Topic: Auto Tech: Mazda's Pursuit of Driving Pleasure

[theonlydt]

Fix the basics first.

• Tidy up the suspension on the cars. Less nose-dive under braking, better side-to-side transitions, stiffer spring rates.
• Make a better engine. Might I suggest a turbocharged one that has a plateau of power to the redline instead of the low-end-only focus on the CX-9
• Focus more on the interior details. A lightweight car doesn't mean doors have to feel like cardboard

Mazda certainly don't need stiffer spring rates. I'd also suggest their suspension design and settings are better than most in their respective classes (however the Golf wins the compact class hands down for that).

Have you tried the 2.5T? How do you know it's not good enough?

Had a late-production (06/06) Mazda3 GT with all the features. 2,5 litre didn't wake up until 2750 u/min and going beyind 5500 u/min was just noise. Some vibration got thru to the steering under hard acceleration at certain revs. Not bad, but not great. See VW and BMW for engines.

Also would assume that in 2014, a car company can get more than 76 PS/litre. Actually, Mazda's own 2 litre version gets 82,5 PS/litre.

With the new 2,5 litre turbo, it's designed for power at lower revs, explicitly stated by Mazda. Car reviews of the new CX-9 say while the powerband isn't like a diesel, there is "a big drop in enthusiasm beyond 4500 u/min".

The 2.5 isn't fantastic - I have the detuned version in the Mazda 5 - then again with a manual transmission I find it more than enough for my needs.

I'm a fan of diesels - I like engines that have decent low-down torque - so the new 2.5T is extremely interesting to me. I don't typically go past 3500rpm (and when I do, I probably wouldn't were my engine more torquey), so I don't care if an engine runs out of puff at 4500rpm. An MX-5, now that's for revving to the redline

The Mazda 5 2.5L (L5-VE) has no relation to the 2.5L in the 2014+ Mazda 3 (PY-VPS).  Just for starters, the compression ratio is much higher in the newer Skyactiv-G engines and they are direct injected vs. port injection.

He was saying he had a 2006 Mazda 3 GT. That 2.3 is related to the 2.5 in my Mazda 5, but as you rightly state both have nothing to do with the latest skyactiv engines.

[carmaniac]

I'm a big fan of Mazda and their philosophy but there seems to be a big misunderstanding and perception from the public on how they design and build their cars. They are a tiny company with very few resources, yet they have a very structured charter on vehicle development.

So when I hear people complain about how their car isn't quiet enough, or their lack of a turbo motor or V6, or their cheap plastics, or how the Mazda3 feels smaller than a Corolla, or no heated/cooled seats or no Apple CarPlay. You have to understand that yes, Mazda is trying its best to compete with features and content, but they don't have the millions of dollars to waste on getting a just a bit more market share. They have a focus, and that focus is to target people who love to drive and make their cars as nice to look at as possible. That's what I respect about them, no other company in the world out there now has this type of focus and I really hope they don't change.

If you have a few hours to burn, there's a bunch of videos on their Vimeo site with press launches that go into more detail about their philosophy (I enjoy the ones with Dave Coleman's, former Sport Compact Car editor, explanations the most): https://vimeo.com/user50163587

[mixmanmash]

Fix the basics first.

• Tidy up the suspension on the cars. Less nose-dive under braking, better side-to-side transitions, stiffer spring rates.
• Make a better engine. Might I suggest a turbocharged one that has a plateau of power to the redline instead of the low-end-only focus on the CX-9
• Focus more on the interior details. A lightweight car doesn't mean doors have to feel like cardboard

Mazda certainly don't need stiffer spring rates. I'd also suggest their suspension design and settings are better than most in their respective classes (however the Golf wins the compact class hands down for that).

Have you tried the 2.5T? How do you know it's not good enough?

Had a late-production (06/06) Mazda3 GT with all the features. 2,5 litre didn't wake up until 2750 u/min and going beyind 5500 u/min was just noise. Some vibration got thru to the steering under hard acceleration at certain revs. Not bad, but not great. See VW and BMW for engines.

Also would assume that in 2014, a car company can get more than 76 PS/litre. Actually, Mazda's own 2 litre version gets 82,5 PS/litre.

With the new 2,5 litre turbo, it's designed for power at lower revs, explicitly stated by Mazda. Car reviews of the new CX-9 say while the powerband isn't like a diesel, there is "a big drop in enthusiasm beyond 4500 u/min".

The 2.5 isn't fantastic - I have the detuned version in the Mazda 5 - then again with a manual transmission I find it more than enough for my needs.

I'm a fan of diesels - I like engines that have decent low-down torque - so the new 2.5T is extremely interesting to me. I don't typically go past 3500rpm (and when I do, I probably wouldn't were my engine more torquey), so I don't care if an engine runs out of puff at 4500rpm. An MX-5, now that's for revving to the redline

The Mazda 5 2.5L (L5-VE) has no relation to the 2.5L in the 2014+ Mazda 3 (PY-VPS).  Just for starters, the compression ratio is much higher in the newer Skyactiv-G engines and they are direct injected vs. port injection.

He was saying he had a 2006 Mazda 3 GT. That 2.3 is related to the 2.5 in my Mazda 5, but as you rightly state both have nothing to do with the latest skyactiv engines.

Nope.  http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php?topic=92778

[HeliDriver]

My pursuit of driving pleasure would involve little more than light weight, good suspension geometry, and pure, responsive steering.

I imagine that simpler is better in this regard, but I guess in today's world that's impossible. Hard to imagine that inserting an extra layer of electronic trickery between the contact patches and the driver would be a positive thing, but I guess Mazda at least deserves credit for trying.

[ArticSteve]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

[Rupert]

The rear suspension geometry of the earlier 3 did not appear to be very good. Inclined rear wheels gave very poor tapered tire wear. Later models seem to have got over that and the CX3 seems to have a different config. with trailing links (torsion springs)? which seems better. A quiet ride and nice shutting doors go much further with me than junk on the dash.

[Solstice2006]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do. 

[z973]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

[Solstice2006]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

Sounds like the other way around then.  Toyota gravitating towards Mazda. 

[mixmanmash]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

Sounds like the other way around then.  Toyota gravitating towards Mazda.

Lol.  Maybe Toyota should gravitate to Mazda for styling and handling and Mazda to Toyota for V6 engines (especially the 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FKS).

[Solstice2006]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

Sounds like the other way around then.  Toyota gravitating towards Mazda.

Lol.  Maybe Toyota should gravitate to Mazda for styling and handling and Mazda to Toyota for V6 engines (especially the 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FKS).

Strongly agree.  I think I read an article that Mazda tried to get Toyota's as a major partner, like Ford was. 

[rrocket]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

Sounds like the other way around then.  Toyota gravitating towards Mazda.

Lol.  Maybe Toyota should gravitate to Mazda for styling and handling and Mazda to Toyota for V6 engines (especially the 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FKS).

Strongly agree.  I think I read an article that Mazda tried to get Toyota's as a major partner, like Ford was.

I don't see what's in it for Toyota, really.

[Solstice2006]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

Sounds like the other way around then.  Toyota gravitating towards Mazda.

Lol.  Maybe Toyota should gravitate to Mazda for styling and handling and Mazda to Toyota for V6 engines (especially the 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FKS).

Strongly agree.  I think I read an article that Mazda tried to get Toyota's as a major partner, like Ford was.

I don't see what's in it for Toyota, really.

Well that's probably why Toyota said No. 

[rrocket]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

Sounds like the other way around then.  Toyota gravitating towards Mazda.

Lol.  Maybe Toyota should gravitate to Mazda for styling and handling and Mazda to Toyota for V6 engines (especially the 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FKS).

Strongly agree.  I think I read an article that Mazda tried to get Toyota's as a major partner, like Ford was.

I don't see what's in it for Toyota, really.

Well that's probably why Toyota said No.

And without FCA's involvement with the FIAT 124, the Miata would likely be dead now.

[ArticSteve]

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2



Goes way beyond that.  In 2015 Toyota and Mazda signed a technology sharing agreement:

TOKYO -- Toyota Motor Corp. and Mazda Motor Corp. have agreed to form a “long-term partnership” that deepens collaboration on products, manufacturing and technologies as carmakers race to spread spiraling development costs amid ever-stricter emissions standards.

[Solstice2006]

Recently Mazda has been gravitating closer to Toyota.

How so?

When you look at the line up, Toyota doesn't have a subcompact CUV like the CX-3.  The Corolla uses a CVT, with a bigger back seat.  The Highlander uses a V6, the CX-9 a new turbo.  Mazda has isn't using Hybrid technology, has no trucks, and the Mazda5 van is on it's way out. 

IMO, I have found that Accords and Civics drive closer to the Mazda6 and Mazda3, then the Camry and Corolla do.

he is talking about the cooperation the Toyota yaris sedan is a rebadged mazda 2

Sounds like the other way around then.  Toyota gravitating towards Mazda.

Lol.  Maybe Toyota should gravitate to Mazda for styling and handling and Mazda to Toyota for V6 engines (especially the 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FKS).

Strongly agree.  I think I read an article that Mazda tried to get Toyota's as a major partner, like Ford was.

I don't see what's in it for Toyota, really.

Well that's probably why Toyota said No.

And without FCA's involvement with the FIAT 124, the Miata would likely be dead now.

I think Mazda would have found a way.  May have taken them longer, but it just made sense to share the cost.  Never needed a partner for any of the previous Miata's.  Sure sales are much lower now for convertibles, compared to the 80's and 90's.  But sales are decent compared to the NC.

[rrocket]

I think Mazda would have found a way. 

It didn't really sound that way from the articles I read.

[Solstice2006]

I think Mazda would have found a way. 

It didn't really sound that way from the articles I read.

Well with 2014 and 2015 the highest profit, and most sales, Mazda has ever seen in it's history (still peanuts compared to the big boys).  Nonetheless, I suspect they would have had the resources to develop it entirely on their own.

Not sure just how FCA contributed.  Like Mazda engineered the platform (did FCA give funds?), obviously different body panels, engines, and trannies.

[rrocket]

I think Mazda would have found a way. 

It didn't really sound that way from the articles I read.

Well with 2014 and 2015 the highest profit, and most sales, Mazda has ever seen in it's history (still peanuts compared to the big boys).  Nonetheless, I suspect they would have had the resources to develop it entirely on their own.

Not sure just how FCA contributed.  Like Mazda engineered the platform (did FCA give funds?), obviously different body panels, engines, and trannies.

It takes a huge amount of R&D (read: $$$$) to produce a new car.  And with so few Miatas being sold even in the largest markets, it almost doesn't make sense to build it from their point of view.

“The possibility exists that without our partnership with FCA, there may not have been a business case to produce the fourth-generation MX-5 Miata,” says Robert Davis, Mazda’s senior vice president of U.S. operations.

[Solstice2006]

I think Mazda would have found a way. 

It didn't really sound that way from the articles I read.

Well with 2014 and 2015 the highest profit, and most sales, Mazda has ever seen in it's history (still peanuts compared to the big boys).  Nonetheless, I suspect they would have had the resources to develop it entirely on their own.

Not sure just how FCA contributed.  Like Mazda engineered the platform (did FCA give funds?), obviously different body panels, engines, and trannies.

It takes a huge amount of R&D (read: $$$$) to produce a new car.  And with so few Miatas being sold even in the largest markets, it almost doesn't make sense to build it from their point of view.

“The possibility exists that without our partnership with FCA, there may not have been a business case to produce the fourth-generation MX-5 Miata,” says Robert Davis, Mazda’s senior vice president of U.S. operations.

Yeah I read that interview in the Detroit News.  But just because their isn't a business case, doesn't mean they can't do it.  Just look at the Rotary.  They are still trying!  Does it make sense to put all that R&D into something less efficient?   And a product that will only be used on one car as well. 

So do you think FCA just gave them money to share the engineering costs?