turbo diesel/petrol. My driven 2.0 tdci Mondeo averages around 6.1-6.2, so this Mazda is quite OK with this economy figures. Anyway, I saw this in white with black trim, wheels and windows. It looked simply hot!
Mazda does have turbo diesels in their cars but practically no turbo petrols, instead deciding to go for their skyactiv idea where everything is lighter, more responsive, etc. It's definitely interesting driving cars without a turbo in an age where pretty much everything is turbocharged. Also 6.2 on a tdci Mondeo? I get an average of 4.9.-5.1 on my 130hp version. Do you have the 115hp one or do you just drive in a more spirited fashion? :)
All we get in the USA are turbo petrol’s and the latest Skyactiv-G 2.5T is a monster. Unfortunately the smallest cars it is available in are the CX-5/Mazda 6, without a manual. None the less they are rated 250HP/310lb/ft, and can run on shit fuel and still get 230HP. If only they were available in CX-30/Mazda 3, it’d easily be hot hatch territory for those vehicles, the previous Mazda 3 which share platform, suspension and brakes with the CX-5/Mazda 6, it isn’t unrealistic to simplify the integration of the 2.5T by just saying use the larger vehicles suspension and brakes to balance out the power. But I think the main problem is Mazda currently doesn’t have a manual gearbox that handles 310lb of torque...and AWD might be out of the question due to reliability of the electromagnetic clutch engaging with that much input. Let’s face it, part of the reason Mazda makes such reliable vehicles is because they are underpowered, much like Toyota (excluding Lexus) Compare that with the likes of Dodge/Chrysler and even Ford, and you see lots of engine and transmission problems in their powerful vehicles.
compared to other inane reviewers, your review is like a breath of fresh air. Really informative. Finally, a useful commentary that provides the answers to the questions I wanted to ask!
Ok , I believe Mazda is saying. If you want a race car just buy one from Korea. We sell high quality, very adult, somewhat refined, NICE smooth dependable Cars . With a fine warranty to back our claim. Sounds like music to my cvt hating ears. Where do I sign?
Sorry but I’m not sure what you are on about with the mileage, 6.1L/100km or so with 180HP is *very* good. My 2.5 SkyActiv-G with 6 speed manual in my 2015 Mazda 3 averages 7.6L/100km with roughly the same horsepower (185). The car you are driving I’m assuming is also new, all cars improve their mileage as they get broken in.
You live in a beautiful country! I own a mazda mx5 with the 184 hp engine, and i really like mazda's philosophy. My mx5 gets extremely good fuel economy. My average is 6.6l/100km. For a sports car that sees the rev limiter nearly every day, i would say that's pretty impressive! And it puts a smile on my face every time i drive it. Mazda knows how to make good driving cars.
It was my understanding it uses the sparkplugs always in order to trigger compression ignition? They use a light fuel air mixture initially and then inject a tiny bit more fuel, spark that, and then it brings the pressure in the cylinder high enough to ignite the existing fuel all at once like a diesel engine would. They need the spark plugs in order to achieve compression ignition. Doing away with the spark plug completely was the reason it took car companies this long to make an engine like this, because gasoline is so volatile that changing conditions constantly change the pressure that gasoline ignites, but using the spark plug ensures ignition every time.
Pit-Stop True, but at the very beginning you said it will “disable those spark plugs”. The spark plugs are never disabled otherwise the engine could not work as it is designed.
Great review about the engine! I was hyped up like you about it. Slovenia is beautiful! We drove through it in 2005. Love the red colour on Mazda, and would have it with the burgundy leather, as in your car. I want much torque with small fuel consumption, like in a diesel. Can you test the diesel version too please? Also looked at a few others of your videos and subscribed.
This is a close to the holy grail compression petrol as any car manufacturer has got, and with their ability to kick in-house engineering goals far better than many (particularly given their small size) Mazda should be given kudos. This is a series one, and as such had to feature in a car where they could put a modest engine without performance aspirations into test. The best two things about this engine will be that there is a much, much larger sweet spot of ideal fuel economy. So real world fuel economy should be better than a comparable petrol. But no make no mistake, this is not a diesel so even the lean mixture (roughly twice as lean as regular petrol) can’t quite match diesel. But it’s a compromise and a great first step. And it should put turbo cars to shame in real fuel use because their estimated fuel use never translates when driven hard, whereas this engine encourages it and is more forgiving. But the most interesting thing about this engine will be the torque on tap and low rpm. Once again, not quite diesel but a great compromise. For the moment though I’ll keep driving my Skyactiv-D which in itself puts most diesels your shame (and the only diesel globally that passed the manufactures domestic government testing in wake of VW’s cheating scandal)
Agreed. The X is a great engine, despite my reservation. And, like you've said, it's the first generation, so they can only make it better from here on. The low-RPM torque is quite nice, allowing you to plod along at 1000 RPM in 6th at 50km/h without the engine struggling.
I have tried both X and G here in Europe - the X simlply wasn't worth the extra outlay. If you drive the X it feels like it has 140 bhp not 180. Great review by the way.
Thanks. I was expecting more of an oompf, even though it does come alive at around 4500 rpms, just like your run-of-the-mill naturally aspirated engine of ye olde times. Let's hope the next iteration of the X will bring about bigger changes.
@@Pit-Stop I agree. And your use of the word 'lovely' is the best way to describe driving it.....people have to try it to know what you mean. I'm stunned by this car and great work Mazda.
We'll have to wait and see how reliable these engines are. On the surface, it appears it's all mostly up to the injectors and sensors doing a proper job. And I'm guessing if the injectors or sensors fail to perform as intended, the engine will just revert to a normal combustion cycle. But again, I'm just guessing.
Had a chat with the Mazda guy recently and asked him about the reliability of the X so far. He said no big problems worth mentioning. There were a couple of engines with some software faults but that was corrected quickly. So, it appears it's going well so far.
I have exactly the same car as you’re driving. Once it’s past 10000km the consumption figures drop dramatically. Pushing 950km on a tank on the autobahn( taking into account I put it on cruise control)
@@Pit-StopI must also say I use high octane fuel ( 100 instead of 95 euro) currently the gauge is telling me 4.5-4.7l/per 100km on the autobahn and cruise control. In the city it's about 5.8- 6.2. This is driving fairly modestly though and not pushing up the rev counter. I'm a fuel preserver but the younger fellas I'm sure won't get the same figures
I wonder how the power/acceleration compares to my 2018 5-door HB Touring with the 2.5 Liter engine and 6-speed auto. But the MPGs, as we do here in the USA and by using a conversion calculator, works out as follow for the one tested here: 2.5 - 3.0 Liters / 100 KM - @ 50 KPH (31 MPH) - In 6th gear at around a constant 1000 rpm = 78 MPG to 94 MPG 6 Liters / 100 KM - @ 130 KPH (80.7 MPH) - At Constant Highway speeds = 39.2 MPG 8 Liters / 100 KM - WORST, probably stepping on the gas constantly for fast acceleration? - 29.4 MPG Now 39.2 MPG at 80.7 MPH may not seem a great number when you consider that Car and Driver got an older Skyactiv-G engine Mazda 3 to get 42 MPG at 75 MPH, but with the increase from 75 to 80.7, although it seems minute, it is at a higher speed and does compute, using drag coefficient, to about 14% more in energy required, whether you use Kilonewtons or pounds-force. Then you have to account for the reduction in MPG, about 2.8 MPG, so, less than 14% although I do not know how to account for this. In the end, it seems that the 20% that Mazda promised overall in fuel efficiency is a rather optimistic number. It is probably around 10% improvement in real world driving. You will barely beat a 1.5 turbo Honda Civic in the MPG race, but it still gives Mazda the compact vehicle MPG crown in the pure-ICE (non-hybrid) category. (Remember that the 'hybrid' part of this Mazda is only to power the electronics and start/stop engine system, NOT to move the car) 1) Conversion Calculator FROM: Liters/ 100 km TO: Miles / Gallon (US): www.thecalculatorsite.com/conversions/fuelconsumption.php 2) Calculator, using 0.28 drag coefficient for 5 door: www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=bcc8ab4a61a1d1f3f102846d9617eb8 3) The 2017 Mazda 3 2.5L 4 door (non-hatchback) with the automatic did 42 MPG @ 75 MPH, probably due to a lower drag coefficient (0.26) and slightly less weight. www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15096743/2017-mazda-3-25l-automatic-sedan-tested-review/ 4) The same car as 3) above, but with the smaller engine (2.0L) and same transmission got 38 MPG @ 75 MPH www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15095210/2017-mazda-3-20l-automatic-sedan-test-review/
Slight correction there - the mild hybrid does indeed also help accelerate the car, including giving you a slight boost while shifting to keep the momentum.
Sounds like a great BASE engine for Mazda to perfect its reliability in this generation. If all goes well, seems like it would do well with a 46volt supercharger in a future more upscale vehicle. Also, since it seems to act like an NA motor, perhaps stronger (forged) internals makes sense in a pricier more sporting design in a similar way to the what was changed in Miata engine in the ND.2. Great review. As far as the car, feels so much more cramped than Mazda 3s in the last 2 generations. I’m 6’1” and actually backed to backed with it an Miata ND.1 and felt the ND SEEMED roomier. I didn’t actually drive the Mazda 3 though because I was so turned off by the room.
Agreed about the engine. It's very nice but not what I would consider a worthy upgrade over the normal 2.0 Skyactiv-G right now. Too pricy. However it's exciting to think how Mazda can improve and build on this design in the future (hyping myself up again, hah). As for room, I'm quite surprised. I'm 5'11" and found it pretty roomy. Not the back where it's a bit cramped (and the windows are smaller) but the front was excellent to me.
There is always a trade-off between power/fuel efficiency and cleanliness. No amount of hyping can change this. EV's and Hybrids still don't drive like regular cars.
I have the 2018 2.0L 6 speed manual and averaging 5.9L/100kms 60% highway around Western Washington State. Not sure how much better the X model would be for me if the US market is allowed to have it.
So basically the engine compresses the fuel 'almost' up to the point of self-ignition, and then the spark plug 'ignites' a bit of the mixture, adding that one extra bit of pressure that causes the entire thing to self-ignite, like a diesel engine does.
Correct, with the addition that the injectors fill the top of the cylinder with a small amount of a richer fuel mixture (just before the intended combustion) which the spark plug then ignites to increase the temperature and pressure of the entire mixture, causing diesel-like combustion.
Great to see a review, we are still waiting to see what Mazda Canada will import! Every week I beg my dealer to ask the HQ and I also say that so many owners of the new gen wants a turbo in it! For me, going from the 2.5l G with 186hp to the 2.0l X with 180hp makes no sense, other than the fuel economy. That output is too low to compete in this segment in Canada.
I bought my new Mazda 3 Hatchback 2.0 Skyactiv-X GT Sport Tech in June and love the fantastic all-seeing safety features, but am immensely disappointed by the fuel consumption, which hovers around the 30.3 average mpg, which is awful. My drives are mainly local so I wouldn't expect a very high average mpg, maybe around the 40mpg mark, so my Mazda fuel consumption is terrible. Having said that, the car has only covered around 1600 miles and the dealership have tested it and tell me no fault has been found. Fingers crossed that the mpg will improve as the engine loosens up and the Coronavirus restrictions go away.
Okay, was asking because of the difference between UK and US mpg. And wow, that is a horrible result, I have to say. I haven't had such bad results on local roads, although I've avoided heavy traffic and traffic lights.
Read an interesting Top Gear report on the X and they had an issue with the trip computer. They calculated what fuel they put in and how they drove it and found it it was out. It actually did more then the car was showing.
Do you guys not have the 2.5L in Europe? We have it here in Canada (GS and GT trim) so the X economy sounds pretty good compared to the 2.5L over the 2.0L.
This engine will get much better mpg in the city if Toyota puts their full hybid system in it. Full hybrids are the only thing that can improve city mpg dramatically on stop and go traffic. The engine itself is a success as it gets a sweet spot mpg between 50km/hr and 90km/hr. Improving mpg at those speeds is difficult and this engine nails that. Turbocharging and downsizing will improve mpg at higher speeds than between 50 and 90 km/hr. The hard part has already been solved at that sweet spot between 50km/hr and 90 km/hr. Now to improve city mpg in stop and go traffic, they just need to make it a full hybrid with toyota,s technology. Mazda and Toyota are already working together. To improve mpg above 90km/hr, they need to downsize the engine and either add an electric supercharger or a turbocharger. It looks like the next skyactiv x for the upcoming Mazda 6 won't be a full hybrid due to cost and battery supply which means the city mpg wont be mind blowing but it will be a mild hybrid with a 48 volt system from denso. This will improve city mpg but since the system will be a mild hybrid, the improvement wont be as drastic as a full hybrid. It will also come with a supercharger. Hopefully it,s an electric supercharger as this will improve mpg over 90km/hr. Mazda is already working on downsizing their Inline 6 engine by tweaking the exhaust system. Google "Mazda files patent for compact inline 6 engine" So the next mazda 6 could be a 350 horsepower supercharged sports luxury rear wheel drive vehicle with very respectable but not mind blowing mpg in stop and go traffic but better mpg at higher speeds. They are slowly getting there.
Finally, a decent review. That's what I wanted to hear, nobody gives a toss about boot space increase. PS. Would you say the midrange (2500-4000rpm) gives a good pull? I'm used to a turbo petrol though...
It definitely doesn't 'feel' like 180HP to me but that's possibly due to not having turbocharging I have been used to for pretty much most of my life. However it does pull happily through the range and doesn't deliver torque in lumps like a turbo car. Above 5000 RPM, there is a noticeable boost, I'm assuming from the supercharger fully kicking in, although it's not a 'push-you-into-your-seat' kind of acceleration. The real triumph of this engine is the tech it's been built on. And while it doesn't bring the driver a revolution in power or economy, it's an excellent base on which Mazda can now improve on and make something truly amazing for the next generations of motors.
@@Pit-Stop Too bad that boost isn't a bit lower in rpm, tho, I might get different picture when I try it for myself. Gonna buy it someday, anyway. Hvala za odgovor i topli pozdrav!
my query is not towards the car itself , but , I have to comment on the countryside. It is breathtakingly beautiful, where was this video shot (location ) ? My other query is that in North America the skyactive engine gives of approximately 186 hp. Thanks for your videos, very informative.
Thanks for the review. However, the regular 2.0 L SkyActiv-G engine for the Mazda3 has about 155 hp here in the US. I'm guessing you may be referring to the 1.5 L SkyActiv-G when you are saying around 120 hp..? (8:53)
A full on hybrid Skyactiv X is what they should've done. We would've gotten the extra power of the Skyactiv X and adding an electric motor and we would've gotten mind boggling MPG. A proper beast, yet Mazda really doesn't want to do a hybrid even though they have a partnership with Toyota and all of Toyota's hybrid patents are open to everyone.
Well. Research cost. What you are asking for is literally doubling, maybe more of their research efforts and budget. To make a completely new engine cycle/technology and make it into production is already massive at this era. And then you add the hybrid system power train, a whole lot of complications
I couldn't perceive a difference. I suppose if you were to drive the X and then a regular petrol immediately afterwards you could hear a slightly different tone. But for every day usage, it feels and sounds just like a normal petrol engine.
Not impressed aside, (its just an engine with roughly the same HP as their other non turbos) i commend Mazda for bringing this tech mainstream. Ill be honest, even with the insane acceleration of some electric cars, I'm not ready to give up internal combustion, and Mazda may have just extended the shelf life by a decade or more.
It is. However, as far as the driver is concerned, it might as well be NA because it feels as such. The supercharger is low boost and only comes into its own at high RPMs.
Yes, the computer suggest you to switch to 6th at around 49-20km/h. And the engine definitely doesn't struggle at those low RPMs if you're on level roads.
Pit-Stop Hmm that's pretty interesting. But I don't really see myself shifting to 6th in city traffic. Does the engine need fuel injectors replacement like a diesel?
toyota is not saying anything special about their 2.5 camry engine......but it makes 203hp and that 2.5 skyactive is only making 186hp......2.5 camry is 29/4mpg1 and that 2.5 skyactive is only 27/36mpg......so is there really something special about that skyactive?
I think you are confusing the 2.5L SkyActiv-G (186 hp, 26/35 MPG EPA; not available in Europe) with the 2.0L SkyActiv-X (178 hp, 40.6 MPG European test cycle; not available in North America). The 2.5L SkyActiv-G is a conventional spark ignition engine that's been around for several years, the 2.0L SkyActiv-X uses the unique mixed compression/spark system that Mazda has developed. The Toyota 'Dynamic Force' 2.5L engine is quite impressive without using compression ignition, and more efficient than the current state of the art Mazda engine, but the SkyActiv-X has higher hp/L and higher torque/L.
Great in many ways. Love the Skyactiv X. Beautiful interior. Glad a stick is still available, but only on the top spec? And the exterior aesthetically is a big step down. Awkward shape, dull color, ugly black rims.
@@Pit-Stop I didn't know that. Very few cars sold in the States have sticks anymore. I guess we Americans are just too lazy, and the dealers don't want the cars piling up on their lots.
Wait a minute I was watching this video thinking of something else and suddenly he said the stick shift "is like a candy you want to keep licking!" And then he added. "That didn't come out right." Come on are you ffing me? AAHHAAAHAAHHAA@!$# Oh no not the leather seats! AAAHHAHA!!
the rest of the world? dude you dont live in the center of the world, so piss off, do you know how many Slavs are in this world? a lot and they live in some of the largest countries in both asia and europe, so maybe you should get out more... what is more it's pronounced mazz-duh (a in mazda should be like the vowel in fun /fʌn/, z should sound like s in english pronunciation of Tesla or zap /tezla:/ (which is btw also wrong cause Tesla in original is Tessla, not Tezla) so if you are english write it down as Musda and read it /mʌzda:/
btw he says mezda like americans in dance /de:ns/ which is of course also wrong, it should be like in british /da:ns/... even though his is somewhere in between... well, fuck it mazda mezda mozda muzda, however you say it it's a nice lil' car
The car is lovely, but the x engine is pure crap! Been back to the dealer 4 times. Cannot cure the low power, hesitation and hiccups. Selling the piece of shit and going electric. This was the car I'd been so excited to purchase as well. Total disappointment!
Instead of this Skyactive nonsense, Mazda should fix all their other problems with this car. Oh' where do I begin. Don't be fooled by that swath of red leather across the dash, underneath lurks many problems. The rear view mirror will fall out because it held in with cheap glue. The windshield will have millions of water spots inside the glass. The glove box is made out of soda bottle plastic causing un-fixable annoying rattles in the dash. The center screen rattles as well. The rear seats will not latch back up correctly. The drivers seat controls will flop out because the cheap plastic tabs can't hold them in. The 'safety' lane keep assist software is awful and will cause more harm than good. The rims do not come with the lug nuts torqued to spec. The rubber trim around the doors doesn't work well in hot or cold weather and will not stay in place. The ergonomics of getting in an out is terrible due to the shape of the roof line. You will have to tilt your head in a very uncomfortable way to get in. The door panel arm rest is too low, and the window sill is too high. So there is now where to put your arm comfortably. The headlight design makes them magnets for snow build up while you are driving and the led lights do not generate enough heat to melt the snow. Basically you can't drive at night while its snowing. They should have made the lights flush with the front of the car to minimize the snow build up. The C pillar is thin as a piece of tin foil (push it in with your finger) and will bend if you wax the car too hard and creak in cold weather. The engine cylinder deactivation is useless and does not save gas. It only complicates an engine that is already problematic. The a/c is weak so forget about driving it in a hot climate. And finally...the warranty sucks. The car does look good....but it has a lot of design flaws and uses poor materials. You can read all of the problems here: www.mazda3revolution.com/forums/2019-mazda-3-discussion.325/
Just hyped too much. I own a Focus 2017 1.0 125hp. At 130km/h using tempomat iin 6th gear, board computer says 5.8 sooooo .... Engine design from 2011... Like the looks especially inside, sound insolation... but the engine performance and also fuel consumption is just average ...
@@georgemavrides3434 Yes i am. My remark was considering skyactive x fuel consumption and nothing else. As for 1.0 longivity, it's actually ok if you read some forums. 200 000km is good enough for me or 20 years with 10k per year. Anyway, i'm not comparing quality of mazda and focus(or the price :) ), just commenting the engine performance 8.9 for awd 180ps mild hybrid version is also pretty slow. Torsion beam for more than 25 000euro is also a bummer :(...
Its got a Supercharger...…..How is that '' naturally aspirated'' ??? Stop conning people Mazda and making things more complicated than they need to be.
